Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T16:52:47.787Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When Public Reason Fails Us: Convergence Discourse as Blood Oath

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2016

BRIAN KOGELMANN  and
STEPHEN G. W. STICH
BRIAN KOGELMANN*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona
STEPHEN G. W. STICH*
Affiliation:
University of Arizona and Yale Law School
*
Brian Kogelmann is a Ph.D. student, Department of Philosophy, University of Arizona, Tucson, ([email protected]).
Stephen G. W. Stich is a Ph.D. student, Department of Philosophy, University of Arizona, Tucson, and a JD student, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut ([email protected]).
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Public officials in John Rawls's well-ordered society face an assurance problem. They prefer to act in accordance with the political conception of justice, but only if they are assured that others will. On Paul Weithman's influential interpretation, Rawls attempts to solve this problem by claiming that public reason is an assurance mechanism. There are several problems with Rawls's solution: Public reason talk is too cheap to facilitate assurance, it is difficult to know when particular utterances express public reasons, and the requirements of public reason conflict with the fact of reasonable pluralism. We argue that convergence discourse—not public reason—solves the assurance problem by being a costly signal that indicates commitment to the political conception. This solution has none of Rawls's problems and has an interesting corollary: As diversity increases in society, so too does society's ability to solve the assurance problem. In short, the more diversity the better.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 110 , Issue 4 , November 2016 , pp. 717 - 730
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Aimone, Jason, Iannaccone, Laurence, Makowsky, Mike, and Rubin, Jared. 2013. “Endogenous Group Formation via Unproductive Costs.” Review of Economic Studies 80: 1215–36.Google Scholar
Aumann, Robert. [1976]2000. “Agreeing to Disagree.” In Collected Papers, Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 593–96.Google Scholar
Barry, Brian. 1995 Justice as Impartiality. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'Agostino, Fred. 2009. “From the Organization to the Division of Cognitive Labor.” Politics, Philosophy and Economics 8: 101–29.Google Scholar
D'Agostino, Fred. 2010. Naturalizing Epistemology: Thomas Kuhn and the “Essential Tension.” New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Joseph. 1987. “Cheap Talk, Coordination, and Entry.” RAND Journal of Economics 18: 34–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frohock, Fred M. 1997. “The Boundaries of Public Reason.” American Political Science Review 91: 833–34.Google Scholar
Gambetta, Diego. 2009. Codes of the Underworld: How Criminals Communicate. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gaus, Gerald. 2011. “A Tale of Two Sets: Public Reason in Equilibrium.” Public Affairs Quarterly 25: 305–25.Google Scholar
Gintis, Herbert, Smith, Eric Alden, and Bowles, Samuel. 2001. “Costly Signaling and Cooperation.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 213: 103–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grafen, Alan. 1990. “Biological Signals as Handicaps.” Journal of Theoretical Biology 144: 517–46.Google Scholar
Hadfield, Gillian K., and Macedo, Stephen. 2012. “Rational Reasonableness: Toward a Positive Theory of Public Reason.” Law and Ethics in Human Rights 6: 7–46.Google Scholar
Horton, John. 2003. “Rawls, Public Reason, and the Limits of Liberal Justification.” Contemporary Political Theory 2: 5–23.Google Scholar
Milgrom, Paul. 1981. “An Axiomatic Characterization of Common Knowledge.” Econometrica 49: 219–22.Google Scholar
Muldoon, Ryan. 2013. “Diversity and the Division of Cognitive Labor.” Philosophy Compass 8: 117–25.Google Scholar
Muldoon, Ryan. 2015. “Expanding the Justificatory Framework of Mill's Experiments in Living.” Utilitas 27: 179–94.Google Scholar
Muldoon, Ryan, and Weisberg, Michael. 2011. “Robustness and Idealization in Models of Cognitive Labor.” Synthese 183: 161–74.Google Scholar
Page, Scott. 2008. The Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. [1963]1999. “The Sense of Justice.” In Collected Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 96–116.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. [1993]2005. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. [1997]1999. “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited.” In Collected Papers. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 573–615.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Reidy, David A. 2000. “Rawls's Wide View of Public Reason: Not Wide Enough.” Res Publica 6: 49–72.Google Scholar
Scanlon, Thomas. 2002. “Rawls on Justification.” In The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. ed. Freeman, Samuel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 139–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thrasher, John, and Vallier, Kevin. 2015. “The Fragility of Consensus: Public Reason, Diversity, and Stability.” European Journal of Philosophy 23: 933–54.Google Scholar
Vallier, Kevin. 2011. “Convergence and Consensus in Public Reason.” Public Affairs Quarterly 25: 261–79.Google Scholar
Vallier, Kevin. 2014. Liberal Politics and Public Faith: Beyond Separation. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weithman, Paul. 2010. Why Political Liberalism? On John Rawls's Political Turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Weithman, Paul. 2015. “Inclusivism, Stability, and Assurance.” In Rawls and Religion, eds. Bailey, Tom and Gentile, Valentina. New York: Columbia University Press, 75–98.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.