David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4 (3):301-330 (2005)
Reasonable people disagree deeply about the nature of the good life. But reasonable people also disagree fundamentally about principles of justice. If this is true, then why does political liberalism permit the state to act on reasons of justice, but not for reasons grounded in conceptions of the good life? There appears to be an indefensible asymmetry in the way political liberalism treats disagreements about justice and disagreements about the good life. This is the asymmetry objection to political liberalism. The principal aim of this article is to show that the asymmetry objection can be refuted. This is done by drawing a distinction between two different types of reasonable disagreement that can occur between citizens. The first type is foundational disagreement . Disagreements of this type are characterized by the fact that the participants do not share any premises which can serve as a mutually acceptable standard of justification. The second type of disagreement, justificatory disagreement , occurs when participants do share premises that serve as a mutually acceptable standard of justification, but they nevertheless disagree about certain substantive conclusions. Making this distinction allows me to show why political liberalisms asymmetric treatment of justice and the good life is both defensible and desirable. Key Words: John Rawls perfectionism political liberalism public reason reasonable pluralism.
|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
Chad Van Schoelandt (2015). Justification, Coercion, and the Place of Public Reason. Philosophical Studies 172 (4):1031-1050.
Daniel M. Weinstock (2006). A Neutral Conception of Reasonableness? Episteme 3 (3):234-247.
Kevin Vallier (forthcoming). On Jonathan Quong’s Sectarian Political Liberalism. Criminal Law and Philosophy:1-20.
Philip Shadd (2015). Why the Facts Matter to Public Justification. Critical Review 27 (2):198-212.
Similar books and articles
Christopher McMahon (2009). Reasonable Disagreement: A Theory of Political Morality. Cambridge University Press.
Ryan W. Davis (2011). Justice: Metaphysical, After All? [REVIEW] Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (2):207-222.
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.
Thomas M. Besch (2013). On Political Legitimacy, Reasonableness, and Perfectionism. Public Reason 5 (1):58-74.
Allan Hazlett (2013). Entitlement and Mutually Recognized Reasonable Disagreement. Episteme (1):1-25.
Jonathan Jacobs (2011). Criminal Justice and the Liberal Polity. Criminal Justice Ethics 30 (2):173-191.
James Boettcher (2004). What is Reasonableness? Philosophy and Social Criticism 30 (5-6):597-621.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads83 ( #57,136 of 1,932,585 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #456,398 of 1,932,585 )
How can I increase my downloads?