I suppose that 'ravens are black' is an inexact generalization having a degree of truth measured by the proportion of ravens that are black, and a probability measured by its expected degree of truth in different 'possible worlds.' Given this, 'ravens are black' differs in truth, probability, and confirmation from 'non-black things are not ravens', and this suggests a new approach to Hempel's Paradox as well as to other aspects of confirmation. Basic concepts of a formal theory developing this approach (...) are described, and some of its fundamental laws are given, together with sketches of applications. (shrink)

Une théorie de la justice peut-elle être métaphysiquement neutre ? John Rawls, aussi bien dans l’article de 1985 « La théorie de la justice comme équité : une théorie politique et non pas métaphysique » que dans son Libéralisme politique a soutenu qu’une théorie de la justice qui s’applique à une société libérale démocratique ne doit s’appuyer sur aucune doctrine compréhensive, mais doit au contraire s’en tenir à des règles de la vie politique et de la répartition des biens qui (...) soient métaphysiquement neutres. Prenant le contre-pied de la position de Rawls, cet article tente de montrer non seulement qu’une telle neutralité ne se vérifie pas dans la construction rawlsienne, lorsqu’il s’agit notamment de justifier les droits de l’homme, mais encore que cet « échec » est ce qui conserve à la théorie de Rawls toute sa force critique par rapport aux doctrines rivales comme l’utilitarisme. Is it possible for a theory of justice to be metaphysically neutral ? John Rawls, in his paper published in 1985 and titled “Justice as Fairness : Political, not Metaphysical”, as well as in his book Political Liberalism published in 1995, defended the thesis that a theory of justice which is supposed to be applied to a liberal and democratic society should not be rooted in a comprehensive doctrine, but, on the contrary, must be confined to a formulation of rules of political conduct and repartition of goods which is metaphysically neutral. From an alternative standpoint, this paper is an attempt to show that such neutrality is not verified in Rawls’ argumentation, especially when human rights’ justification is concerned, and that this failure in implementing neutrality is what helps to preserve all the critical strength of Rawls’ theory as compared to other doctrines as utilitarianism. (shrink)

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.This work is in the public domain in (...) the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant. (shrink)