Switch to: References

Citations of:

The Journal of Political Philosophy Index, Volume 19

[author unknown]
Journal of Political Philosophy 19 (4):496-497 (2011)

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Public reason, non-public reasons, and the accessibility requirement.Jason Tyndal - 2019 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 49 (8):1062-1082.
    In Liberalism without Perfection, Jonathan Quong develops what is perhaps the most comprehensive defense of the consensus model of public reason – a model which incorporates both a public-reasons-only requirement and an accessibility requirement framed in terms of shared evaluative standards. While the consensus model arguably predominates amongst public reason liberals, it is criticized by convergence theorists who reject both the public-reasons-only requirement and the accessibility requirement. In this paper, I argue that while we have good reason to reject Quong’s (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Can my religion influence my conception of justice? Political liberalism and the role of comprehensive doctrines.Paul Billingham - 2017 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20 (4):402-424.
    In his last works, John Rawls explicitly argued for an overlapping consensus on a family of reasonable liberal political conceptions of justice, rather than just one. This ‘Deep Version’ of political liberalism opens up new questions about the relationship between citizens’ political conceptions, from which they must draw and offer public reasons in their political advocacy, and their comprehensive doctrines. These questions centre on whether a reasonable citizen’s choice of political conception can be influenced by her comprehensive doctrine. In this (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  • Fairness to non-participants: a case for a practice-independent egalitarian baseline.Merten Reglitz - 2017 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20 (4): 466-485.
    Proponents of practice-dependent egalitarianism argue that egalitarian duties and entitlements only apply among participants in morally relevant practices. In this paper, I argue that these views are implausible because they allow for objectionable treatment of non-participants. I show that it is impossible, on the basis of practice-internal considerations alone, to determine the extent to which the pursuit of practices can permissibly limit the opportunities of non-participants. There are opportunities beyond the current holdings of practices to which no one has a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • Global justice, states, and the relational view.Christine Hobden - 2019 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 22 (4):371-389.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  • The role of interpretation of existing practice in normative political argument.Sune Lægaard - 2019 - Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 22 (1):87-102.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations