Abstract
The author of the article claims that the search for the principles of just equipollent division highlights the question of the special role of equality and its boundaries in the field of justice, which became the subject of special attention of the famous German philosopher S. Gosepath. The analysis of the basic features and principles of its political anthropology suggests that the comprehension of justice, as an important basis of morality and law, Gosepath begins with the study of the problem of human dignity and the possibility of reasoning of social human rights with the help of the principle of the equal social distribution. The article also highlights the meaning of Gosepath's interpretation, within the limits of his philosophical concept of social justice, human independence, and it is proved that the principle of equal distribution of public goods proposed by him follows from the principle of equal respect. In the specified context, it is emphasized the importance of supporting the political anthropology and philosophy of Gosepath on the works of Y. Harbermas, R. Dworkin, E. Tugendhat, R. Forst, who consistently unfold the principles of equal respect to human dignity. The reflection of modern philosophers on the dignity of people in a just society can be summed up by the thesis that it is the people who own dignity that can become not only objects but also subjects of justice, ie citizens. After all, without a sense of dignity, one does not become a complete and successful person, capable of respecting other people, recognizing their values and characteristics. The article concludes that Gosepath by underling the distributive concept of social justice ignores the first issue of justice, which is the issue of the origins of unfair social relations. After all, human dignity is violated when a person only receives his, above appointed part of justice, and not creates it independently.
References
Bauman, Z. (2004). Flowing modernity. St. Petersburg. [In Russian].
Gossepat, Sh. (2008). To the justification of social human rights. Philosophy of human rights. Kyiv, 129-162. [In Ukrainian].
Tugendhat, E. (2006). Das Problem einer autonomen Moral. Ernst Tugendhats Ethik. Einwaende und Erwiderungen. München, 13-31.
Tugendhat, E. (1993). Vorlesungen über Ethik. Frankfurt am Main, 1993.
Lohmann, G. (2008). Human rights between morality and law. Philosophy of hu-man rights. Kyiv, 59-86. [In Ukrainian].
Habermas, Y. (2006). Attracting another. Studies in Political Theory. Lviv. [In Ukrainian].
Gosepath, S. (1998). Zu Begründungen sozialer Menschenrechte. Philosophie der Menschenrechte. Frankfurt am Main, 146-188.
Rawls, J. (2009). Justice as honesty: political, not metaphysical. Liberalism, an anthology. Kyiv, 779-801. [In Ukrainian].
Gosepath, S. (2004). Gleiche Gerechtigkeit. Grundlagen eines liberalen Egalita-rismus. Frankfurt am Main.
Rawls, J. (2001). The theory of justice. Kyiv, 2001. [In Ukrainian].
Sitnichenko, L. (2016). Transformation of the philosophy of justice: from the prin-ciples of justice to its main issue. Mulʹtyverusm. Filosofsʹkyy alʹmanakh (Multiver-sum. Philosophical almanac). No.9–10(157-158). Kyiv, 44-58. [In Ukrainian].

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
