The paper begins with a hypothetical story and asks: how should a Rawlsian political liberal state justify its coercion over Nozick, an unreasonable but intelligible citizen (UIC)? I use this thought experiment to illustrate a recent critique of political liberalism. It argues that political liberalism coerces UIC on a sectarian ground. Call it the sectarian critique. My paper addresses the sectarian critique from a political liberal perspective. I suggest a condition of state conjecture, which argues that the state officials should (...) use conjecture to engage with UIC, like Nozick. This brings two benefits to the stability of a political liberal society. First, UIC may be convinced and become reasonable citizens. Secondly, the activity of offering conjectures can strengthen the public confidence of political liberalism as a valuable collective project. Although, eventually, some UIC may remain unpersuaded and be coerced on grounds that are unjustified to them, the force of the sectarian critique will be significantly weakened after the condition of state conjecture is fulfilled. (shrink)

John Rawls's transition from A Theory of Justice to Political Liberalism was driven by his rejection of Theory's account of stability. The key to his later account of stability is the idea of public reason. We see Rawls's account of stability as an attempt to solve a mutual assurance problem. We maintain that Rawls's solution fails because his primary assurance mechanism, in the form of public reason, is fragile. His conception of public reason relies on a condition of consensus that (...) we argue is unrealistic in modern, pluralistic democracies. After rejecting Rawls's conception of public reason, we offer an ‘indirect alternative’ that we believe is much more robust. We cite experimental evidence to back up this claim. (shrink)

Este artigo tem o objetivo de apresentar e desenvolver as críticas feministas à Teoria da Justiça de John Rawls, especialmente por meio do diálogo e das contribuições de Martha Nussbaum e Susan Okin para um liberalismo feminista. Para tanto, discutimos três pontos centrais no debate entre essas duas filósofas feministas e Rawls: a) a noção de família como uma instituição básica da sociedade; b) a distinção entre doutrinas morais abrangentes razoáveis e não razoáveis; e c) a concepção de pessoa política (...) com autonomia plena. As críticas à teoria rawlsiana feitas por feministas demonstram a riqueza e a profundidade de Rawls para o liberalismo contemporâneo, ao mesmo tempo em que apontam para os problemas que teorias que tradicionalmente não desenvolvem um olhar crítico para a situação generificada dos sistemas democráticos encontram ao abordar a situação da cidadania das mulheres. As demandas do feminismo liberal, relacionadas à situação de mulheres ao redor do mundo, são muito bem-articuladas por Nussbaum a partir de sua crítica interna ao liberalismo rawlsiano, enfatizando que algumas das disposições teóricas desse autor não parecem ser radicais o suficiente para garantir a disponibilidade integral dessas capacidades para mulheres e crianças. Da mesma forma, o diálogo de Nussbaum com as críticas de Okin aprofundaram o debate sobre os limites da teoria da justiça rawlsiana. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe article contributes to current theoretical debates about the political significance of narrative imagination by drawing on Camus’s and Arendt’s existential aesthetic judging sensibility. It seeks to displace the prevalent tendency to probe literature for its moral-philosophical insights, and instead delves into the experiential reality of our engagement with literary works. It starts from Martha Nussbaum’s recognition of the literary ability to account for the fragility of human affairs, yet finds her reduction of narrative imagination to the role of furthering (...) moral lessons wanting politically. Against this background, the article reclaims Camus’s and Arendt’s dialogical-representative judging orientation and its insight into the narrative ability to respond to the intersubjective character of politics. As such, their aesthetic sensibility reveals the potential political significance of literary imagination in its capacity to open a public space where the contradictions of our situated existence can be confronted through politics between plural equals. (shrink)

Past justifications of free expression rely on the crucial role speech plays in deliberative democracies and respecting persons. Beneath each of these justifications lies the common goal of creating greater justice for individuals and groups. Yet 20th century political liberalism limits the kinds of arguments that ought to motivate political decisions. In this paper I explore how an inclusive political decision-making process can bring about a more just world. By relying on personal views and compassion rather than impartiality and reasonability, (...) political actors can engage in a discourse that results in greater understanding among persons and lasting community change. (shrink)

Rawlsian idea of public reason refers to the boundaries on political justification of coercive laws and public policies that have wide impact on lives of citizens. The boundaries of public reason means that political justification should be based on reasons we can expect every citizen can reasonably accept independently of any comprehensive religious, philosophical or moral doctrine to which she adhere. In modern liberal democracies characterized by reasonable pluralism of comprehensive doctrines it is unjustified for political argumentation to be based (...) on claims that many citizens can not accept. As I understand it, the point of idea of public reason is to strengthen the relationship of civic trust or civic friendship that can ensure inherent stability of just political regime. An important part of the idea of public reason is how it incorporates scientific claims in political argumentation. Rawls writes that citizens are to base their public justification on „presently accepted general beliefs and forms of reasoning found in common sense, and the methods and conclusions of science when those are not controversial.“ If the idea of public reason is the source of political stability it is necessary to answer what it means that conclusions of science are controversial in political and social context? First, scientific controversy is different from controversy of comprehensive doctrines. Science stands outside of comprehensive doctrines so conclusions of science will not be controversial because they clash with comprehensive beliefs, but they will be controversial if they rely on comprehensive beliefs. Second, if conclusions of science are controversial within scientific community, if there are some expert witness disputing its validity, then maybe value-judgments can enter to set standards for certification of the scientific claim. If potential consequences of scientific claim are bad for welfare of some group in society than standards of evidence that will certify this claim must go up. Finally, even if some scientific claim has been certified it still can be controversial as a premise in political justification. The reason can be that certification has not been transparent and many citizens do not realize that this claim is part of scientific consensus. Again, the criterion for controversy of scientific conclusions in political context is connected to the notion of trust and not to the validity of scientific claim or supportive evidence by itself. (shrink)