Rainer Forst and others claim that normative moral and political claims depend for their justification on meeting a requirement of reciprocal and general acceptability (RGA). I focus on a core component of RGA, namely, the idea of reciprocity of reasons, distinguish between two readings of RGA, and argue that if reciprocity of reasons is understood in Forst’s terms, then RGA, even on the most promising reading, may not serve as a requirement of moral or political justification at all. The discussion (...) concludes with constructive observations on a path forward for theorists who nevertheless are inclined to hold on to RGA. (shrink)

According to Rainer Forst, (i) moral and political claims must meet a requirement of reciprocal and general acceptability (RGA) while (ii) we are under a duty in engaged discursive practice to justify such claims to others, or be able to do so, on grounds that meet RGA. The paper critically engages this view. I argue that Forst builds a key component of RGA, i.e., reciprocity of reasons, on an idea of the reasonable that undermines both (i) and (ii): if RGA (...) builds on this idea, RGA is viciously regressive and a duty of justification to meet RGA fails to be agent transparent. This negative result opens the door for alternative conceptions of reciprocity and generality. I then suggest that a more promising conception of reciprocity and generality needs to build on an idea of the reasonable that helps to reconcile the emancipatory or protective aspirations of reciprocal and general justification with its egalitarian commitments. But this requires to downgrade RGA in the order of justification and to determine on prior, substantive grounds what level of discursive influence in reciprocal and general justification relevant agents ought to have. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe question of how to engage with stakeholders in situations of value conflict to create value that includes a plurality of conflicting stakeholder value perspectives represents one of the crucial current challenges of stakeholder engagement as well as of value creation stakeholder theory. To address this challenge, we conceptualize a discursive sharing process between affected stakeholders that is oriented toward discursive justification involving multiple procedural steps. This sharing process provides procedural guidance for firms and stakeholders to create pluralistic stakeholder value (...) through the discursive accommodation of diverging stakeholder value perspectives. The outcomes of such a discursive value-sharing process range from stakeholder value dissensus to low and increasing levels of stakeholder value congruence to stakeholder value consensus. Hence, this article contributes to the emerging literature on integrative stakeholder engagement by conceptualizing a procedural framework that is neither overly oriented towards dissensus nor consensus. (shrink)

O artigo visa discutir o papel que a obra de John Rawls possui para o projeto teórico de Rainer Forst. Trata-se de acompanharas principaisleituras que Forst realiza sobre esse autor e discutir algumas consequências que podem ser delas depreendidas para seu modelo crítico. Assim, em primeiro lugar, discute-se a tentativa de Forst em aproximar os critérios de reciprocidade e universalidade, de seu princípio de justificação, à teoria de Rawls, ao mesmo tempo em que acusa Rawls de que sua configuração da (...) posição original atribui conteúdos substantivos aos princípios de justiça, que, na verdade, só poderiam ser concebidos comoum princípio fundamental de justificação (I). Em seguida, observa-se a leitura que Forst realiza sobre o debate entre Habermas e Rawls, a fim de extrair uma alternativa a ambos. Novamente Forst faz um movimento de aproximação e crítica a Rawls (II). Em um terceiro momento, examina-se outra tentativa de aproximação e superação à obra de Rawls, mas dessa vezatravés da distinção entre duas imagens da justiça(III). Por fim, o artigo apresenta duas interpretações gerais sobe essas leituras: que existem certas constantes nos argumentos que unem e que pretendem superar Rawls; e que contém possíveis problemas,com consequências que ocasionam certos entraves para sua teoriaem sua pretensão de ser crítica. (shrink)