{"title":"哈贝马斯·罗尔斯对“再传播论”的争论","authors":"J. Finlayson","doi":"10.3366/PER.2007.3.1.144","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article outlines a critique of the currently widespread assessment that the there is nothing at issue in Habermas Rawls debate. It shows what is wrong with this assessment and explains how it arose. Finally it attempts to outline what is really at issue in the Habermas Rawls debate, and se tthe debate in the wider framework of Kantian justifications of political norms.","PeriodicalId":381236,"journal":{"name":"Politics and Ethics Review","volume":"42 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Habermas Rawls dispute Redivivus\",\"authors\":\"J. Finlayson\",\"doi\":\"10.3366/PER.2007.3.1.144\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article outlines a critique of the currently widespread assessment that the there is nothing at issue in Habermas Rawls debate. It shows what is wrong with this assessment and explains how it arose. Finally it attempts to outline what is really at issue in the Habermas Rawls debate, and se tthe debate in the wider framework of Kantian justifications of political norms.\",\"PeriodicalId\":381236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Politics and Ethics Review\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Politics and Ethics Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3366/PER.2007.3.1.144\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics and Ethics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/PER.2007.3.1.144","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
This article outlines a critique of the currently widespread assessment that the there is nothing at issue in Habermas Rawls debate. It shows what is wrong with this assessment and explains how it arose. Finally it attempts to outline what is really at issue in the Habermas Rawls debate, and se tthe debate in the wider framework of Kantian justifications of political norms.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
