David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Philosophical Research 25:323-343 (2000)
“Justice as fairness” understood as a political conception of justice is, according to Rawls, objective. It is claimed to be objective by being autonomous from any of the conflicting reasonable comprehensive doctrines held by the citizens, and by, at the same time, being consistent with all such doctrines. There is the need to look for an object of such overlapping consensus because, according to Rawls, reasonable disagreement is inevitable in modern democratic society. And the permanence of reasonable disagreement itself is caused by what Rawls describes as the burdens of judgement.In this article, I demonstrate, against the background of Rawls’ burdens of judgement, how it could be argued that reasonable agreement is impossible. In this respect, I explore what I consider to be the resources available to Rawls to show how his point could be made. But I subsequently argue that his position in this respect can be coherent only against a background of an epistemic conception which is defective, and which goes beyond the political idea of freedom and equality which Rawls claims to be the basis of Justice as fairness. It is my contention that Rawls’ suggestion of how to handle so-called reasonable disagreement is itself no more than a contentious viewpoint which silences other contending reasonable views
|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
Enrico Zoffoli (2012). The Place of Comprehensive Doctrines in Political Liberalism: On Some Common Misgivings About the Subject and Function of the Overlapping Consensus. Res Publica 18 (4):351-366.
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.
Joseph Heath (2008). Political Egalitarianism. Social Theory and Practice 34 (4):485-516.
Gerald Doppelt (2009). The Place of Self-Respect in a Theory of Justice. Inquiry 52 (2):127 – 154.
Nebojša Zelić (2009). Overlapping Consensus. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):101-115.
David A. Reidy (2007). Reciprocity and Reasonable Disagreement: From Liberal to Democratic Legitimacy. Philosophical Studies 132 (2):243 - 291.
Ted Preston (2004). Environmental Values, Pluralism, and Stability. Ethics, Place and Environment 7 (1 & 2):73 – 83.
Jack Russell Weinstein (2012). Overlapping Consensus or Marketplace of Religions? Rawls and Smith. Philosophia 40 (2):223-236.
Brian Feltham, Value Engaged – Justificatory Neutrality, Reasonable Consensus and the Value of Value-Beliefs.
Alexander Kaufman (2006). Rawls's Practical Conception of Justice: Opinion, Tradition and Objectivity in Political Liberalism. Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 (1):23-43.
Gerald F. Gaus (1999). Reasonable Pluralism and the Domain of the Political: How the Weaknesses of John Rawls's Political Liberalism Can Be Overcome by a Justificatory Liberalism. Inquiry 42 (2):259 – 284.
Gregory Brazeal (2011). Webs of Faith as a Source of Reasonable Disagreement. Critical Review 23 (4):421-448.
L. Gregory Jones (1988). Should Christians Affirm Rawls' Justice as Fairness? A Response to Professor Beckley. Journal of Religious Ethics 16 (2):251 - 271.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads42 ( #56,833 of 1,696,514 )
Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #36,117 of 1,696,514 )
How can I increase my downloads?