Public Justification

Aumann’s theorem states that no individual should agree to disagree under a range of assumptions. Political liberalism appears to presuppose these assumptions with the idealized conditions of public reason. We argue Aumann’s theorem demonstrates they nevertheless cannot be simultaneously held with what is arguably political liberalism’s most central tenet. That is, the tenet of reasonable pluralism, which implies we can rationally agree to disagree over conceptions of the good. We finish by elaborating a way of relaxing one of the theorem’s (...) axioms that arguably lends itself to a coherent account of political liberalism, namely the condition of indexical independence. (shrink)

What could philosophical or justice perspectives contribute to climate (and other applied philosophy) policy discussions? This question is important for philosophers on government policy committees. This article identifies two novel concerns about such contexts (which I call ‘contingent selection’ and ‘committee deference’) and systematizes some potential methodologies before arguing for a previously unrecognized methodology that focuses on disciplinary convergence. After supporting this methodology by providing several justifications, the Appendix explains how to apply it when evaluating a carbon budget. This methodology (...) and its application are meant to be of interest to both theorists and practitioners. [Open access]. (shrink)

Der Kodex, mit dem sich die Produzenten des universellen Wissens in der Gelehrtenrepublik identifizierten, befindet sich während des 18. Jahrhunderts im Wandel. Dies entnehmen wir einer bekannten Studie von Goldgar (1995), die unter anderem von der Ausbreitung der Zeitungspresse handelt. Zum Teil war dieser Umstand durch die Erfordernisse zeitgenössischer Höflichkeits- und Zivilitätskonzepte bedingt, aber auch den ökonomischen Aspekten eines stoßkräftigen Verlagsmarktes geschuldet, der sich aus dem damaligen Aufstieg der sogenannten Papierzeitungen ergab.

If the legitimate exercise of political power requires justifiability to all citizens, as John Rawls’s influential Liberal Principle of Legitimacy states, then what should we say about the legitimacy of institutions and actions that have a significant impact on the interests of future citizens? Surprisingly, this question has been neglected in the literature. This paper questions the assumption that it is only justifiability to presently existing citizens that matters, and provides reasons for thinking that legitimacy requires justifiability to future citizens (...) as well. Further, it is argued that the presently dominant interpretation of Rawls’s principle is unable to take future citizens into account in an adequate way. Therefore, the inclusion of these citizens among those to whom justifiability is owed gives us good reasons to reject this interpretation, and to adopt a different understanding of the view. (shrink)

Many institutions and organizations now delegate important decisions to algorithms. These algorithms promise greater predictive accuracy, at a lower operating cost than the human decision-makers they replace. But they also have the distinct disadvantage of being “black boxes”: we lack intelligible explanations of why they arrive at the decisions they do. Those adversely affected by these decisions, it seems, may reasonably object to the opaque nature of the decision-process. My aim in this paper is to explain the moral basis of (...) this objection. The account I develop centers on the moral right to a justification. I motivate this view in part by criticizing two rival accounts, one based in the interest in self-advocacy, the other in the requirement of public reason. (shrink)

Political liberals typically hold that reasonable citizens should not form political associations (e.g., political parties) with unreasonable citizens. This is because unreasonable citizens are unlikely to conform to the duty of civility—the duty to be able, and willing, to use public reasons in their public political deliberations. Here I argue that a general prohibition on political associations with the unreasonable can undermine the fair value of their political liberties. This is because unreasonable citizens can grow up in epistemic environments that (...) make it difficult to be reasonable, and so to direct citizens to not associate with them can deprive citizens from certain social backgrounds the equal opportunity for political influence. I propose instead that political liberals should distinguish between unreasonable citizens who are disposed to support de re publicly justifiable laws and policies and unreasonable citizens who support illegitimate laws and policies. Reasonable citizens may form political associations with the former group, but not the latter group. (shrink)

