Convergence liberalism and the problem of disagreement concerning public justification

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47 (4):541-564 (2017)
Download Edit this record How to cite View on PhilPapers
Abstract
The ‘convergence conception’ of political liberalism has become increasingly popular in recent years. Steven Wall has shown that convergence liberals face a serious dilemma in responding to disagreement about whether laws are publicly justified. What I call the ‘conjunctive approach’ to such disagreement threatens anarchism, while the ‘non-conjunctive’ approach appears to render convergence liberalism internally inconsistent. This paper defends the non-conjunctive approach, which holds that the correct view of public justification should be followed even if some citizens do not consider enacted laws to be publicly justified. My argument sheds light on the fundamental structure of convergence liberalism.
Reprint years
2017
ISBN(s)
PhilPapers/Archive ID
BILCLA
Upload history
Archival date: 2017-01-05
View other versions
Added to PP index
2017-01-04

Total views
202 ( #25,147 of 56,024 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
25 ( #30,153 of 56,024 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.