Etude sur la justice restaurative en France

Kim Moonkwi(김문귀) 한국법학회 2016 법학연구 Vol.63 No.-

이 연구는 형사조정 처분을 중심으로 프랑스의 회복적 사법을 비판적인 관점에서 다루고 있다. 형사조정의 현 실무에 대한 분석을 통해 이 연구는 프랑스의 회복적 사법의 문제점과 회복적 사법 분야와 관련해서 프랑스가 보여주고 있는 불완전성과 유보의 원인을 밝히고, 프랑스 형사체계내에 회복적 사법이 성공적으로 자리를 잡고 통합될 수 있도록 해주는 바람직한 일반적 지향점을 제시하는 것을 목적으로 한다. 회복적 사법이 프랑스에 존재하고 있음은 의문의 여지가 없고 발전될 가능성이 있음에도 불구하고 회복적 사법은 아직 프랑스 형사체계에 진정으로 스며들어 있지 않다. 이러한 진단은 무엇보다도 프랑스에서 적어도 이론상으로는 회복적 사법 모델과 가장 근접한 회복적 사법 처분으로 제시되는 형사조정의 잘못되고 불완전한 적용에 의해 증명된다. 이 연구는 국가/사법 주도의 회복적 사법이 초래할 수 있는 악영향과 위험을 명백하게 보여주고 있다. 사법기관(검찰)에 의해 도구화됨으로써, 형사조정은 본연의 회복적 지향점과 목표를 잃어버리게 되고, 조정자와 조정기관 등 형사조정을 실행하는 사람들은 사법기관의 그늘 하에서 자율성을 거의 갖지 못하게 된다. 이러한 형사적 분위기 속에서, 새로운 법을 만들거나 새로운 처분을 도입하는 것만으로는 회복적 사법이 프랑스 형사체계 내에 진정으로 자리를 잡고 발전되기에는 불충분할 것이다. 중요한 것은 형사사법의 전문가들의 사고방식의 변화를 통해 그들이 갖고 있는 회복적 사법에 대한 주저함이나 저항을 최소화하는 것이다. 또한, 현 시점에서 중요한 것은 회복적 사법의 철학을 재고하고 실행중인 회복적 처분들이 진정한 회복적 처분으로 다시 태어나게 하게끔 그것들을 회복적 이념에 맞게 올바르게 적용하는 것이다. 이러한 근본적인 변화 혹은 혁신 없이는 프랑스에서의 회복적 사법은 매우 오랫동안 지배적 형사체계의 주변에서 실험적인 것 혹은 부가적인 것으로서만 작동할 것이다. 놀랍게도, 프랑스의 형사조정이 갖고 있는 문제점들은 2007년 말부터 한국에서 전국적으로 시행되고 있는 검찰 단계의 형사조정실무가 갖고 있는 문제점들과 매우 흡사하다. 따라서 이 연구에서 제시된 프랑스의 형사조정, 더 나아가 회복적 사법의 발전을 위한 개선방안들은 한국에서의 형사조정 그리고 회복적 사법의 발전에 시사하는 바가 크다고 하겠다. This recherch treat, in the critical point of view, restorative justice in France by focusing on the measure of penal mediation. Through the analysis of the current practice of penal mediation, this study aims to address problems of the French restorative justice and reasons of french imperfection and reserve in matter of restorative justice, and provide general and relevant guidance for the restorative to be successfully implanted and integrated in the criminal justice system in place. Despite its indisputable presence and development opportunity in France, restorative justice has not truly permeated its penal system. This diagnosis is evidenced, among other things, by the misguided and flawed implementation of penal mediation, presented in France, at least in theory, as a measure of restorative justice most closer to the restorative justice models. Thus, this research clearly shows the harmful effects and dangers that restorative justice dominated by the state and judicial institution could result. Instrumentalised by the judicial institution(prosecutors), penal mediation measure loses its specific restorative aims and objectives. And, in the shadow of the judicial institution, the actors who implement dont have any autonomy in relation to the institution. In this criminal climate, make a new law or introduce a new measures can not be sufficient for restorative justice to be truly implanted and developed within the French penal system. The mentality change among criminal justice professionals in place is critical to minimize a great reluctance and resistance against the restorative justice. In addition, the important thing to do at this time, is to rethink the philosophy of restorative justice, to apply properly restorative measures for them to be reborn as the authentic restorative measures. Without these fundamental changes or reforms, restorative justice would be condemned in France more or less for a long time to serve as a reservoir for experiments or accessories of the dominant criminal justice system. Very surprisingly, most of the problems of the French penal mediation identified in this research are common to the South Korean penal mediation which is at work since 2007. Therefore, all findings and/or recommendations on restorative justice in France mentioned in this research are instructive for the desirable development of penal mediation and restorative justice in South Korea.

Justice and Interpretation for Christian Praxis - Georgia Warnke's Justice Hermeneutics in Dialogue with Francis Schüssler Fiorenza's Reconstructive Hermeneutics -

Moon, Youngbin,Koh, Juhee 한국실천신학회 2011 신학과 실천 Vol.0 No.29

Diverse issues pertinent to justice are incessantly disturbing contemporary society, provoking appropriate responses and, certainly, Christian ones, as well. In this context, this paper tries to critically investigate Georgia Warnke's Justice and Interpretation to see how her contentions can contribute to Christian praxis and theology, and in what ways they are limited. Warnke is among the scholars who have brought hermeneutics into the discourse of justice, conceiving justice as something that emerges through the participation of every member of the community. Warnke's understanding of justice is advantageous as it overcomes the Kantian understanding of justice. However, it is disadvantageous in overlooking the pragmatic dimension of decision making. We contend that this point of Warnke is problematic, particularly for theology that is indispensably related to praxis. In order to supplement Warnke's justice hermeneutics, this paper invites Francis Schüssler Fiorenza's reconstructive hermeneutical theology. While recognizing the importance of hermeneutics, Fiorenza tries to overcome its limitations, suggesting that we should consider the background theory of the interpreter and the text. Background theory is beneficial as it would enable the interpreter to understand both the text and himself/herself with a more critical stance. Moreover, he emphasizes three essential factors required to do hermeneutics - solidarity, community, and integrity - so that theology could place more weight on decision making toward justice. In short, this paper aims to contribute to nurturing these two points: (1) the importance of accommodating as many voices as possible in the course of decision making, and (2) the importance of decision making within time constraints for practical application in concrete situations. By this way, theology could be more concretely connected with contemporary praxis concerning the issues of justice

