Theories of disagreement object to attempts to found normative primary principles of democracy, on the model of the famous Rawlsian principles of justice, that they misconceive the depth of moral disagreement. Along that line of reasoning, democracy is precisely the adequate procedure to decide on dispute, so that it cannot be constrained by a set of rights once and for all stated. However, a full-fledged procedural conception of democracy is impossible: the choice of democracy, rather than that of another procedure, (...) entails a minimal core of moral values. This study aims at specifying their nature. It is argued that individuals who commit themselves to democracy while disagreeing about justice share a minimal practical rationality, the concept of which, in spite of appearances, can be found in Rawlsian public reason. Indeed, public reason can be understood as a procedure carrying out the principle of equitable reciprocity, rather than a determined conception of justice. Since it constitutes a procedural concept of practical rationality, it makes it possible to outline a theory of democracy that takes into account disagreement about justice — and not only about the good. (shrink)

This paper deals with the connection between law and morality. Such a connection is relevant for political theory, since demonstrating that law necessarily implies a claim to justice would require fundamental rights to be considered the horizon of any legal system, instead of being considered as dependent on the axiological context of liberal democracies. The paper approaches the controversy starting from an overview of the work of the German philosopher Robert Alexy, in particular his attempt to establish an analytical link (...) between law and morality, and to this end considers law as a speech act with a claim to correctness. It then examines the critique put forward by Joseph Raz, that points out the lack of objectivity of this claim to correctness. In order to establish a moral foundation for law, the paper argues that it is necessary to take account of Karl-Otto Apel's attempt to establish the transcendental foundation of language, as well as of Habermas' critique of that attempt. In conclusion, it is argued that the debate about a possible link between law and morality sheds new light on contemporary debates on liberal justification in political theory. (shrink)