Hostname: page-component-669899f699-g7b4s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-28T21:02:32.319Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Public Reason and the Exclusion of Oppressed Groups

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2017

BEN CROSS
BEN CROSS*
Affiliation:
Wuhan University
*
*<bcro8137@uni.sydney.edu.au>
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The ‘consensus’ model of public reason, associated with John Rawls’s political liberalism, has been criticised for excluding certain reasons from receiving consideration where the justification of the constitutional essentials is concerned. One limitation of these criticisms is that they typically focus on the exclusion of reasons political liberals are committed to excluding, notably reasons based on religious and comprehensive views. I argue that public reason excludes some reasons, central to the interests of many oppressed groups, that public reason advocates will agree should not be excluded.

L’idée de raison publique comme «consensus», associée au libéralisme politique de John Rawls, a été attaquée du fait de sa supposée incapacité à permettre la prise en compte de certaines raisons dans les cas où la substance même de la constitution est en question. Une limitation de ces critiques est qu’elles se concentrent habituellement sur l’exclusion de ces raisons que les libéraux eux-mêmes s’efforcent d’exclure, en particulier des raisons fondées sur des vues globales ou religieuses. Je défends l’idée selon laquelle la raison publique exclut de fait certaines raisons, essentielles aux intérêts de nombreux groupes opprimés, que les tenants de la raison publique eux-mêmes considèreraient ne pas devoir être exclues.

Keywords

public reasonJohn Rawlspolitical liberalismpublicityprovisoconjectureideal theory
Type
Articles
Information
Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review / Revue canadienne de philosophie , Volume 56 , Issue 2 , June 2017 , pp. 241 - 265
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Philosophical Association 2017 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Arneson, R. 2008 “Justice is Not Equality,” Ratio 21 (4): 371–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baehr, A. 2008 “Perfectionism, Feminism, and Public Reason,” Law and Philosophy 27 (2): 193–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benhabib, S. 1992 “Models of Public Space,” in Situating the Self: Gender, Community, and Postmodernism in Contemporary Ethics. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 89–120.Google Scholar
Besch, T.M. 2004 On Practical Constructivism and Reasonableness. PhD Dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Besch, T.M. 2014 “On Discursive Respect,” Social Theory and Practice 40 (3): 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besch, T.M. 2017 “Political liberalism and Public Justification: the Deep View,” unpublished manuscript. Available at https://whu-cn.academia.edu/ThomasBesch.Google Scholar
Cohen, G.A. 2008 Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. 2009 “Truth and Public Reason,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (1): 2–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cross, B. 2016 “Rawlsian Liberalism, Justice for the Worst Off, and the Limited Capacity of Political Institutions,” Sophia 55 (2): 215–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberle, C. 2002 Religious Convictions in Liberal Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Enoch, D. 2015 “Against Public Reason,” in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, eds. Sobel, D., Vallentyne, P., Wall, S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 112–142.Google Scholar
Estlund, D. 1998 “Liberalism, Equality and Fraternity in Cohen’s Critique of Rawls,” The Journal of Political Philosophy 6 (1): 99–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fricker, M. 2007 Epistemic Injustice. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaus, G. 2011 The Order of Public Reason. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 2006 “Religion in the Public Sphere,” European Journal of Philosophy 14 (1): 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larmore, C. 1996 The Morals of Modernity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larmore, C. 2015 “Political Liberalism: Its Motivation and Goals,” in Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Volume 1, eds. Sobel, D., Vallentyne, P. and Wall, S.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 63–88.Google Scholar
Hartley, C., and Watson, L. 2009 “Feminism, Religion, and Shared Reasons: A Defense of Exclusive Public Reason,” Law and Philosophy 28 (5): 493–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macedo, S. 1990 Liberal Virtues. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macedo, S. 1995 “Liberal Civic Education and Religious Fundamentalism: The Case of God v. John Rawls?,” Ethics 105 (3): 468–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macedo, S. 2000 Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan-Olsen, B. 2010 “Conceptual Exclusion and Public Reason,” Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (2): 213–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, P. 2009 “Is Public Reason Hostile to Religion?,” in Reflections on Rawls: An Assessment of His Legacy, ed. Young, S.. Burlington: Ashgate, pp. 153–176.Google Scholar
Okin, S. 1994 “Political Liberalism, Justice, and Gender,” Ethics 105 (1): 23–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quong, J. 2010 “Justice Beyond Equality,” Social Theory and Practice 36 (2): 315–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quong, J. 2011 Liberalism without Perfection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971 A Theory of Justice. Harvard: Belknap University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 2001 Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 2005 Political Liberalism, expanded edition. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. 1998 “Disagreement in Politics,” American Journal of Jurisprudence 43 (1): 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, S. 1994 The Rejection of Consequentialism, 2 nd edition. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, M. 2004 “The Completeness of Public Reason,” Politics, Philosophy and Economics 3 (2): 191–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, M. 2011 “The Sincerity of Public Reason,” Journal of Political Philosophy 19 (4): 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartzman, M. 2012 “The Ethics of Reasoning from Conjecture,” The Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (4): 521–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, P. 1986 “All Animals are Equal,” in Applied Ethics, ed. Singer, P.. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp 215–228.Google Scholar
Stout, J. 2004 Democracy and Tradition. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Tan, K. 2004 “Justice and Personal Pursuits,” The Journal of Philosophy 101 (7): 331–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, A. 1998 “Incentives, Inequality, and Publicity,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 27 (3): 225–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, I. 1990 Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar