David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Ethics and Global Politics 2 (4):349-368 (2009)
This paper investigates early modern and enlightenment roots of contemporary ideas of public reason. I argue that concepts of public reason arose in answer to the question ‘who shall judge?’ The religious and moral pluralism unleashed by the reformation lead first to the weakening of authoritative common forms of reasoning, this in turn and more importantly lead to the question who is the final arbiter when a political community is faced with deep disagreement about political/ moral questions. The rise of pluralism meant that to the question ‘what are the standards of public right?’ is added the corollary and equally important question ‘who judges when those standards are violated?’ The answer is that the public judges. Public reason thus refers to the role of the public as judge of public right and not simply to a set of reasons that an actual public happens to share. On this reading of Hobbes, Locke, and Kant, the initial contract recedes in importance while the seat of authoritative political judgment comes to the fore. Keywords: public reason; pluralism; Hobbes; Locke; Kant (Published: 4 December 2009) Citation: Ethics & Global Politics, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2009, pp. 349368. DOI: 10.3402/egp.v2i4.2135
|Keywords||Kant pluralism public reason Locke Hobbes|
|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
Katrin Flikschuh (2012). Elusive Unity: The General Will in Hobbes and Kant. Hobbes Studies 25 (1):21-42.
Patrick Riley (2007). Kant Against Hobbes in Theory and Practice. Journal of Moral Philosophy 4 (2):194-206.
Michael Losonsky (2001). Enlightenment and Action From Descartes to Kant: Passionate Thought. Cambridge University Press.
Jonathan Peterson (2008). Enlightenment and Freedom. Journal of the History of Philosophy 46 (2):pp. 223-244.
Paul Guyer (2012). Hobbes Is of the Opposite Opinion Kant and Hobbes on the Three Authorities in the State. Hobbes Studies 25 (1):91-119.
Katrin Flikschuh (2008). Reason, Right, and Revolution: Kant and Locke. Philosophy and Public Affairs 36 (4):375-404.
Larry Krasnoff (2012). Voluntarism and Conventionalism in Hobbes and Kant. Hobbes Studies 25 (1):43-65.
Michael Losonsky (2012). Locke and Leibniz on Religious Faith. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 20 (4):703 - 721.
Kjartan Koch Mikalsen (2010). Testimony and Kant's Idea of Public Reason. Res Publica 16 (1):23-40.
Chappell (1998). Locke on the Suspension of Desire. Locke Studies 29:23-38.
Phil Enns (2007). Reason and Revelation: Kant and the Problem of Authority. [REVIEW] International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 62 (2):103 - 114.
Gerald F. Gaus (1996). Justificatory Liberalism: An Essay on Epistemology and Political Theory. Oxford University Press.
Chad Flanders (2012). The Mutability of Public Reason. Ratio Juris 25 (2):180-205.
Added to index2010-08-24
Total downloads64 ( #63,215 of 1,790,003 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #167,785 of 1,790,003 )
How can I increase my downloads?