La supremacía práctica de los derechos humanos. Optimismo, pesimismo y moderación
; González de la Vega, René Otros responsables
Fecha
12/2014
Editorial
Universidad Federal de Santa Catarina
Revista
ethic@ - An international Journal for Moral Philosophy
Título del libro
Nombre del evento
Fecha del evento
Institución organizadora
ISSN
1677-2954
eISSN
ISBN
Idioma
Español
Tipo del evento
Clasificación temática
Palabras clave
Resumen
En este trabajo reflexionamos sobre la tesis normativa según la cual los derechos humanos tienen supremacía práctica sobre cualquier otra pieza de nuestro razonamiento moral, político o jurídico. Para esta reflexión indentificamos dos aproximaciones filosóficas divergentes. Una que denominamos "optimismo" que confía en las potencias poderosas de los derechos humanos para imponerse a cualquier otro argumento y para garantizar respuestas correctas a los conflictos prácticos. La otra aproximación, que denominamos "pesimista", tiene diversas variantes. Aquí nos detenemos en aquella postura que enfatiza en el grado de conflictividad cuasi irresoluble que plantean aparentemente muchos casos prácticos. Creeemos que ambas aproximaciones tienen un grano de verdad, pero ambas, sin embargo, conducen a un dilema teórico. Si aceptamos las premisas de una, debemos descartar las de la otra. Proponemos una postura intermedia o moderada que, mediante una suerte de equilibrio reflexivo, intenta adoptar los puntos más satisfactorios de ambas aproximaciones extremas.
In this paper we reflect about the normative view that human rights have practical supremacy over any other piece of our moral, political or legal reasoning. As regard this purpose we reflect on two divergent philosophical approaches. One we call “optimism” that relies on mighty powers of human rights in order to ensure correct answers to practical conflicts. The other approach, which we call “pessimistic” has several variants. Here we identify the position that emphasizes in some apparently unsolvable conflicts. We believe that both approaches have a grain of truth, but both, however, lead to a theoretical dilemma. If we accept the premises of one of both, we must discard the other. And the same is truth in the contrary sense. We propose an intermediate or moderate position that proposes a kind of reflective equilibrium between the two described positions above. In addition we try to adopt a more purified position with power to solve problems erased by the optimistic and pessimistic approaches.
In this paper we reflect about the normative view that human rights have practical supremacy over any other piece of our moral, political or legal reasoning. As regard this purpose we reflect on two divergent philosophical approaches. One we call “optimism” that relies on mighty powers of human rights in order to ensure correct answers to practical conflicts. The other approach, which we call “pessimistic” has several variants. Here we identify the position that emphasizes in some apparently unsolvable conflicts. We believe that both approaches have a grain of truth, but both, however, lead to a theoretical dilemma. If we accept the premises of one of both, we must discard the other. And the same is truth in the contrary sense. We propose an intermediate or moderate position that proposes a kind of reflective equilibrium between the two described positions above. In addition we try to adopt a more purified position with power to solve problems erased by the optimistic and pessimistic approaches.
Colecciones
Aprobación
Revisión
Complementado por
Referenciado por
Licencia Creative Commons
Excepto donde se indique lo contrario, la licencia de este ítem se describe como by-nc-sa
