Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mggfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-23T13:23:52.646Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DID MOST BRITS FAIL IN THEIR CIVIC DUTIES IN THE EU REFERENDUM?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2017

Christina Easton
Get access

Abstract

What sorts of reasons should citizens have in mind when they cast votes? Arguments from both sides of the EU referendum debate are used here to raise questions about what our motivations should be when voting. The article introduces John Rawls's requirement to give public reasons that are acceptable to all reasonable people.

Type
Research Article
Information
Think , Volume 16 , Issue 45 , Spring 2017 , pp. 7 - 14
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal Institute of Philosophy 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.)

References

Note

1 Rawls officially restricts his argument to ‘constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice’, but he does also say that ‘it is usually highly desirable to settle political questions by invoking the values of public reason’. So even if Rawls didn't count the referendum as a ‘constitutional essential’, he would probably still think that we should have voted according to public reasons.