플라톤의 『국가』에 나타나는 소크라테스의 정의관(正義觀)과 그 한계점

이명곤 ( Myung Gon Lee ) 한국동서철학회 2015 동서철학연구 Vol.75 No.-

소크라테스는 당시 그리스 사회에 통용하고 있던 다양한 정의개념을 논박하면서 자신의 정의관을 말하고 있다. 그가 비판하고 있는 정의 개념들은 정직함과 빌린 것을 제때에 갚는 것이라는 ‘형식적 정의개념’, 친구에게는 좋은 것을 주고 적에게는 나쁜 것을 준다는 ‘이기적 정의개념’, 착한 사람에게는 좋은 것을 주고 나쁜 사람에게는 나쁜 것을 준다는 ‘복수법의 정의개념’ 그리고 보다 강한 자들의 자기이익을 추구하는 것이라는 ‘정글의 정의개념’ 등이다. 소크라테스가 제시하는 정의 개념은 한 개인의 사회적 자기 동일성에 적합한 ‘탁월한 내적인 상태(arete)’를 갖추는 것으로 본 논문에서는 이를 ‘개인적 정의’ 혹은 ‘존재론적인 정의’ 개념으로 규정하고 있다. 이러한 개인적 정의 개념은 ‘행위는 존재를 따른다’는 형이상학적 원리에 따라서 모든 행위에 있어서 정의로운 행위를 할 필요조건처럼 고려된다. 하지만 복잡한 상황윤리와 수많은 사회적 갈등상황이 발생하는 거대국가에서 이러한 존재론적인 정의만으로는 사회적 정의를 실현하는데 한계가 있다. 이에 소크라테스는 대안 책으로 법률에 대한 철저한 준수와 철인왕 정치를 제시하고 있는데, 이 역시 ‘존재론적인 정의’개념에 기초한 것이다. 하지만 철인왕 정치가 오늘날의 현대사회에서 가능하지 않다는 것은 누구나 수긍할 수 있고, 또한 ‘철저하게 합법적인 행위’가 사회적 정의를 보장해주지는 않는다는 것도 경험적으로 알 수 있다. 그럼에도 소크라테스의 존재론적인 정의 개념은 오늘날 여전히 시사하는 바가 크다. 그것은 최선책이 없을 때, 차선책을 구한다는 것이며, 사회 구성원들과 정치지도자가 스스로 정의롭게 된다는 것이 사회정의를 실현하는 가장 근원적이고 빠른 길이기 때문이다. Socrates shows his conception of justice by analyzing and refuting the other designs that circulate Greek society in his time. First it analyzes and clarifies that the concepts of justice in his time did not conform to that of true justice. He did so formal justice which means ``frankness and repay a loan``, selfish justice which means ``giving good for a friend and evil to the enemy``, justice of the law of revenge which means ``giving the right for the good man and evil for the evil man``, and the justice of the law of jungle meaning that righteousness is the advantage of the strong man etc. Then, Socrates presents the ontological concept of justice which means excellent condition inside(arete) of a man consistent with his social identity. This conception of ontological or personal justice is very efficient for a small company like a city of Greece(Police). But in a modern society where are many complex ethical and social conflict situations limit the realization of social justice through only these ontological justice. Therefore, Socrates present the thorough observance of the law and the politics of philosopher king as an alternative. Il is also based on the concept of ``ontological justice``. But the politics of philosopher king is not possible in today`s modern society, everyone can agree, can also be seen that ``thorough legal action`` will not guarantee the social justice. Nevertheless, Socrates`` concept of ontological justice is still largely suggested today. Because the second best plan is the best when there is not the best, and members of our society and social leaders comes to justice is the fundamental and fastest way for the realization of social justice.