Drawing on James Tully’s dialogical reconstruction of political theory as a critical activity, this chapter proposes to take the disconnect between theory and practice as an occasion to loosen the grip of a particular image of disobedience holding both liberals and their critics captive. Liberal political thought approaches civil disobedience as a problem of justification: namely, as a challenge of reconciling conflicting obligations to conscience and obligations to law where injustice causes the two to diverge. Recent criticisms of the liberal (...) paradigm seek to expand the boundaries of justifiable dissent, or propose new grounds of justification, but seldom question the very paradigm of political theory animating the hegemonic liberal approach itself. The project of resolving practical conflicts of democratic politics by handing down authoritative rules and procedures constitutes a “monological approach” to the study of politics. It figures the theorist as an authority standing over and above the problems of demos. Such an approach mystifies the ways political theory’s pronouncements are context bound and often serve as unreflective idealization of the status quo. Through a survey of the diverse ways the language of civil disobedience is used, and conscientious lawbreaking is practiced, this chapter seeks to disclose some of the ways a monological approach to dissent remains complicit in a racialized politics of law and order it often claims to challenge. (shrink)

In public reason liberalism, equal respect requires that conceptions of justice be publicly justifiable to relevant people in a manner that allocates to each an equal say. But all liberal public justification also excludes: e.g., it accords no say, or a lesser say, to people it deems unreasonable. Can liberal public justification be aligned with the equal respect that allegedly grounds it, if the latter calls for discursive equality? The chapter explores this challenge with a focus on Rawls-type political liberalism. (...) I suggest that political liberalism’s commitment to equal respect can cohere with the standing of the unreasonable in public justification if that standing is not impermissibly unequal in discursive purchase. I then consider one candidate view of the permissibility of purchase inequality. On this broadly sufficientarian view, purchase inequality is permissible provided relevant people have standing of enough purchase to be able to avoid relevant bads. A plausible variant of this view suggests that political liberalism’s commitment to equal respect does not cohere with the discursive standing of the unreasonable. It emerges that where liberal public justification accords actual people discursive respect but relevantly idealizes at least around its fringes, the permissibility of purchase inequality must be a central concern. (shrink)

What justifies political power? Most philosophers argue that consent or democracy are important, in other words, it matters how power is exercised. But this book argues that outcomes primarily matter to justifying power.

I pursue three interrelated goals. Firstly, through a Hohfeldian analysis of the concept of a right, I aim to clarify what we mean by attributing to political authority a general right to rule (through legal norms) and to the recipients of its decisions a general obligation to obey these norms, which is con¬tent-independent and preemptive. In this regard, careful differentiation between legal and moral rights and obligations appears crucial. Secondly, I argue that, in contrast to the standard approach in political (...) and legal theory interpreting the right to govern as a Hohfeldian claim and the obligation of obedience as a Hohfeldian duty, conceiving these positions as symmetrical and inseparable (“correlative”), it is more fitting to focus on the Hohfeldian power and the corresponding liability. This implies abandoning the assumption of the content-independence and preemptiveness of authority’s decisions. Thirdly, in contrast to the majority of con¬tributions, I emphasise that morality cannot remain a theoretical black box, the content and validity of which are simply assumed in discussions about legitimate authority, and I show how this can be circumvented. The paper seeks to find a stable theoretical position that does not slide either towards the acceptance of the “self-image of the state” as in the case of the standard approach, or towards the “nightmare” of philo¬sophical anarchism. (shrink)

Two central questions concerning the role that persistent disagreements about philosophical, ethical, and religious issues in liberal societies are raised in this paper: (i) whether the state’s authority may be justified on the basis of controversial views and (ii) whether the state may rely on controversial views when exercising authority. Many assume whatever motivates philosophers to respect disagreement in justifying the state—answering “no” to (i)—seems to also require the state to respect disagreement when it acts—answering “no” to (ii). Here I (...) defend the consistency of answering “no” to (i) and “yes” to (ii), a position I call “political perfectionism.” I argue, first, that one prominent reason for answering “no” to (i)—that citizens should be able to endorse the authority of the state—is consistent with answering “yes” to (ii) and, second, that the intuitions underlying why political liberals want citizens to be able to endorse the authority of the state can motivate answering “yes” to (ii). (shrink)

