Political Legitimacy Under Epistemic Constraints

F. Peter
{"title":"Political Legitimacy Under Epistemic Constraints","authors":"F. Peter","doi":"10.18574/nyu/9781479888696.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The aim of this chapter is to provide an epistemological argument for why public reasons matter for political legitimacy. A key feature of the public reason conception of legitimacy is that political decisions must be justified to the citizens. They must be justified in terms of reasons that are either shared qua reasons or that, while not shared qua reasons, support the same political decision. Call the relevant reasons public reasons. Critics of the public reason conception, by contrast, argue that political legitimacy requires justification simpliciter—political decisions must be justified in terms of the reasons that apply. Call the relevant reasons objective reasons. The debate between defenders and critics of a public reason conception of political legitimacy thus focuses on whether objective reasons or public reasons are the right basis for the justification of political decisions. I will grant to critics of a public reason conception that there are objective reasons and allow that such reasons can affect the legitimacy of political decisions. But I will show, focusing on the epistemic circumstances of political decision-making, that it does not follow that the justification of those decisions is necessarily in terms of those reasons.","PeriodicalId":119174,"journal":{"name":"Political Legitimacy","volume":"106 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Legitimacy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18574/nyu/9781479888696.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

The aim of this chapter is to provide an epistemological argument for why public reasons matter for political legitimacy. A key feature of the public reason conception of legitimacy is that political decisions must be justified to the citizens. They must be justified in terms of reasons that are either shared qua reasons or that, while not shared qua reasons, support the same political decision. Call the relevant reasons public reasons. Critics of the public reason conception, by contrast, argue that political legitimacy requires justification simpliciter—political decisions must be justified in terms of the reasons that apply. Call the relevant reasons objective reasons. The debate between defenders and critics of a public reason conception of political legitimacy thus focuses on whether objective reasons or public reasons are the right basis for the justification of political decisions. I will grant to critics of a public reason conception that there are objective reasons and allow that such reasons can affect the legitimacy of political decisions. But I will show, focusing on the epistemic circumstances of political decision-making, that it does not follow that the justification of those decisions is necessarily in terms of those reasons.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认识论约束下的政治合法性
本章的目的是提供一个认识论论证,说明为什么公共原因对政治合法性很重要。公共理性的合法性概念的一个关键特征是,政治决策必须在公民看来是正当的。它们必须是正当的,要么是共同的理由,要么是虽然不是共同的理由,但支持同一政治决定的理由。把相关原因称为公共原因。相比之下,公共理性概念的批评者认为,政治合法性需要更简单的辩护——政治决策必须根据适用的理由进行辩护。把相关原因称为客观原因。因此,政治合法性公共理性概念的捍卫者和批评者之间的争论集中在客观原因还是公共原因是政治决策正当化的正确基础。我同意批评公共理性概念的人认为存在客观原因,并承认这些原因可以影响政治决策的合法性。但我将重点关注政治决策的认知环境,这并不意味着这些决策的正当性一定是基于这些原因。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Trustworthy Government and Legitimating Beliefs Is Political Legitimacy Worth Promoting? On the Empirical Measurement of Legitimacy Evaluating Consensual Models of Governance The Sovereign and the Republic a
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1