개념 지도를 활용한 인적자원개발에서의 정의와 철학적 토대

백평구,이희수 한국농·산업교육학회 2010 농업교육과 인적자원개발 Vol.42 No.4

This study is an attempt to explore the justice in the context of human resource development(HRD) in that the current state of philosophical foundation of HRD has not been proliferated within its field. Most of HRD ethics literatures are limited on HRD practitioners as individuals and CSR(Corporate Social Responsibility) in that basically its nature lies in applied ethics. Necessities to discuss the justice concept in HRD were justified by searching alternatives on mainstream HRD ethics, contributing to HRD theory building through concept development, diversifying HRD research methodologies, and the response to emerging social discourse of justice in this country. In order to achieve the purpose of this study, the justice in HRD concept map was derived from the conceptualization of justice as the key theme of philosophical foundation of HRD. The streams of justice theories were selected as utilitarianism, libertarianism, liberal egalitarianism, and communitarianism. Each strand was matched for the maximization of performance in organization, individual-organization relations, social equity discourse in critical HRD, and value priorities in HRD. As a result, these are contents aspect of concept map in HRD justice. In addition to this, what-who(m)-how framed the formality of concept map in HRD justice. The justice concept in HRD using concept map enables HRD activities as the distribution with norms and appropriateness. Justice in HRD as the philosophical foundation is aligned to continuous yearning for possibilities of HRD as a field of practice. Finally, this study suggest there needs to investigate the perceptions on justice concept of HRD practitioners among themes represented with justice in HRD concept map. Considering the nature of HRD as an applied field, justice can contribute to build up the philosophical foundations of HRD. 이 연구는 인적자원개발 윤리를 중심으로 하는 현재의 인적자원개발의 철학적 토대 논의의 한계에 대한 문제의식 아래 착수되었다. 인적자원개발 윤리는 응용 윤리로서 인적자원개발 실행가 개인이나 기업의 사회적 책임 차원에 한정되어 있다. 인적자원개발 윤리에 대한 대안적 접근, 개념 형성을 통한 인적자원개발 이론화에 대한 기여, 인적자원개발 이론 정립에서의 연구 방법의 다양성 추구, 법철학을 넘어선 사회적 담론으로서 정의에 대한 인적자원개발의 대응 등은 인적자원개발에서의 정의 논의의 필요성을 정당화한다. 이 연구에서는 인적자원개발의 철학적 토대의 주요한 주제로서 정의를 논의하기 위해 인적자원개발에서의 정의에 대한 개념 지도를 도출하였다. 인적자원개발 정의 논의를 위한 정의 이론의 흐름은 공리주의 정의론, 자유지상주의 정의론, 자유주의적 평등주의 정의론, 그리고 공동체주의 정의론으로 정리되었다. 네 가지 정의 이론의 흐름은 인적자원개발 맥락에서 조직 성과 극대화, 개인 대 조직의 관계, 비판적 인적자원개발에서의 사회적 형평성, 인적자원개발에서의 가치지향성으로 연결됨으로써 인적자원개발 정의 개념을 구성하는 내용적 측면에 해당된다. 그리고 정의 개념의 세 가지 차원인 내용, 대상, 기준을 형식적 측면으로 연결함으로써 인적자원개발 정의의 개념 지도를 제시하였다. 인적자원개발 실제에 대한 지속적인 가능성을 모색하는 철학적 토대로서 인적자원개발 정의 개념은 규범과 당위적 방향성을 갖춘 분배로서의 인적자원개발 활동에 대한 이해를 가능하게 한다. 향후에는 인적자원개발 실제의 영역에서 담당자들의 정의 개념에 대한 인식 유형을 분석하는 연구가 요구되며 이를 통해 인적자원개발의 철학적 토대로서 정의 논의가 응용학문 영역에 속하는 인적자원개발 분야에 기여할 수 있을 것이다.

법의 이념으로서의 정의(正義) : 정의에 관한 현대적 담론들과 그 적용을 중심으로

김용태 고려대학교 2006 虎院論集 Vol.14 No.-

Since early times, there has been continuous studying about what on earth "Justice" is. As Kant said "Human is not worth living without justice on earth", the problem of justice has been one of the most important issue through human history. Just like this, discourse of justice is nothing new definitely. However, as one more step, I think thatnk it will be a thoroughly meaningful study to look around how modern discourses of justice is developing. Moreover, it will also be sufficiently valuable work to look around it as an aspect of legal practice. With having this critical mind, before I started to studying in earnest udner a title of "Justice as Ideas of Law-The Modern discourses of justice and their applicatins-", firstly I mentioned about the framework of ideas of law on the whole(Ⅱ), secondly I looked around how modern discourses of justice has been developing(Ⅲ), lastly on the basis of prior studies, I investigated how justice actualized with specific cases in actual fact(Ⅳ). However, it is yet to be known how close we can approach about justice as ideas of law through these specific considerations. We might not get a clear answer to this question-"What is justice?"-as long as the human exists. Therefore it might be wise to give up the efforts to find the answer to the previous question. Rather, it would be good for us to satisfy with reducing doubts about justice itself. If you agreed with this opinion only a little bit, you could understand the meaning of 'Discourse of Justice in Procedural Libralism' which I referred.