This work has two major goals. The first is to reframe the problem of political authority from its Conservative framing to a Reformist framing. This change creates a new benchmark for the success of a theory. Rather than justifying a pre-existing intuition, a theory can be successful if it could establish political authority whenever the state itself or an individual’s relationship to it changes. This change also shifts the focus from the state’s right to rule to moral housekeeping. In other (...) words, the main goal is not to see when the state can use coercion against its citizens but rather to determine what political obligations citizens could have under different scenarios so that citizens can more accurately keep track of their moral reasons for action. The second major goal is to call into question epistemic theories of democratic authority through a critical examination of David Estlund’s theory of normative consent. Normative consent cannot establish political authority. Even granting that it could, normative consent would bind individuals to epistemic procedures rather than democratic procedures given that epistemic procedures better solve the moral problems that generate normative consent. However, this then raises worries from the public reason perspective that epistemic procedures would impose a procedure on some citizens which they could reject from a qualified position. To overcome this worry, it is shown that epistemic procedures based on reducing the power of the ignorant rather than raising the power of the experts are not open to such qualified rejection, and democratic procedures in the real world will do no better than a coin flip at selecting correct policies. In the end, one branch of epistemic conceptions of democratic authority are proven untenable. (shrink)

Social norms regulating carework and social reproduction tend to be inegalitarian. At the same time, such norms often play a crucial role when we plan our lives. How can we criticise objectionable practices while ensuring that people can organise their lives around meaningful and predictable rules? Gerald Gaus argues that only ‘publicly justified’ rules, rules that everyone would prefer over ‘blameless liberty,’ should be followed. In this paper, we uncover the inegalitarian implications of this feature of Gaus's framework. We show (...) that because a society without clear social norms for how social reproduction and care work ought to be organised would be so unattractive, inegalitarian rules would pass Gaus's test. They would pass this test since they would nevertheless be better than ‘blameless liberty.’ Those who are disproportionately burdened by a rule are faced with the daunting task of showing that they would be better off under no rule, instead of merely having to show that they would be better off with a different rule. (shrink)

Public reason liberalism demands that political decisions be publicly justified to the citizens who are subjected to them. Much recent literature emphasises the differences between the two main interpretations of this requirement, justificatory and political liberalism. In this paper, I show that both views share structural democratic deficits. They fail to guarantee political autonomy, the expressive quality of law, and the justification to citizens, because they allow collective decisions made by incompletely theorised agreements. I argue that the result can only (...) be avoided by changing public reason’s role in collective decision-making. Instead of incompletely theorised agreements, we should demand agreement both on the public reasons themselves and on the other premises that justify political decisions. In this way, it is always possible to point to a procedure-independent reason that justifies democratic decisions, and the reasoning of the state is public and contestable. Finally, I explain how this, in turn, implies that only political liberalism can be rescued—by accepting what I will call strong political liberalism. Modifying justificatory liberalism in the necessary way will inevitably open the door to an objectionable form of perfectionism. (shrink)

Many democratic theorists hold that when a decision is collectively made in the right kind of way, in accordance with the right procedure, it is permissible to enforce it. They deny that there are further requirements on the type of reasons that can permissibly be used to justify laws and policies. In this paper, I argue that democratic theorists are mistaken about this. So-called public reason requirements follow from commitments that most of them already hold. Drawing on the democratic ideal (...) of civic equality, I show that it can successfully explain why political decision-making must have the right sort of procedure-independent justification. However, contra standard accounts of public reason, I argue that laws and policies need to be justified with convergence accessible, not shared, reasons. Public reasons are those that are accessible in light of evaluative standards shared by all, or in light of every citizen’s private evaluative standards. Since this will make the set of public reasons wider, it makes the theory more palatable to sceptics while retaining the framework’s justificatory potential. (shrink)

Public reason liberals expect individuals to have justificatory reasons for their views of certain political issues. This paper considers how groups can, and whether they should, give collective public reasons for their political decisions. A problem is that aggregating individuals’ consistent judgments on reasons and a decision can produce inconsistent collective judgments. The group will then fail to give a reason for its decision. The paper considers various solutions to this problem and defends a deliberative procedure by showing how it (...) incentivizes information sharing and leads to outcomes most acceptable to the group members. (shrink)

Public reason liberalism is the political theory which holds that coercive laws and policies are justified when and only when they are grounded in reasons of the public. The standard interpretation of public reason liberalism, consensus accounts, claim that the reasons persons share or that persons can derive from shared values determine which policies can be justified. In this paper, I argue that consensus approaches cannot justify fair educational policies and preserving cultural goods. Consensus approaches can resolve some controversies about (...) teaching values in the educational system, such as curriculum choice. But they cannot determine which culture goods, e.g., architecture, artwork, or language ought to be preserved in the education system. Consensus approaches cannot fairly resolve competing claims about these kinds of disputes. -/- I propose that convergence accounts of public reason, which allow individuals to draw on their own comprehensive doctrines in limited ways, can remedy these weaknesses in the mainline public reason tradition. The convergence approach can justify a pluralist state that can advance valuable community goods. John Henry Newman’s advocacy of liberal arts education finds resonance in other cultures, notably among Confucians, illustrating that there can be a shared moral vision and inquiry into the good life across deep substantive disagreements about educational values and policies, once we expand our notion of justification to be more inclusive. (shrink)

