David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):101-115 (2009)
Rawls’ idea of overlapping consensus is crucial for the public justification of a political conception of justice in modern democratic societies. While overlapping consensus is mostly understood empirically, in the first part of this article we argue that a normative interpretation is more appropriate. Moreover, we try to show that Baccarini’s proposal of qualified consensus, in contrast to an assumed empirical reading, actually exploits the potentials of a normative reading. In the second part, we concern ourselves with the epistemological implications of a normative understanding of overlapping consensus or, more precisely, with the issue of epistemic deontologism. If we claim that consensus should be understood as agreement about not already existing beliefs and reasons, but about beliefs and reasons that citizens should acquire, it can be argued that this implies a thesis about voluntary control over beliefs. We try to show that a normative reading can be compatible with strategies based both on doxastic voluntarism and doxastic involuntarism
|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
Tong Shijun (2012). “Overlapping Consensus” on “Overlapping Consensus”. Journal of Philosophical Research 37 (Supplement):29-45.
Enrico Zoffoli (2012). The Place of Comprehensive Doctrines in Political Liberalism: On Some Common Misgivings About the Subject and Function of the Overlapping Consensus. Res Publica 18 (4):351-366.
Hun Chung (2008). Can Classical Utilitarianism Participate in Overlapping Consensus? Why Not? Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 10:53-60.
Theresa Waynand Tobin (2005). The Non-Modularity of Moral Knowledge. Social Philosophy Today 21:33-50.
Remi Odedoyin (2000). Overlapping Consensus. Journal of Philosophical Research 25:323-343.
Jack Russell Weinstein (2012). Overlapping Consensus or Marketplace of Religions? Rawls and Smith. Philosophia 40 (2):223-236.
Aviezer Tucker (2003). The Epistemic Significance of Consensus. Inquiry 46 (4):501 – 521.
Karl-Otto Apel (2001). Is a Political Conception of “Overlapping Consensus” an Adequate Basis for Global Justice? The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 11:1-15.
Bruce Jennings (1991). Possibilities of Consensus: Toward Democratic Moral Discourse. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 16 (4):447-463.
Harald Grimen (1997). Consensus and Normative Validity. Inquiry 40 (1):47 – 61.
Brian Feltham, Value Engaged – Justificatory Neutrality, Reasonable Consensus and the Value of Value-Beliefs.
Ted Preston (2004). Environmental Values, Pluralism, and Stability. Ethics, Place and Environment 7 (1 & 2):73 – 83.
Boaz Miller (2013). When is Consensus Knowledge Based? Distinguishing Shared Knowledge From Mere Agreement. Synthese 190 (7):1293-1316.
Miriam Solomon (2001). Consensus in Science. The Proceedings of the Twentieth World Congress of Philosophy 2001:193-204.
John Halliday (1999). Political Liberalism and Citizenship Education: Towards Curriculum Reform. British Journal of Educational Studies 47 (1):43 - 55.
Added to index2011-01-09
Total downloads13 ( #179,414 of 1,700,244 )
Recent downloads (6 months)2 ( #269,935 of 1,700,244 )
How can I increase my downloads?