David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Social Theory and Practice 25 (1):1-28 (1999)
Philosophers who hold that religious considerations should play some role in public debate over fundamental issues have criticized Rawls’s ideal of public reason for being too restrictive in generally ruling out such considerations. In response, Rawls has modified his ideal so as to explicitly allow a role for religious considerations in public debate (others, such as Robert Audi, have also offered accounts of public reason along similar lines). Nevertheless, some critics of Rawls’s ideal of public reason, such as Nicholas Wolterstorff, remain unsatisfied. In this paper, I will argue that once Rawls’s ideal of public reason is correctly interpreted, it will be possible to reconcile that ideal with much of the role its critics want religion to have in public debate
|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
Andrew Williams (2000). The Alleged Incompleteness of Public Reason. Res Publica 6 (2):199-211.
David Hollenbach (1994). Public Reason/Private Religion? A Response to Paul J. Weithman. Journal of Religious Ethics 22 (1):39 - 46.
Micah Lott (2006). Restraint on Reasons and Reasons for Restraint: A Problem for Rawls' Ideal of Public Reason. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (1):75–95.
Chad Flanders (2012). The Mutability of Public Reason. Ratio Juris 25 (2):180-205.
Richard M. Buck (2001). Sincerity and Reconciliation in Public Reason. Social Philosophy Today 17:21-35.
R. Westmoreland (1999). The Truth About Public Reason. Law and Philosophy 18 (3):271-296.
William Stempsey (2011). Religion and Bioethics: Can We Talk? [REVIEW] Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (4):339-350.
Patrick Neal (2008). Is Public Reason Innocuous? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 11 (2):131-152.
Roberto Frega (2012). Equal Accessibility to All: Habermas, Pragmatism, and the Place of Religious Beliefs in a Post-Secular Society. Constellations 19 (2):267-287.
Micah Schwartzman (2004). The Completeness of Public Reason. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (2):191-220.
Kevin Vallier (2011). Against Public Reason Liberalism's Accessibility Requirement. Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (3):366-389.
Fabienne Peter (2007). Rawls' Idea of Public Reason and Democratic Legitimacy. Journal of International Political Theory 3 (1):129-143.
David A. Reidy (2000). Rawls's Wide View of Public Reason: Not Wide Enough. Res Publica 6 (1):49-72.
Kevin Vallier (2012). Liberalism, Religion And Integrity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1):149 - 165.
Hans von Rautenfeld (2004). Charitable Interpretations: Emerson, Rawls, and Cavell on the Use of Public Reason. Political Theory 32 (1):61-84.
Added to index2011-12-02
Total downloads9 ( #165,803 of 1,102,135 )
Recent downloads (6 months)6 ( #52,509 of 1,102,135 )
How can I increase my downloads?