There appears to be a tension between two commitments in liberalism. The first is that citizens, as rational agents possessing dignity, are owed a justification for principles of justice. The second is that members of society who do not meet the requirements of rational agency are owed justice. These notions conflict because the first commitment is often expressed through the device of the social contract, which seems to confine the scope of justice to rational agents. So, contractarianism seems to ignore (...) the justice claims of the severely cognitively impaired. To solve this problem, Martha Nussbaum proposes the capabilities approach. The justifiability condition, on this approach, is met by the idea of overlapping consensus. This essay argues that overlapping consensus cannot meet liberalism’s justifiability condition, nor is it more inclusive of the cognitively impaired. Therefore, we have reason to retain the contract device and look for another way to ensure that liberalism respects the justice claims of all. (shrink)

Ha llegado a ser un lugar común aseverar la influencia de Kant en la obra de Rawls; sin embargo, el constructivismo político significó un rechazo del universalismo que es imposible explicar en términos kantianos. Lo que sigue es un intento de evaluar la tesis del consenso superpuesto a la luz de la concepción general de la filosofía política y la razón práctica en Hegel.

Rawls symbolise les niveaux de raisonnement moral public et non public par l'utilisation des notions de raisonnable et de rationnel. Dans le contexte du pluralisme raisonnable qui caractérise les sociétés démocratiques libérales, il propose une articulation de ces notions qui doit permettre aux citoyens d'adhérer à leurs propres conceptions générales du bien sans pour autant compromettre l'existence d'une conception commune de la justice. R vise à articuler doctrines particulières et conception commune de façon à laisser la place à l'expression des (...) convictions personnelles des individus sans par ailleurs donner une signification égoïste à l'association politique. Cependant, lorsque Rawls précise le contenu de cette conception commune de la justice et la motivation des individus à y adhérer, il menace dangereusement la spécificité morale qu'il accorde en principe à la notion de raisonnable, symbole de cette raison publique, commune, partagée par les citoyens. Après avoir démontré cette difficulté, je souligne en conclusion deux raisons qui y contribuent, soit d'une part la prétention de Rawls de définir un libéralisme strictement politique et d'autre part la difficulté d'articuler une conception cohérente et acceptable de la motivation morale.Rawls uses the notions of the reasonable et the rational to symbolise two levels of moral reasoning : a public one and a non-public one. Reasonable pluralism characterizes liberal democratic societies ; in this context, Rawls looks for a specific articulation of public reason and non- public reasons which could allow citizens to pursue their own conception of the good without compromising the adoption of a common standpoint. Rawls thus wants to link the common point of view of public reason with the comprehensive doctrines citizens defend so as to let them free to build on their own conception, without the political association being reduced to a mere modus Vivendi of egoist people. (shrink)

RÉSUMÉ Dans ce texte, l'auteur analyse et réfléchit sur la critique posée par le philosophe allemand Jürgen Habermas à l'encontre du libéralisme politique de son homologue américain John Rawls. Insistant sur quelques thèmes clés, l'auteur se penche, dans un premier temps, sur la critique formulée à l'encontre du modèle d'autonomie politique et individuelle développé par Rawls. Dans un deuxième temps, il examine la position habermasienne à l'égard du discours deformation des normes élaboré par Rawls. Cette étude fait ressortir certaines lacunes (...) de la théorie rawlsienne au regard du monde contemporain et propose une approche alternative tenant davantage compte de Vintersubjectivité et de la démocratie. ABSTRACT In this text, the author analyses and considers the critic of German philosopher Jürgen Habermas over the political liberalism of his american homologue John Rawls. The author first looks at the critics formulated against Rawls's model of political and individual autonomy. The author then proceeds to examine Habermas's position regarding Rawls's discourse on norm formation. This study shows certain lacunas in Rawls's theory in regard of today's society and proposes an alternative approach which would take into account democracy and inter subjectivity. (shrink)

This paper interprets the relation between justice and legitimacy found in John Rawls's Political Liberalism and then applies it to the field of transitional justice. The author argues that transitional mechanisms can be better defended in terms of “legitimacy” than in “justice,” because the circumstances of transitional justice admit of reasonable disagreement over “just” public policy. In such circumstances, policy recommendations can always be construed as falling short of justice, thus raising plausible concerns over their normative justification. This paper attempts (...) to answer such concerns by justifying transitional mechanisms as morally appropriate yet less than fully just. The author explains how the concept of legitimacy facilitates such a justification and how such a justification can secure the normative grounds that are ironically threatened by investigations relying on a concept of justice. (shrink)