Justice outside the Law and Love as Political Concept

Theodore W. Jennings(테드 제닝스) 인천대학교 인문학연구소 2019 인문학연구 Vol.32 No.-

플라톤, 아리스토텔레스, 키케로가 인식한 바와 같이, 정의는 정치적 사유의 기본개념이다. 그러나 이 고전 사상가들은 정의와 법을 분명하게 연결시켰다. 성 바울은 또한 기본적으로 정의에 관심이 있지만 정의와 법 사이에 긴장 또는 거의 대립에 가까운 것을 개입시킨다. 여기에서 데리다, 바디우, 랑시에르, 아감벤과 같은 현대 마르크스주의 사상가들이 뒤따른다. 국가기구가 강제력을 가지고 정의를 사로잡지 않는다면, 우리는 정의를 “법 밖”이라고 생각하는 법을 배워야 한다. 우리는 너무나 자주 사랑의 대화를 개인적, 대인 관계, 정서, 감상의 영역으로 제한하곤 한다. 그러나 우리는 사랑을 정의의 실현과 같은 정치적 개념으로 생각하는 법도 배워야 한다. 고대 정치 사상가들(플라톤, 아리스토텔레스, 키케로)은 우정이라는 이름 아래 이것을 이미 어느 정도 인정하였다. 그리고 성 바울은 정의가 성취되는 방식으로 사랑을 지적한다. 데리다는 우정을 정치의 기초로 사용하는 것에 대해 중요한 의문을 제기했지만 타우브, 바디우, 지젝, 네그리는 법의 폐지와 완성 모두로서 뿐만 아니라 정의 실현의 유일한 길로서의 사랑의 근본적인 정치적 의미를 이해하도록 도와준다. As Plato, Aristotle and Cicero recognized, Justice is the basic concept of Political Thinking. But each of these classical thinkers also unambiguously connected Justice to Law. Saint Paul is also fundamentally concerned with justice but introduces a tension, almost an opposition, between Justice and Law. In this he is followed by contemporary post Marxist thinkers such as Derrida, Badiou, Ranciere, and Agamben. If Justice is not to be captured by the State apparatus with its powers of coercion then we must learn to think of Justice “outside the law.” Or as I have elsewhere called it Outlaw Justice. Too often we may restrict talk of love to the sphere of the personal and interpersonal, the affective and the sentimental. But we must also learn to think of it as a political concept, as the actualization of justice. This was to a certain extent already recognized by ancient political thinkers (Plato, Aristotle and Cicero), often under the heading of Friendship. And Saint Paul points to love as the way in which Justice is accomplished. Derrida has raised important questions about the use of friendship as a basis for politics but Taubes, Badiou, Zizek, and Negri help us to understand the radical political implications of love as both the abolition and the consummation of law, as the only avenue to the actualization of justice.

