David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Philosophy Today 21:81-93 (2005)
The role of religious commitments in John Rawls’s version of political liberalism has drawn frequent criticism. Some of the critics have complained that it fails to respect those with deep religious commitments by excluding explicitly religious reasons from debate about fundamental issues of justice. Others criticize the exclusion of religious reasons on the ground that it is unnecessary. Political liberalism, they argue, can accommodate appeals to religious reasons. For critics of both stripes, Jürgen Habermas and Thomas Scanlon should seem a welcome alternative. They offer ways of justifying claims of justice and of legitimating political arrangements that do not appear to exclude religious reasons at the outset but still yield liberal polities. In this paper, I argue that Habermas’s and Scanlon’s theoretical frameworks are not only open to religious reasons, they require the inclusion of religious reasons in deliberations about the just ordering of public life. I then explain why such an arrangement is desirable. I close with a look at the limits of Habermas’s and Scanlon’s ability to accommodate religiousreasons in public deliberation, suggesting that their improvements on Rawls are smaller than they at first appear
|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
Thomas Schmidt (1999). Religious Pluralism and Democratic Society: Political Liberalism and the Reasonableness of Religious Beliefs. Philosophy and Social Criticism 25 (4):43-56.
Richard North (2012). Public Reason, Religious Restraint and Respect. Philosophia 40 (2):179-193.
Zachary Hoskins (2009). ''On Highest Authority: Do Religious Reasons Have a Place in Public Policy Debates?''. Social Theory and Practice 35 (3):393-412.
John H. Chandler (2010). Religious Reasons and Public Policy. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (2):137-152.
Linda Zagzebski (2011). First Person and Third Person Reasons and Religious Epistemology. European Journal for Philosophy of Religion 3 (2):285 - 304.
Christopher J. Eberle & Rick Rubel (2012). Religious Conviction in the Profession of Arms. Journal of Military Ethics 11 (3):171-185.
Kevin Vallier (2011). Against Public Reason Liberalism's Accessibility Requirement. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (3):366-389.
Corey Brettschneider (2010). A Transformative Theory of Religious Freedom. Political Theory 38 (2):187-213.
Michael R. DePaul (1998). Liberal Exclusions and Foundationalism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1 (1):103-120.
D. R. Walhof (2013). Habermas, Same-Sex Marriage and the Problem of Religion in Public Life. Philosophy and Social Criticism 39 (3):225-242.
Kevin Vallier (2013). Can Liberal Perfectionism Justify Religious Toleration? Wall on Promoting and Respecting. Philosophical Studies 162 (3):645-664.
Matteo Bonotti (2012). Beyond Establishment and Separation: Political Liberalism, Religion and Democracy. Res Publica 18 (4):333-349.
Patrick Lee (1989). Reasons and Religious Belief. Faith and Philosophy 6 (1):19-34.
Matteo Bonotti (2011). Religious Political Parties and the Limits of Political Liberalism. Res Publica 17 (2):107-123.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads8 ( #182,531 of 1,140,380 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #140,193 of 1,140,380 )
How can I increase my downloads?