Abstract
This article discusses the legitimacy argument on which many liberals ground their demand for restraining the use of religious convictions in processes of political deliberation and decision making. According to this argument the exercise of political power can only be justified by 'neutral' grounds, i.e. grounds that are able to find reciprocal, hypothetical consent. The author argues that this understanding of political legitimacy is not distinctive of the liberal tradition. His thesis is that reciprocal, hypothetical consent is not sufficient and only in a certain, restricted sense necessary for justifying the use of political power.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Ackerman, B., Social Justice and the Liberal State, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980.
Barry, B., Justice as Impartiality, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996.
Bedford-Strohm, H., Vorrang für die Armen: Auf dem Weg zu einer theologischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit, Gütersloh: Chr. Kaiser Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1993.
Bird, C., Mutual Respect and Neutral Justification, Ethics107 (1996), pp. 62–96
Burg, W. van der and Brom, F. W. A., Eine Verteidigung der staatlichen Neutralität, in K.P. Rippe (ed.), Angewandte Ethik in der pluralistischen Gesellschaft, Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1999, pp. 53–82.
D'Agostino, F. Gaus, G. F. (eds.), Public Reason, Aldershot/Brookfield/Singapore/Sydney: Ashgate and Dartmouth, 1998.
DePaul, M., Liberal Exclusions and Foundationalism, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1 (1998), pp.103–120.
Dworkin, R., Taking Rights Seriously, New Impression with a Reply to Critics, London: Duckworth 1981.
Dworkin, R., Liberalism, in R. Dworkin, A Matter of Principle, Cambridge and London: Havard University Press, 1985, pp. 181–204.
Galston, W. A., Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Greenawalt, K., Private Consciences and Public Reasons, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Grotefeld, St., Politische Deliberation und religiöse Uberzeugungen. Kritische überlegungen zu John Rawls' Idee öffentlicher Vernunft aus theologischer Sicht, in K.P. Rippe (ed.), Angewandte Ethik in der pluralistischen Gesellschaft, Freiburg: Universitätsverlag Freiburg, 1999, pp. 83–107.
Hampton, J., Contract and Consent, in R.E. Goodin and P. Pettit (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Oxford and Malden: Blackwell Publishers, 1995, pp. 379–393.
Kant, I., On the Common Saying, This May be True in Theory, but it does not Apply in Practice', in Kant's Political Writings, ed. with an Introduction and Notes by H. Reiss, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970, pp. 61–92.
Kymlicka, W., Liberal Individualism and Liberal Neutrality, Ethics 99 (1989), pp. 883–905.
Locke, J., Two Treatises of Government, ed. with an Introduction and Notes by P. Laslett, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1997.
Marneffe, P. de, Liberalism, Liberty, and Neutrality, Philosophy & Public Affairs 19 (1990), pp. 253–274.
Perry, M., Religion in Politics: Constitutional and Moral Perspectives, New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Pettit, P., Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997.
Rawls, J., Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1996.
Rawls, J., The Idea of Public Reason Revisited, in J. Rawls, Collected Papers, ed. by S. Freeman, Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, pp. 573–615.
Raz, J., The Morality of Freedom, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988.
Raz, J., Government by Consent, in J. Raz, Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995, pp. 355–369.
Solum, L. B., Constructing an Ideal of Public Reason, San Diego Law Review 30 (1993), pp. 729–762.
Waldron, J., Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism, in J. Waldron, Liberal Rights: Collected Papers 1981–1991, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 35–62.
Weithman, P. J. (ed.), Religion and Contemporary Liberalism, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1997.
Wolterstorff, N., The Role of Religion in Decision and Discussions of Political Issues, in R. Audi and N. Wolterstorff (eds.), Religion in the Public Square. The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate, Lanham/Boulder/New York/London: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 1997, pp. 67–120.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grotefeld, S. Self-restraint and the Principle of Consent: Some considerations of the Liberal Conception of Political Legitmacy. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 3, 77–92 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009940722083
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009940722083