Autonomy, Community, and the Justification of Public Reason

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2024-05-27 DOI:10.1017/can.2024.18
Emil Andersson
{"title":"Autonomy, Community, and the Justification of Public Reason","authors":"Emil Andersson","doi":"10.1017/can.2024.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recently, there have been attempts at offering new justifications of the Rawlsian idea of <jats:italic>public reason.</jats:italic> Blain Neufeld has suggested that the ideal of <jats:italic>political autonomy</jats:italic> justifies public reason, while R.J. Leland and Han van Wietmarschen have sought to justify the idea by appealing to the value of <jats:italic>political community.</jats:italic> In this paper, I show that both proposals are vulnerable to a common problem. In realistic circumstances, they will often turn into reasons to <jats:italic>oppose</jats:italic>, rather than support, public reason. However, this counterintuitive result can be avoided if we conceive of autonomy and community differently.","PeriodicalId":51573,"journal":{"name":"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2024.18","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Recently, there have been attempts at offering new justifications of the Rawlsian idea of public reason. Blain Neufeld has suggested that the ideal of political autonomy justifies public reason, while R.J. Leland and Han van Wietmarschen have sought to justify the idea by appealing to the value of political community. In this paper, I show that both proposals are vulnerable to a common problem. In realistic circumstances, they will often turn into reasons to oppose, rather than support, public reason. However, this counterintuitive result can be avoided if we conceive of autonomy and community differently.
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
自治、共同体与公共理性的正当性
最近,有人试图为罗尔斯的公共理性思想提供新的理由。布莱恩-诺伊菲尔德(Blain Neufeld)提出,政治自治的理想证明了公共理性的合理性,而R.J. 利兰(R.J. Leland)和韩-范-维特马申(Han van Wietmarschen)则试图通过诉诸政治共同体的价值来证明这一理念的合理性。在本文中,我将说明这两种提议都容易受到一个共同问题的影响。在现实情况下,它们往往会变成反对而非支持公共理性的理由。然而,如果我们对自治和共同体有不同的理解,就可以避免这种反直觉的结果。
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
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
16
期刊最新文献
Frege and the Fundamental Abstraction Roderick Chisholm’s Philosophical Cartoons No Peeking: Peer Review and Presumptive Blinding Worlds and Eyeglasses: Cavendish’s Blazing World in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, The Black Dossier What Might Be in the Pure Business of Being True?
×
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