العدالة بين أرسطو وجون رولز (دراسة تحليلية مقارنة)
Justice between Aristotle and John Rawls: An Analytical Study
- الباحث
- جنان عبد المحسن سعدون
- المشرف
- جميل حليل نعمه المعلة
- الجامعة
- جامعة الكوفة
- الكلية / القسم
- الآداب / الفلسفة
- الشهادة
- ماجستير
- السنة
- 2022
- لغة الرسالة
- عربي
- الكلمات المفتاحية
- العدالة;أرسطو;جون رولز;الفلسفة السياسية
Abstract
Considering that justice is everyone's demand and will remain so as long as humanity exists on the face of the earth. Therefore, it remains a recurrent problem across generations. The focus of this thesis is an attempt to combine two opposing currents, the first being the great philosopher Aristotle, and the other being represented by John Rawls. Through our research, we were able to draw the following conclusions: 1- What distinguishes this thesis is the combination of two opposing currents and finding common points between the two. And here we are not collecting the opinions of two philosophers only, as much as we are collecting two absolutely different eras. 2- We have glimpsed the convergences through the two calls for the establishment of an organized state based on the foundations of law and justice, the call for equity and the taking of differences in society as a basis for achieving justice between individuals, in addition to the call to revive the spirit of love, friendship and brotherhood, through whose presence it is possible to abandon laws. 3- As for the points of contention, it is clear to us that the fact that justice is a moral virtue makes it subject to the problematic of truth and goodness, whichever comes first right or good. Thus, John Rawls opposed Aristotle, who made goodness a requirement for every moral act, while Rawls established his theory on the primacy of right, but with that he did not it ignores the importance of the good for the individual and society. 4- Another place that makes the two close, which is the call for freedom and that justice is established only between free and equal people despite the difference in the concept of freedom for the two so that it can be said that Aristotle’s freedom is restricted to certain individuals, while Rawls’s freedom was absolute because he belongs to the liberal philosophers who call for freedom Absolute in all areas. 5- Despite Rawls' liberalism, he did not overlook the role of society, especially the family, and its impact as one of the first social institutions to build the state, as Aristotle saw before him. 6- John Rawls' theory is considered more comprehensive than Aristotle's theory. If Aristotle's theory is limited to Greek society, then according to Rawls it is general and includes all societies, liberal or illiberal, so it may be a new breakthrough in political and moral thought. [OCR of page] 6- John Rawls’ theory is considered more comprehensive than Aristotle's theory. If Aristotle's theory is limited to Greek society, then according to Rawls it is general and includes all societies, liberal or illiberal, so it may be a new breakthrough in political and moral thought.
طلب نسخة من الملف
الملفات غير منشورة على الموقع. اترك بياناتك وسيتواصل معك موظفو قسم الشؤون الثقافية والفنون لإرسال النسخة مجاناً.