I will argue that the natural law theory of morality, when extended into a political theory of justice, results in a picture of political justice much like that of public reason liberalism. However, natural law political theory, I argue, need not entail a natural law theory of morality. While facts about what societies ought to do supervene upon facts about what is good for human beings, there are distinct goods involved and distinct reasons for action. Rather, considerations taken from the (...) common good as guiding public policy results in a two-layer approach to public reasonability, resembling features of both consensus and convergence accounts of public reason. Consequently, the differences between natural law and classical public reason liberalism are significant but are not as significant as might have otherwise appeared. In fact, natural law political theory might be a more consistent development of the idea of a public reason than those of classical liberalism. (shrink)

This article discusses the growth of the populist radical right as a concrete example of the scenario where liberal democratic ideas are losing support in broadly liberal democratic societies. Our goal is to enrich John Rawls’ influential theory of political liberalism. We argue that even in that underexplored scenario, Rawlsian political liberalism can offer an appealing account of how to promote the legitimacy and stability of liberal democratic institutions provided it places partisanship centre stage. Specifically, we propose a brand-new moral (...) duty binding ‘reasonable’ partisans committed to pluralism. This duty establishes conditions where partisans must strategically transform society’s public reason (i.e. transform the visions for society their parties campaign on) in ways that promise to attract back support from illiberal and antidemocratic competitors. While this strategic behaviour might seem impermissible, we show that Rawls’ distinctive account of sincerity in democratic deliberation is uniquely placed to justify it as perfectly ethical. (shrink)

Some moral value is transparent just in case an agent with average mental capacities can feasibly come to know whether some entity does, or does not, possess that value. In this paper, I consider whether legitimacy—that is, the property of exercises of political power to be permissible—is transparent. Implicit in much theorising about legitimacy is the idea that it is. I will offer two counter-arguments. First, injustice can defeat legitimacy, and injustice can be intransparent. Second, legitimacy can play a critical (...) function in our practical thought, which sometimes requires intransparency. (shrink)

Focusing on current efforts to persuade the public to comply with Covid-19 best practices, this essay examines what role appeals to religious reasons should (or should not) play in leaders’ attempts to secure followers’ acceptance of group policies in contexts of religious and moral pluralism. While appeals to followers’ religious commitments can be helpful in promoting desirable public health outcomes, they also raise moral concerns when made in the contexts of secular institutions with religiously diverse participants. In these contexts, leaders (...) who appeal to religious reasons as bases of justification for imposing Covid policies may seem to fail to show respect for the autonomy of those who lack the relevant religious commitments, and—especially when a leader herself rejects the religious commitments she makes reference to to persuade others—her appeals to religious reasons may seem to constitute ethically problematic exercises of manipulation. This essay draws on the resources of contemporary political philosophy to analyze and respond to these concerns and concludes that they are not sufficiently well-founded. To the contrary, it contends that there are good moral grounds for leaders to appeal to religious reasons as (partial) bases of justification for why followers should accept Covid policies. In the course of the argument, this essay also highlights how contemporary political theory can enrich discussions about the distinctions between coercion, manipulation, and leadership, and thereby give insight not only into the ethics of leadership but also—at least by the lights of central theories of leadership like that of James MacGregor Burns (1978)—into whether and how appeals to religious reasons can figure into genuine exercises of leadership, in contrast with mere instances of the wielding of social power. (shrink)

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. (shrink)

In recent years, leading public reason liberals have argued that publicly justifying coercive laws and policies requires that citizens offer both adequate secular justificatory reasons and adequate secular motivating reasons for these laws and policies. In this paper, I provide a critical assessment of these two requirements and argue for two main claims concerning such requirements. First, only some qualified versions of the requirement that citizens offer adequate secular justificatory reasons for coercive laws and policies may be justifiably regarded as (...) plausible liberal principles of public justification. And second, the requirement that citizens offer adequate secular motivating reasons for coercive laws and policies is untenable on multiple grounds. Public reason liberals should focus on assessing the justificatory reasons offered for and against coercive laws and policies rather than requiring citizens to offer adequate secular motivating reasons for such laws and policies. (shrink)