급진민주주의적 사회정의와 입법 ―포스트 마르크스주의를 중심으로―

심우민 한국법철학회 2011 법철학연구 Vol.14 No.2

Concerns about justice in Korea has increased recently. This has special meaning in the respect that these concerns are resulted from realistic politics. Generally speaking, the demand for the social justice asks for the management of law on the ground of justice. In the same line, there must be the law-making which fits for this conception of justice. As a matter of fact, many discussions about social justice are related to the legislative issues. The concerns about social justice in Korean society cannot be separated from the orders of capitalism or neo-liberalism. In this respect, we need to concentrate on the theories of Marxism, which provide the critical alternatives for these orders. This article concentrates on the Post-marxist theories among many different readings of marxist theories. Most of theorists of Post-Marxism claim for radical democracy. This article is focusing on these theme; (ⅰ) What does Marx think about the conceptions of justice? The main point of this part is whether there are ideal type of justice in the theories of Marx or not. The writer suggests that Marx criticized the ideological character of justice. And in this respect, (ⅱ) how can we explain Marx’s conceptions of justice in the perspectives on Post-Marxist? In this part, Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau are mainly explained. However, because these scholars concentrate on the political issues, their theories need to be supplied with legal and institutional aspects. Therefore, the writer introduces the theories of legal scholar, Roberto Unger. Those Scholars in these both disciplines suggest the same alternative, “radical democracy”. Finally, (ⅲ) how can the principles of legislation be constructed on the basis on the conceptions of justice within Post-Marxist alternatives, radical democracy? For this explanations, the writer introduces the analyses of Luc Wintgens, who researches in the field of Legisprudence. In his analyses, there are four principles of legislation; The Principle of Alternativity, The Principle of Normative Density, The Principle of Coherence, and The Principle of Temporality. This part mainly explains how these principles can be read in the perspectives of radical democracy. Concerns about justice in Korea has increased recently. This has special meaning in the respect that these concerns are resulted from realistic politics. Generally speaking, the demand for the social justice asks for the management of law on the ground of justice. In the same line, there must be the law-making which fits for this conception of justice. As a matter of fact, many discussions about social justice are related to the legislative issues. The concerns about social justice in Korean society cannot be separated from the orders of capitalism or neo-liberalism. In this respect, we need to concentrate on the theories of Marxism, which provide the critical alternatives for these orders. This article concentrates on the Post-marxist theories among many different readings of marxist theories. Most of theorists of Post-Marxism claim for radical democracy. This article is focusing on these theme; (ⅰ) What does Marx think about the conceptions of justice? The main point of this part is whether there are ideal type of justice in the theories of Marx or not. The writer suggests that Marx criticized the ideological character of justice. And in this respect, (ⅱ) how can we explain Marx’s conceptions of justice in the perspectives on Post-Marxist? In this part, Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau are mainly explained. However, because these scholars concentrate on the political issues, their theories need to be supplied with legal and institutional aspects. Therefore, the writer introduces the theories of legal scholar, Roberto Unger. Those Scholars in these both disciplines suggest the same alternative, “radical democracy”. Finally, (ⅲ) how can the principles of legislation be constructed on the basis on the conceptions of justice within Post-Marxist alternatives, radical democracy? For this explanations, the writer introduces the analyses of Luc Wintgens, who researches in the field of Legisprudence. In his analyses, there are four principles of legislation; The Principle of Alternativity, The Principle of Normative Density, The Principle of Coherence, and The Principle of Temporality. This part mainly explains how these principles can be read in the perspectives of radical democracy.

