David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72 (1):71 - 96 (2006)
People frequently advance political proposals in the name of a goal while remaining apparently indifferent to the fact that those proposals, if implemented, would frustrate that goal. Theorists of "deliberative democracy" purport to avoid this difficulty by arguing that deliberation is primarily about moral not empirical issues. We reject this view (the moral turn) and propose a method (The Display Test) to check whether a political utterance is best explained by the rational ignorance hypothesis or by the moral turn: the speaker must be prepared to openly acknowledge the bad consequences of his political position. If he is, the position is genuinely moral; if he is not, the position evinces either rational ignorance or posturing. We introduce deontological notions to explain when the moral turn works and when it does not. We discuss and reject possible replies, in particular the view that a moral-political stance insensitive to consequences relies on a distribution of moral responsibility in evildoing. Finally, we show that even the most plausible candidates for the category of purely moral political proposals are best explained by the rational ignorance/posturing hypothesis, if only because enforcing morality gives rise to complex causal issues
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
No citations found.
Similar books and articles
Guido Pincione Fernando R. Tesón (2006). Rational Ignorance and Political Morality. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 72 (1):71–96.
Karen Green & John Bigelow (1998). Does Science Persecute Women? The Case of the 16th–17th Century Witch-Hunts. Philosophy 73 (2):195-217.
Richard W. Miller (1992). Moral Differences: Truth, Justice, and Conscience in a World of Conflict. Princeton University Press.
Pat White (1980). Political Education and Moral Education or Bringing Up Children to Be Decent Members of Society. Journal of Moral Education 9 (3):147-155.
Christopher McMahon (2009). Reasonable Disagreement: A Theory of Political Morality. Cambridge University Press.
Nick Zangwill (2012). Rationality and Moral Realism. Ratio 25 (3):345-364.
Alexander A. Guerrero (2007). Don't Know, Don't Kill: Moral Ignorance, Culpability, and Caution. [REVIEW] Philosophical Studies 136 (1):59-97.
Craig L. Carr (2010). Liberalism and Pluralism: The Politics of E Pluribus Unum. Palgrave Macmillan.
Michael J. Zimmerman (2008). Living with Uncertainty: The Moral Significance of Ignorance. Cambridge University Press.
Steven Lukes (1991). Moral Conflict and Politics. Clarendon Press.
Edward McClennen (2010). Rational Choice and Moral Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 13 (5):521-540.
Lorraine Code (2004). The Power Of Ignorance. Philosophical Papers 33 (3):291-308.
Timothy L. Fort (1997). Religion and Business Ethics: The Lessons From Political Morality. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 16 (3):263-273.
Michael L. Gross (1997). Ethics and Activism: The Theory and Practice of Political Morality. Cambridge University Press.
Roman Altshuler (2009). Political Realism and Political Idealism: The Difference That Evil Makes. Public Reason 1 (2):73-87.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads23 ( #78,660 of 1,099,914 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #90,387 of 1,099,914 )
How can I increase my downloads?