Convergence liberalism and the problem of disagreement concerning public justification

Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47 (4):541-564 (2017)
  Copy   BIBTEX

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.

Author's Profile

Paul Billingham
Oxford University

Analytics

Added to PP
2017-01-04

Downloads
521 (#30,022)

6 months
122 (#27,035)

Historical graph of downloads since first upload
This graph includes both downloads from PhilArchive and clicks on external links on PhilPapers.
How can I increase my downloads?