정의(Justice)에 대한 목적론적 접근-리쾨르(P. Ricoeur)의 롤즈(J. Rawls)의 정의론에 대한 비판과해석을 중심으로-

김기복 한국하이데거학회 2013 현대유럽철학연구 Vol.0 No.33

This paper aims at showing how P. Ricoeur J. Rawls’s deontological theory of justice accepts dialectically while he criticises it. By doing this, this paper tries to suggest which significance in dispute over justice in modern political philosophy P. Ricoeur’s theory of justice has. First, this paper suggests that P. Ricoeur’s teleological theory of justice has its own important charateristic unlike some communitarians in that it regards ‘distributive justice’as its central concept. While communitarians regard ‘loyalty to the contry’ or patriotism as their central concepts instead of justice, he tries to reconstruct the concept of justice itself. Second, on one hand, P. Ricoeur shows that J. Rawls’s deontological theory of justice is based on teleological theory of justice, on the other hand, he argues that sense of justice on which teleological theory of justice depends ultimately must pass through the test of norm, which is the key concept of deontological theory of justice. In that sense, he accepts J. Rawls’s ‘reflective equilibrium’ and regards it as a excellent theory which explains the dialect of norm and sense of justice. Finally, on one hand, P. Ricoeur shows that universalism of deontological theory of justice always gives rise to many conflicts when it applies its principle to concrete situations, on the other hand, he argues that teleological theory of justice needs to accept the stimulus of universalism since teleological theory of justice is always inclined toward relativism and contextualism. In that sense, he tries to reconciles univeralism with contextualism in modern political philosophy. In conclusion, P. Ricoeur tries to accept the test of norm and universalism of J. Rawls’s deontological theory of justice as a stimulus needed to the modern development of teleological theory of justice. 본 글은 리쾨르가 어떻게 롤즈의 의무론적 정의론을 비판하면서도 그것을 그의 목적론적 정의론 안으로 변증법적으로 포섭하는지를 보이고자 한다. 이를 통해 리쾨르의 정의론이 현대의 ‘정의’를 둘러싼 논쟁에서어떤 의의를 가지는지를 제시해보고자 하였다. 첫째, 리쾨르는 롤즈와 마찬가지로 정의의 문제, 그 가운데 특히 분배적 정의의 문제를 자신의 정치 철학의 중심 문제로 설정하고 있다는 사실에 그의목적론적 정의론의 일차적인 특징이 있다는 점을 제시하였다. 리쾨르는 정의개념을 회피하되 대신 애국심이나 공동체에 대한 충직성을 제시하는 샌델이나 매킨타이어와 같은 공동체주의자들과 달리 정의 개념 자체를 목적론적으로 재설정하고자한다. 둘째, 리쾨르는 한편으로는 롤즈의 의무론적 정의론이 목적론적 정의론에 정초하고 있다는 것을 보이면서도, 다른 한편으로는 목적론적 정의론이 최종적으로 호소하는 것인 바, 역사적이고 문화적으로 침전되어 있는 정의감은 의무론적 정의론의 핵심 개념인 규범의 테스트를 반드시 거쳐야 한다는 점을보인다. 그러한 의미에서 리쾨르는 롤즈의 ‘반성적 평형’이라는 개념을 수용하고 그것을 의무의 규범성과 공동체의 관습적인 정의감 사이의 변증법적관계를 설명하는 탁월한 이론으로 간주한다. 마지막으로 리쾨르는 한편으로는 의무론적 정의론의 보편주의는 항상 자신이 설정한 원칙의 현실적 적용에서 갈등을 양산하는 것이 사실이라 할지라도, 그리하여 항상 그러한 갈등의 최종적인 해결을 위해 구체적이고 개별적인 맥락을 고려하는 ‘실천적인 지혜’에 호소할 수밖에 없다할지라도, 다른한편으로 롤즈와 같이 정의의 원칙을 설정하고자 하는 보편주의적 태도를취하는 것은 반드시 필요하다고 본다. 왜냐하면 목적론적 정의론이 경도될수 있는 맥락주의는 논의와 토론을 무용하게 만드는 바, 소위 ‘차이를 위한차이’에 대한 변명으로 끝나버릴 위험이 있기 때문이다. 그러한 의미에서 리쾨르는 현대 정치 철학에서 강요되고 있는 보편주의와 맥락주의의 생산성없는 대립과 적대를 벗어나, 그 둘을 생산성 있는 불화로서의 변증법적 관계로 파악하고자 한다는 의의가 있다. 결론적으로 리쾨르는 한편으로는 롤즈의 의무론적 정의론이 목적론적 정의론에 정초하고 있다는 것을 보이면서도, 다른 한편으로 롤즈의 의무론적 정의론의 규범성에 대한 강조와 보편주의적 태도를 목적론적 정의론의 현대적인 전개에 반드시 필요한 자극제로 받아들이고자 한다.

Roles of Consumer’s Social Relationship and Perceived Justice Type on Service Recovery Satisfaction

Nak-Hwan Choi,Su-Min Park,Ah-Young Lim 한국유통과학회 2018 The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business( Vol.9 No.1

Purpose – Past research has not given much attention to the roles of consumers’ social relationship type in the effects of justice type of service failure recovery alternatives on their satisfaction to the alternative exposed to them. Current research aimed at exploring the moderation role of consumers’ social relationship central versus peripheral in the effects of justice types of service failure recovery alternatives on the recovery satisfaction, and this research also explored whether the level of satisfaction to interaction justice-focused alternative are significantly different between the two, their social relationship central and peripheral relationship. Research design, data, and methodology – 2(social relationship central versus peripheral) between-subjects design was employed. 50 participants for each experimental group there were. Participants of each group took forceful steps in choosing one between the procedural justice-focused alternative and the distribution justice-focused alternative. χ2-analysis was used to verify that the number of choosing each alternative becomes different between the two experimental groups, and a one way ANOVA was used to verify that the extent to which participants are satisfied to the alternative chosen by them becomes different between the two groups. Results – The number of participants choosing procedural justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship central was larger than that at the group of social relationship peripheral, whereas the number of participants choosing distribution justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship peripheral was larger than that at the group of social relationship central. And the level of satisfaction to procedural justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship central was higher than that at the group of social relationship peripheral, whereas the level of satisfaction to distribution justice-focused alternative at the group of social relationship peripheral was higher than that at the group of social relationship central. In addition, the level of satisfaction to interaction justice-focused alternative was not significantly different between the two groups. Conclusions – Marketers should give attention to the type of justice when developing alternatives by which consumers’ service failure can be recovered. They should suggest procedural justice-focused alternative to consumers under social relationship central, whereas they should develop distribution justice-focused alternative for consumers under social relationship peripheral. And in the process of recovering service failure they also should focus on interaction justice.