May the state try to promote the flourishing of its citizens? Some political philosophers—perfectionists—hold that the state may do so, while other political philosophers—anti-perfectionists—hold that the state may not do so. Here I examine how perfectionists might respond to a style of argument that anti-perfectionists give—what I call the legitimacy objection. This argument holds that considerations about flourishing are not themselves the right kind of considerations to justify state authority, and so if the state takes action to promote the flourishing (...) of its citizens, it is meddling in issues that are beyond the legitimate scope of its authority. I argue that this objection only shows that considerations about flourishing cannot themselves legitimate state action, but that they may still guide the state and state officials when they are deciding among policy options that are legitimate for non-perfectionist reasons. (shrink)

Women continue to be in charge of most childrearing; men continue to be responsible for most breadwinning. There is no consensus on whether this state of affairs, and the informal norms that encourage it, are matters of justice to be tackled by state action. Feminists have criticized political liberalism for its alleged inability to embrace a full feminist agenda, inability explained by political liberals’ commitment to the ideal of state neutrality. The debate continues on whether neutral states can accommodate two (...) feminist demands: to enact policies aimed at dismantling the feminization of caregiving, especially childrearing, and to compensate women for some of the disadvantages they incur by being primary care-givers. I contribute to this debate with three arguments in support of policies meant to de-gender care-giving and compensate care-givers. The first appeals to equality of opportunity to positions of advantage and justifies policies that prevent or mitigate statistical discrimination and implicit biases. The second draws attention to a possible causal relationship between the specialization of women in early childcare and misogyny; since the latter is incompatible with political liberal justice, it yields the conclusion that political liberals ought to further investigate the causal hypothesis with the aim of establishing or refuting it. The third argument concludes that legitimate childrearing prohibits adults from socializing children or, at least girls, into gender norms; it justifies duties of justice on the side of parents, educators, and economic agents, and state policies meant to offset foreseeable breaches of some of these duties. (shrink)

This essay undertakes a critical analysis of Kevin Vallier’s Principle of Convergent Restraint (PCR) within the framework of public reason liberalism. It begins by examining the first provision, intelligibility, arguing that Vallier’s formulation is at odds with the demands of public justification in liberal democracies. In particular, it contends that Vallier’s privileging of intelligibility over accessibility undermines the foundational commitments of public reason and pluralistic liberalism. The second section evaluates narrow restraint, asserting that a more precise understanding of public reason (...) liberalism accommodates diverse justificatory reasons without precluding the emergence of overlapping comprehensive doctrines. Finally, the essay critiques proposal restraint, rejecting Vallier’s position that justificatory constraints should apply only to public officials. It argues that the distinction between citizens and public officials is conceptually tenuous and that justificatory restraints must be applied universally, given the intricate interplay between public deliberation, political opinion, and legislative decision-making. (shrink)

In his insightful book, Trust in a Polarized Age, Kevin Vallier (2021) convincingly shows that the legitimacy and sustainability of liberal democratic institutions are dependent upon the maintenance of social and institutional trust. This insight, I believe, has value beyond the illustrious halls of post-Rawlsian, post-Gausian thought. Indeed, while I remain skeptical towards some of the premises of public reason liberalism, I am convinced that any liberal democratic political philosopher who takes the trust literature seriously and who has made their (...) (pragmatic or principled) peace with redistribution has good reasons to sympathize with the general outlines of the institutional palette that emerges out of his book. In this article, I will take for granted Vallier’s assumption that the erosion of social and institutional trust is a serious problem. This motivates investigating the trust-bearing attributes of the redistributive welfare state and the “principle of social insurance” that underpins it. I reconstruct and critically analyse Vallier’s case for a liberal democratic welfare state. I show that he makes a convincing public reason argument for universal social insurance but proceeds too hastily to exclude the principle of unconditionality from consideration. The rest of my paper consists of defending this claim by presenting two kinds of arguments— empirical and theoretical—that I think public reason liberals like Vallier, according to their own commitments, should be motivated to incorporate into their comprehensive discussion of the public justifications for and against basic income. They will show that Universal Basic Income (UBI), although it remains contentious, has some features that could appeal to a diverse citizenry, and thus tilt the balance of public reason judgments towards UBI. (shrink)

