Graduate studies at Western
Social Theory and Practice 34 (4):485-516 (2008)
|Abstract||The term “political” egalitarianism is used here, not to refer to equality within the political sphere, but rather in John Rawls’s sense, to refer to a conception of egalitarian distributive justice that is capable of serving as the object of an overlapping consensus in a pluralistic society.1 Thus “political” egalitarianism is political in the same way that Rawls’s “political” liberalism is political. The central task when it comes to developing such a conception of equality is to determine what constraints a principle of equality must satisfy in order to qualify as “freestanding,” or to be justifiable in a way that does not presuppose the correctness of any one member of the set of reasonable yet incompatible “religious, philosophical and moral” doctrines that attract large numbers of adherents in our world.2 (Rawls uses the analogy of a “module” in order to describe the way that a properly political conception of justice “fits into and can be supported by various reasonable comprehensive doctrines that endure in the society regulated by it.”3 Political egalitarianism would be “modular” in this sense.) Rather than getting embroiled in the controversies that have arisen over Rawls’s formulation of this idea, I would like simply to accept the intuition, widespread among political philosophers, that equality is the sort of principle that – if given a proper formulation – could satisfy the requirements of a political conception of justice. After all, regardless of what peoples’ projects, values, or conceptions of the good life may be, it should be possible to design a set of arrangements that would provide equal opportunity to pursue these goals, or that would treat each conception of the good with equal respect, etc. From this perspective, the principle of equality resembles the principle of Pareto-efficiency, or certain formulations of the principle of liberty – it is one that everyone should be able to endorse, insofar as it does not privilege, or presuppose the correctness of, any particular set of projects, values..|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Kenneth Baynes (0040). Democratic Equality and Respect. Theoria 53 (=117;User_Persona=false;ord=1234):1-25.
Gerald Doppelt (2009). The Place of Self-Respect in a Theory of Justice. Inquiry 52 (2):127 – 154.
Sylvia Burrow (2001). Reasonable Moral Psychology and the Kantian Ace in the Hole. Social Philosophy Today 17:37-55.
Alan Carter (2006). Political Liberalism and Political Compliance: Part 2 of the Problem of Political Compliance in Rawls’s Theories of Justice. Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 (2):135-157.
David Shaw (2011). Justice and the Fetus: Rawls, Children and Abortion. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (1):93-101.
Karl-Otto Apel (2001). Is a Political Conception of “Overlapping Consensus” an Adequate Basis for Global Justice? The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 11:1-15.
Remi Odedoyin (2000). Overlapping Consensus. Journal of Philosophical Research 25:323-343.
Ryan W. Davis (2011). Justice: Metaphysical, After All? [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (2):207-222.
S. Scheffler & V. Munoz-Dardé (2005). Equality and Division: Values in Principle. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 79 (79):255-284.
Percy B. Lehning (1998). The Coherence of Rawls's Plea for Democratic Equality. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 1 (4):1-41.
Added to index2009-02-21
Total downloads41 ( #32,685 of 722,941 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #61,087 of 722,941 )
How can I increase my downloads?