르 귄의 시에서의 정의

양승갑(Yang, Sung-Kap) 문학과환경학회 2017 문학과 환경 Vol.16 No.3

본 연구는 어슐라 크뢰버 르 귄(Ursula Kroeber Le Guin: 1929- )의 시에서 드러나는 ‘정의’의 문제에 초점을 맞추기 위하여 그녀의 시에서의 정의를 “사회 정의,” “환경 정의” 그리고 “생태 정의”로 나누어서 살펴보았다. 르 귄은 오늘날 우리 사회에 만연한 부정의가 기득권층의 정보와 지식의 독점에서 비롯된 사회 구조적인 문제임을 직시한다. 그녀는 이러한 편중이 낳은 사회적 부정의가 빈부 계층의 고착화로 이어지며, 나아가 환경 정의의 문제로까지 확대된다고 본다. 환경적 부정의의 문제에 대한 르 귄의 고찰은 기득권층과 현대인들의 부정의에 대한 ‘무지’와 ‘무감각’을 꼬집는다. 이 무지와 무감각은 그녀의 시에서 ‘다른 곳’과 ‘거리감’으로 가시화된다. 그리하여, 모든 부정의의 해결점이자 결론에 해당하는 생태 정의에서, 르 귄은 자연 속에서의 모든 종(種)들의 평등성에 대한 철저한 수용이 무지와 무감각으로 생긴 모든 거리감을 일소할 수 있음을 주장한다. 이 모든 과정에서 르 귄은 ‘열린 의식’을 강조한다. 그녀가 ‘열린 집’에 거주하는 ‘세상의 주부’임을 자처하는 것은 모든 현대인들이 그 어떤 차별과 구별도 없는 ‘정의로운’ 그 집에 함께 기거하기를 바라기 때문이다. 결과적으로 르 귄의 시에서의 정의는 만물과의 공생을 위한 열린 인식에 다름 아니다. Among the existing man of letters, Ursula Kroeber Le Guin(1929-) is one of the most influential writers. The influence comes from the fact that She has been a practical activist on the various spots of anti-war, anti-nuclear, anti-racism movement and so on. And also in her works especially in her poetry she clarifies that literature and imagination can/must be a powerful weapon for the fights against all the injustices deeply permeated in the modern society. Broadly speaking, all the justices can be concluded into ‘fairness.’ But to focus on the “justice” in the poetry of Le Guin, this paper categorizes justice into three types; “Social Justice,” “Environmental Justice,” and “Ecological Justice.” For the social justice, the first step Le Guin takes is the diagnosis of the injustices widespread in the modern society. She points out “the mis-recognition” of the weak and the low by the established who have monopolized knowledge and information also. The structural injustice in our society is more expanding and deepening in the “environmental justice.” All the environmental injustices, Le Guin believes, come from the environmental inequality and the inequality from the ignorance and insensibility of the established to the weak. In her poems “distance” and “other place or elsewhere” are the metaphor for the ignorance and insensibility. “Ecological justice,” the last and complete justice, is to be ‘oneness’ with everything fulfilled by the removing of the ignorance and insensibility. And in her poetry, all the justices are arranged into the ecological justice. As a poet, Le Guin claims to be “a world’s housekeeper.” And her house which knows no inequality nor injustice at all is wide open to every direction and every one and every thing under the heaven. As a result, in Le Guin’s poetry, justice has the exactly same meaning with the ‘open consciousness’ toward everything in Nature for ‘symbiosis.’