David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (3):366-389 (2011)
Public reason liberals typically defend an accessibility requirement for reasons offered in public political dialog. The accessibility requirement holds that public reasons must be amenable to criticism, evaluable by reasonable persons, and the like. Public reason liberals are therefore hostile to the public use of reasons that appear inaccessible, especially religious reasons. This hostility has provoked strong reactions from public reason liberalism's religion-friendly critics. But public reason liberals and their religion-friendly critics need not be at odds because the accessibility requirement is implausible. In fact, the accessibility requirement is ambiguous between two interpretations, one of which is too stringent and the other too loose. Depending upon the interpretation, accessibility either restricts the use of too many secular reasons or permits appeal to a wide range of religious reasons. The accessibility requirement should therefore be rejected.
|Keywords||PUBLIC REASON PUBLIC REASON LIBERALISM SECULAR REASONS RELIGIOUS REASONS PUBLIC JUSTIFICATION|
|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
Kevin Vallier (2016). In Defence of Intelligible Reasons in Public Justification. Philosophical Quarterly 66 (264):596-616.
Similar books and articles
Kevin Vallier (2012). Liberalism, Religion And Integrity. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1):149 - 165.
Gerald Gaus & Kevin Vallier (2009). The Roles of Religious Conviction in a Publicly Justified Polity: The Implications of Convergence, Asymmetry and Political Institutions. Philosophy and Social Criticism 35 (1-2):51-76.
Christie Hartley & Lori Watson (2009). Feminism, Religion, and Shared Reasons: A Defense of Exclusive Public Reason. Law and Philosophy 28 (5):493 - 536.
Kyla Ebels-Duggan (2010). The Beginning of Community: Politics in the Face of Disagreement. Philosophical Quarterly 60 (238):50-71.
Jason Marsh (2014). Conscientious Refusals and Reason‐Giving. Bioethics 28 (6):313-319.
Richard North (2012). Public Reason, Religious Restraint and Respect. Philosophia 40 (2):179-193.
Micah Schwartzman (2012). The Ethics of Reasoning From Conjecture. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (4):521-544.
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.
Chad Flanders (2012). The Mutability of Public Reason. Ratio Juris 25 (2):180-205.
James P. Sterba (1999). Reconciling Public Reason and Religious Values. Social Theory and Practice 25 (1):1-28.
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.
Brandon Morgan-Olsen (2010). Conceptual Exclusion and Public Reason. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (2):213-243.
Andrew Williams (2000). The Alleged Incompleteness of Public Reason. Res Publica 6 (2):199-211.
Added to index2011-10-18
Total downloads77 ( #55,348 of 1,906,956 )
Recent downloads (6 months)17 ( #38,460 of 1,906,956 )
How can I increase my downloads?