This article addresses the exclusivism–inclusivism debate about religious reasons in law within a justificatory liberal framework. The question of whether religious reasons have justificatory capacity for attaining public justification has increasingly been seen as a matter of how public justification is understood between two rival models: the consensus model being aligned with exclusivism, the convergence model with inclusivism. More recently, however, that alignment has been challenged with attempts to show that consensus can reach an equivalent degree of inclusivism as convergence. (...) Against this, I contend that the purported equivalence is misplaced. First, I identify a crucial ambiguity about public justification and two corresponding domains. Upon demonstrating these to be mutually independent and severable, I conclude that the moves to equalize the models are confined within the more narrow domain while, in the more fundamental domain, the choice of model continues to prove determinative as to the exclusivist or inclusivist valence of justificatory liberalism. (shrink)

My goal in this chapter consists in testing the applicability of my general paradigm against a case study: the political and legal conflict over the extension of marriage rights to same-sex couples. This case constitutes a paradigmatic example of a public conflict arising around the attempt to revise the public interpretation of a normative concept, when a stable and shared agreement over such a concept has been historically and contextually established and has been taken for granted for a very long (...) time – at least by members of dominant groups. The battle over marriage equality involves a public debate over the opportunity of proceeding with a re-conceptualization of the legal concept of marriage to make this practice more inclusive. There are two normative perspectives that are relevant for dealing with this case study. First, it is important to illustrate the power dynamics at play for determining control of the symbolic characterization of the public space, specifically underscoring that this political struggle for the extension of a particular right implies, more extensively, fighting for full citizenship, to wit, equal visibility and equal membership within the public space. Second, it is fundamental to analyze the literature concerning legal litigation around this case and to investigate the adjudication function that the judicial system can at times successfully play. Finally, I shall illustrate the Italian case concerning the institution of civil unions for same-sex couples. Specifically, I will evaluate whether such a political compromise can be considered an acceptable second-best solution and if so, why. (shrink)

This chapter introduces the Rawlsian paradigm of political legitimacy and pays special attention to the strictly political version of liberalism that Rawls defends in Political Liberalism. My goal is to highlight the ambiguities of his model and to propose a justificatory strategy for a strictly political conception of liberalism that reaches beyond the path envisaged by Rawls himself. My strategy revolves around the attempt to properly spell out the implicit epistemic assumptions of the Rawlsian justificatory approach. I argue, pace Rawls, (...) that political liberalism cannot be robust vis-à-vis different theories of justification, because it is required that, as theorists, we take a stance regarding the epistemological framework we employ while developing a specific theory of political legitimacy. My proposal is that a modest approach in political epistemology expresses the best scheme available to us − as moral agents constrained by the limits of our rationality − for establishing a normatively binding, and yet realistic, procedure of justification for political institutions and practices. (shrink)

The analysis I develop in this chapter aims at illustrating in a technical sense the epistemic nonideal circumstances that characterize our social life as agents embedded in intersubjective settings. I defend a version of political liberalism that is willing to clarify its epistemic tenets, instead of supporting the Rawlsian strategy of epistemic abstinence. My goal is to show that there is something important to say, epistemically, about what the fact of entrenched disagreement normatively entails for agents involved in intersubjective deliberation. (...) The heart of this proposal is that given certain epistemic circumstances (i.e. the doxastic presupposition; a fallibilist clause; pervasive disagreement due to an opaque appraisal of evidence; our limited epistemic capacities), agents have good reasons for respecting a symmetric credibility constraint. Therefore, when sincerely engaged in a decision-making process, they must attribute some (even minimal) epistemic credibility to other parties’ perspectives. Finally, I connect this debate with an illustration of reasonableness as a virtue of liberal citizenship and claim that the epistemic dimension of this virtue has not been adequately investigated. I conclude that reasonable citizens, in accepting the limits of their epistemic abilities, should be ready to share political and epistemic authority with their fellow citizens. According to my paradigm, this characterization of democratic political agency is grounded in the analysis of the epistemic circumstances of politics and rests on the normative ideal of democratic co-authorship. (shrink)

