Rationality and discernment: a philosophical-legal debate on the alteration of criteria for the definition of civil capacity
Article Sidebar
You are free to:
Share, copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the terms of the license.
Under the following terms:
Acknowledgment:
You must give proper credit , provide a link to the license , and indicate if any changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any manner that suggests that the licensor endorses you or your use.
Non-Commercial:
You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
No Additional Restrictions:
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license allows.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for items of material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No guarantees are given. The license may not give you all the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
Main Article Content
Abstract
Based on the analysis of the different philosophical currents, this text discusses the concept of autonomy in the case of complex legal conflicts, as in the definition of civil capacity, due to the recent entry into force of Law no. 13,146/15 (Statute of the Person with Deficiency) in the Brazilian legal system. There is debate on the measure of establishing aprioristic limits to an exercise of intersubjective freedom and on how sufficient reasons should be offered to the restriction of any and all freedom. At the same time, there is the concern
to make the autonomy of the person powerful, as a relevant principle for the construction of morality in contemporary society. This allows the questioning of the recent approval of the Statute of the person with deficiency in Brazil, by suppressing the paragraphs of art. 3 of the Brazilian Civil Code, extirpating, normatively, the criterion of discernment for the determination of civil capacity. Based on the juridical discourse, the rescue of the concept of discernment for the promotion of the free development of the human personality is pointed out as fundamental, for purposes of interpretation.
Article Details
References
Arendt, H. (1978). A vida do espírito. Pensar. Lisboa: Piaget.
Arendt, H. (1999). Eichmann em Jerusalém: um relato sobre a banalidade do mal, Sao Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Duarte, L. (2015). Morreu na contramão atrapalhando o tráfego. Porto Alegre: Jornal Zero.
Dworkin, R. (2014). A raposa e o porco-espinho: justiça e valor. Sao Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Ferry, L. (2009). A nova ordem ecológica: a árvore, o animal e o homem. Río de Janeiro: Difel.
Foot, P. (2002). Moral dilemmas and other topics in moral philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Fried, B.H. (2007). What´s morality go to do with it. Harvard Law Review, 120 (3) 53-61.
González, C. P. (1995). Los desafíos actuales del paradigma del derecho civil. Estudios Públicos, 60, 327-348.
Habermas, J. (2004). A ética da discussão e a questão da verdade. Sao Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Habermas, J. (1991). Comentários à ética do discurso. Lisboa: Piaget.
Habermas, J. (2004). O futuro da natureza humana. Sao Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Nussbaum, M. (2013). Fronteiras da justiça. Deficiência, nacionalidade, pertencimento à espécie. Sao Paulo: Martins Fontes.
Rouanet, S. P. (2003). Ideias –Da cultura global à universal. Sao Paulo: Unimarco.
Rouanet, S.P. (1993). Mal-estar na modernidade. Sao Paulo: Companhia das Letras.
Sandel, M. (2013a). Contra a perfeição. Ética na era da engenharia genética. Río de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
Sandel, M. (2013b). Justiça. O que é fazer a coisa certa. Río de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
Singer, P. (2003). Desacralizar la vida humana: ensayos sobre ética. Madrid: Cátedra.
Singer, P. (2009). Ética práctica. Madrid: Akal.
Taylor, C. (2014). Argumentos filosóficos. Sao Paulo: Ediciones Loyola.