| dc.description.abstract | This research aims to lay the basis for the construction of a democratic theory of legal decision, suitable for Brasil, grounded upon the work of Ronald Dworkin. The idea is to identify and discuss some of the main theses and hypotheses of the American legal philosopher, proposing an appropriation of his interpretive conceptsin the context of the Brazilian constitutional experience. In order to do so, it promotes a discussion of his concept of democracy (partnership conception) and of his conception of judicial review. Legal decision-making is presented as a question of democracy, and this point is argued by means of a contrast with the work of Jürgen Habermas and Jeremy Waldron, and by an approximation to the perspective adopted in Brazil by Lenio Streck. Through a theoretical and philosophical analysis of the Hart/Dworkin debate, the following assumptions are stated: a) the central task of legal theory is normative, meaning that it should provide criteria for decision-making; b) there is truth to be found in the Morality domain; it is therefore possible to make objetive moral judgements (there is a debate, at this point, with the ideas of Brian Leiter); and c) Law, from an interpretive standpoint, can be conceived as a branch of morality, without losing its autonomy. Law is an interpretive concept and, in the interpretation domain, ideas of responsability and valuepoint the argument toward the truth. Integrated epistemology, as proposed by Dworkin, is adopted here: when someone joins an interpretive practice (an interpretive genre), he not only sets a purpose to it, but he also assumes the responsability to promote that value. This argument may be illuminated by Hans-Georg Gadamer’sPhilosophical Hermeneutics, and the possible links between Gadamer’s work and dworkinian interpretivismare investigated. Once these ideias are brought into the Law realm, the moral reading of the Constitution strategy emerges. According to the moral readingthesis, legal decisions should be generated by principles. Constructive interpretation of constitutional provisions leads to the thesis that a legal and democratically correct decision should have its legitimacy confirmed in two ways: first, it must be the result of a constitutionally proper procedure, by which isguaranteed, to its participants, what Dworkin calls moral participation; second, the decision should be grounded upon an interpretation that aims to integrity and honors responsability as a virtue. This is what is called the double dimension of the right answer. | en |
