sprawiedliwość

Między sprawiedliwością a miłosierdziem. Porównanie amerykańskiej i rosyjskiej wersji Dwunastu gniewnych ludzi

Dr Paweł Jabłoński

Uniwersytet Wrocławski

Abstrakt w języku polskim: Celem artykułu jest tematyzacja dwóch różnych typów postaw wobec prawa – które w nawiązaniu do M.J. Siemka i L.L. Fullera określam mianem „wschodniej” i „zachodniej”. Zadanie to realizowane jest przez porównawczą interpretację dwóch znanych filmów – tj. Dwunastu gniewnych ludzi (reż. S. Lumet, USA 1957) oraz rosyjski wersji obrazu Lumeta – 12 (reż. N. Michałkow, 2007). Staram się pokazać, że jakkolwiek dzieła te przedstawiają podobne historie, to zachodzą między nimi istotne różnice dotyczące sposobu postrzegania prawa. W wersji amerykańskiej prawo jest systemem mechanizmów, które realnie działają i które traktowane są poważnie. W wersji rosyjskiej prawo stanowi w dużym stopniu coś pozornego, co w rzeczywistości musi być zastąpione przez etykę.

Słowa kluczowe: prawo, szacunek dla prawa, etyka, „Zachód”, „Wschód”, sprawiedliwość, miłosierdzie

Język artykułu: polski

Opublikowano: Numer 1(26)/2021, s. 45-61.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36280/AFPiFS.2021.1.45

Ściągnij plik: Invalid download ID

Liczba ściągnięć: Invalid download ID.

Aitia – wina arystotelesowska. Zagadnienia definicyjne. Część II

Dr Waldemar Gontarski

Europejska Wyższa Szkoła Prawa i Administracji

Abstrakt w języku angielskim: When engaging in polemics with Pythagoras, Aristotle observed that the retributive function of punishment, as distinguished from the preventative one, does not involve revenge understood as material retaliation (i.e. suffering for suffering, meaning retaliation proportional to the damage suffered). It does not encompass a simple reciprocity, such as suffering in turn (ἀντιπάσχω), but instead shall be considered as a just reciprocity, meaning doing in return (ἀντιποιέω), whereby the degree of mental contribution is taken into account. The classical theory of responsibility, at least under the meaning assigned to it by Aristotle, considers human responsibility by means of reference to mental capabilities of the actor in respect to a particular harmful action. An action involving human guilt is consequently contrasted with an accidentally caused action. In the works of Stagirite the mental attitude of the actor towards his action distinguishes human causation from the accidental one and from the forced one. Pythagoras, on the other hand, discussed material retaliation, meaning objective responsibility. At the same time, the author of Nicomachean Ethics had already experienced the system of subjective responsibility based on the concept of knowingly caused damage as opposed to the system of objective responsibility involving the objective causal relationship between the actor’s behavior and the resulting damage). Aristotle has extended the concept of subjective responsibility to cover both knowingly caused damage (intentional fault) and unintentional fault, whereby the damage is directly caused by the negligent conduct of the actor, meaning the failure of the latter to observe required objective and abstract standards. The mental component and the related subjectivization involve the actor possessing required intellectual capabilities, but not using them in a way as to observe the aforementioned imposed standards. Nonetheless, the potential mental component is itself not sufficient to establish guilt. Otherwise, all the people (apart from those lacking capacity at all) shall be declared guilty regardless of the fact that the damage was caused by them accidentally.

Słowa kluczowe: Arystoteles, triada przyczyn, triada skutków, sprawiedliwość

Język artykułu: polski

Opublikowano: Numer 1(6)/2013, s. 68-92.

Ściągnij plik: Download
Liczba ściągnięć: 83

Aitia – wina arystotelesowska. Zagadnienia definicyjne. Część I

Dr Waldemar Gontarski

Europejska Wyższa Szkoła Prawa i Administracji

Abstrakt w języku angielskim: When engaging in polemics with Pythagoras, Aristotle observed that the retributive function of punishment, as distinguished from the preventative one, does not involve revenge understood as material retaliation (i.e. suffering for suffering, meaning retaliation proportional to the damage suffered). It does not encompass a simple reciprocity, such as suffering in turn (ἀντιπάσχω), but instead shall be considered as a just reciprocity, meaning doing in return (ἀντιποιέω), whereby the degree of mental contribution is taken into account. The classical theory of responsibility, at least under the meaning assigned to it by Aristotle, considers human responsibility by means of reference to the mental capabilities of the actor in respect to the particular harmful action. An action involving human guilt is consequently contrasted with an accidentally caused action. In the works of Stagirite the mental attitude of the actor towards his action distinguishes human causation from the accidental one and from the forced one. Pythagoras, on the other hand, discussed material retaliation, meaning objective responsibility. At the same time, the author of Nicomachean Ethics had already experienced the system of subjective responsibility based on the concept of knowingly caused damage as opposed to the system of objective responsibility involving the objective causal relationship between actor’s behavior and the resulting damage. Aristotle has extended the concept of subjective responsibility to cover both knowingly caused damage (intentional fault) and unintentional fault, whereby the damage is directly caused by the negligent conduct of the actor, meaning the failure of the latter to observe required objective and abstract standards. The mental component and related to it subjectivization involve the actor possessing required intellectual capabilities, but not using them in a way as to observe the aforementioned imposed standards. Nonetheless, the potential mental component is itself not sufficient to establish guilt. Otherwise, all the people (apart from those lacking capacity at all) shall be declared guilty regardless of the fact that the damage was caused by them accidentally.

Słowa kluczowe: Arystoteles, triada przyczyn, triada skutków, sprawiedliwość

Język artykułu: polski

Opublikowano: Numer 2(15)/2012, s. 51-66.

Ściągnij plik: Download
Liczba ściągnięć: 70