Between validity claims and good reasons: the role of penal norms on the meaningful theory of action
Keywords:
Meaningful theory of action, penal norm, validity claims, theory of communicative action, discourse ethics, good reasons approach.Abstract
This paper aims to present a perspective of the penal norm contained in the meaningful theory of action created by Tomás S. Vives Antón. This theory develops a system of normative validity claims made of a general claim of justice and partial claims of validity of the penal norm. Through the comparison of this system with two of its major influences (Habermas and Toulmin), some conclusions are drawn. Firstly, the proximity of the penal norms’ validity claims with those of Habermas’ normative propositions does not mean adherence to Habermas’ theory of communicative action nor his discourse ethics. Secondly, since penal norms fall into the grammar of ethical reasoning, they are linked to a claim of correctness, and not of truth. Thirdly, the penal norms’ validity claims comprise two stages: a first stage where its general validity claim can be challenged and a second stage of its application, in which conflicting duties are already settled.
Downloads
References
BUSATO, P.C. Direito penal: parte geral, 6 ed., Tirant lo Blanch São Paulo, 2022.
CAVALIER, R. (et. al.) Ethics in the history of western philosophy, Macmillan, Londres, 1989.
FINLAYSON, J. The Habermas-Rawls debate, Columbia University Press, Nova Iorque, 2019.
HABERMAS, J. Consciência moral e agir comunicativo, Tempo Brasileiro, Rio de Janeiro, 1989.
HABERMAS, J. Teoria da ação comunicativa, volume 1, Editora Unesp, São Paulo, 2022.
HEATH, J. “Rebooting discourse ethics”, Philosophy and Social Criticism, v. 40, n. 9.
HEATH, J. “The problem of foundationalism in Habermas’s discourse ethics”, Philosophy and social criticism, v. 21, n. 1.
HEATH, J. “What is a validity claim?”, Philosophy and Social Criticism, v. 24, n. 4.
LAFONT, C. “Procedural justice? Implications of the Rawls-Habermas debate for discourse ethics”, Philosophy Social Criticism, n. 29.
LUMER, C. “Habermas’ Diskursethik”, Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung, v. 51.
NIELSEN, K. “Good reasons in ethics: an examination of the Toulmin-Hare controversy”, Theoria, v. 24. n. 1.
NIELSEN, K. “The ‘good reasons approach’ and ‘ontological justifications’ of morality, The philosophical quarterly, v. 9, n. 35.
NIEMI, J. “The foundations of Jürgen Habermas’s Discourse Ethics”, The Journal of Value Inquiry, v. 42.
PERRY, R. “Some comments upon the ‘good reasons’ approach in ethical theory, The Journal of Value Inquiry, v. 18.
TOULMIN, S. An examination of the place of reason in ethics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1953.
VIVES ANTÓN, T. Fundamentos del sistema penal, Tirant lo Blanch, Valencia, 2011.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Eduardo Emanoel Dall’Agnol de Souza
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Those authors who have published with this journal, accept the following terms:
The authors cede all their copyrights to the magazine Cadernos de Dereito Actual, which will be in charge of disseminating and always quoting the author.
The authors agree not to send the article or publish it in another magazine.
The authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work through the Internet (e.g., in institutional telematic archives or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can produce interesting exchanges and increase the number of citations of the published work, provided that reference is made to Cadernos de Dereito Actual.
All contents published in the magazine are protected under a "Creative Commons - Attribution - Non-Commercial" license. Everyone has the right to freely access the contents of the magazine.
