THE RIGHTNESS OF PRINCIPLES AS THE CONCEPT OF THE GOOD

This paper concerns the twilight of the concept of the common good and the rise of the idea of rightness over the conceptions of the good. J. Rawls differentiates between the extensive doctrines under which various conceptions of the good are formulated and the principles of justice, which deliberately avoiding the issue of good, stop at the level of what is right. The rightness allows for pluralism of various broad doctrines that can last, grow and compete with one another within and under the protection of a liberal and democratic state. But we have to admit that there is no escape from the question of the good (and the bad) while considering the social and political issues being moral issues in some important sense for us. The defence of the principles of justice by means of pointing out their rightness and distinguishing them from various conceptions of the good is - at the level of politics and political philosophy - reasonable and purposeful (because of the values ​​that we cherish together, as well as in order to avoid certain damages which we fear), but it is still a kind of the conception of the good. The stability of liberal society lies in the ability to promote the right conception of justice which is referred to as thin conception of the good. The normative content does not evaporate from the principles of political life, but it is retained - the primary concern of the state is justice, fairness, equality, etc.

Full text (pdf)

1. Arendt H., Kondycja ludzka, transl. by A Łagodzka, Aletheia, Warszawa 2000.
2. Buksiński T., Współczesne filozofie polityki, Wydawnictwo IF UAM, Poznań 2006.
3. Chmielewski A., Kontraktualizm i jego krytyka, „Kwartalnik Filozoficzny” 1998, vol. XXVI, part 4.
4. Dworkin G., Paternalism, in: R. A. Wasserstorm (ed.), Morality and the Law, Wadsworth Pub. Co., Belmont, Cal. 1970.
5. Galston W., Civic Education in the Liberal State, w: N. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalismand the Moral Life, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts 1989.
6. Gutmann A., Demokracja, in: R.E. Goodin, Ph. Pettit (edit.), Przewodnik po współczesnej filozofii politycznej, translated by C. Cieśliński, M. Poręba, KiW, Warszawa 1998.
7. Habermas J., BetweenFacts and Norms, transl. by William Rehg.
8. Habermas J., Faktyczność i obowiązywanie, transl. by A. Romaniuk, R. Marszałek, Scholar, Warszawa 2005.
9. Habermas J., Uwzględniając innego, PWN, Warszawa 2009.
10. Husak D., Paternalism and Autonomy, "Philosophy and Public Affairs," 1981, No. 10, J. Feinberg, Harm to Self, Oxford University Press, New York, 1986.
11. Koperek J., Dobro wspólne, in: B. Szlachta (edit.), Słownik społeczny, WAM, Kraków 2004.
12. Krucina J., Dobro wspólne, in: Encyklopedia katolicka, vol. III, TN KUL, Lublin 1985.
13. McCarty Th., Ideals and Illusions, Cambridge Mass., 1991.
14. Przybysz P., O pragmatycznym liberalizmie, „Transit – Przegląd Europejski” 1996, No. 2.
15. Rau Z., Liberalizm. Zarys myśli politycznej XIX i XX wieku, Aletheia, Warszawa 2000.
16. Rawls J., Prawoludów, transl. by M. Kozłowski, Aletheia, Warszawa 2001.
17. Rawls J., Teoria sprawiedliwości, transl. M. Panufnik i in., PWN, Warszawa 1994.
18. Rawls J., The Law of People, Harward University of Press 1999.
19. Raz J., TheMorality of Freedom, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1986, part II; W. Kymlicka, Liberalism, Community, and Culture, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York 1989.
20. Szahaj A., Jednostka czy wspólnota? Spór liberałów z komunitarystami a „sprawa polska”, Aletheia, Warszawa 2000.
21. Śpiewak P., W stronę wspólnego dobra, Aletheia, Warszawa 1998.