This book investigates the unresolved issue of democratic legitimacy in contexts of pervasive disagreement and contributes to this debate by defending a relational version of political liberalism that rests on the ideal of co-authorship. According to this proposal, democratic legitimacy depends upon establishing appropriate interactions among citizens who ought to ascribe to one another the status of putative practical and epistemic authorities. To support this relational reading of political liberalism, the book proposes a revised account of the civic virtue of (...) reasonableness along with an investigation of the epistemic-specific dimension of political equality. By engaging with political epistemology and social theory, this book explores ways to address inherent tensions within the liberal paradigm, using the following strategies of addressing these tensions: first, it defends a twofold model of legitimacy that distinguishes the goals, methodologies, and justificatory tasks of both ideal and nonideal phases of the two-level justificatory framework; second, it contends that democratic legitimacy requires an engaged and contextual critical appraisal of the injustices that characterize our daily social lives, illustrating how structural forms of injustice represent a profound betrayal of the liberal ideal of democratic legitimacy. (shrink)

In writing this book, I had two fundamental purposes: (i) to propose a revised account of liberal legitimacy within a general paradigm of relational liberalism and (ii) to adequately clarify the different goals, methodologies and justificatory tasks that characterize the ideal and nonideal phases of a justificatory paradigm for democratic decisions. In this work I started my analysis from the assumption that these two purposes are strictly related, and my goal was to underscore that the ambitious justificatory project of liberalism (...) faces internal tensions and to propose a way out of these tensions. In order to solve these difficulties of the traditional accounts of liberal legitimacy, I have proposed a justificatory framework aimed at guiding actual decision-making processes and avoiding indeterminacy (guidance), defining standards that everyone has equal opportunity to fulfill (inclusion), and granting that citizens exercise their reflexive control over the whole democratic system (reflexivity). As I argue in this work, this framework relies on a dual justificatory strategy that involves both ideal and nonideal analyses. (shrink)

The main goal of this chapter is investigating the role that public reason can play within the justificatory paradigm that I defend in this work. Public reason is the notion, within the Rawlsian paradigm, that connects the justificatory enterprise with the less defined and always changing deliberative aspects of political decision-making processes. The practice of public reason requires that citizens, when discussing political matters, respect the constraints imposed by the loose normative framework of deliberation and by the ideal of equal (...) respect and, therefore, do not address other citizens with reasons that they know are inadmissible for the other party. Along these lines there are two main topics I want to address in this chapter: i. investigating whether the deliberative constraints imposed by the idea of public reason are in fact compatible with the liberal ideal of inclusivity; ii. clarify if and in what way the requirement of public reason can be satisfied in order to guarantee the legitimacy of coercive acts. To address these topics, in this chapter I first introduce Rawls’s analysis of public reason reinterpreting this debate along the lines of the epistemic framework that I have been outlining in this book. Then, in part 2, I introduce Steven Wall’s illustration of why the public justification principle cannot satisfy the reflexivity requirement, namely, that a theory of public justification should itself be publicly justified. Finally, in part 3, I discuss Gerald Gaus’s proposal for a justificatory version of liberalism. (shrink)

In this chapter I focus on an analysis of ordinary practices for overcoming disagreement in nonidealized political settings. My goal is to show that compromises are the most common outcomes of public procedures of adjudication among disagreeing parties over political matters, rather than consensus-based decisions. If my analysis of the actual epistemic circumstances of democracy is convincing, it follows that wide-spread consensus over political decisions is an unrealistic goal for democratic settings in a pluralistic world. Against this backdrop, my analysis (...) will show that certain forms of political compromises do however rely upon normative commitments, even though in a less straightforward way than it is usually imagined for consensus-based political decisions. The normative dimension of compromise agreements rests on the quality of the intersubjective exchange; it is a matter of relational justice, since it demands that the parties involved reciprocally respect one another. Realistically, each party tries to get as much as it can from the negotiation. Yet, we can distinguish between a principled, mutually respectful way, to negotiate with others and a dynamic in which power relations and manipulative attempts are everything that counts. Since, however, it appears quite obvious that power dynamics can deeply affect compromise, in the last section of the chapter I introduce some cautionary remarks on the possibility that principled compromises can warrant an adequate response to structurally entrenched asymmetries of power and to stark differences in public visibility for members of different social groups. (shrink)

In this introductory chapter I lay out the general outline of the book. I introduce the traditional notion of liberal legitimacy and observe that traditional approaches of liberal legitimacy tend to fall into a justificatory dilemma. Liberal theories ought to find a balance between two fundamental desiderata: (i) providing normative arguments in support of the legitimacy of a specific political conception; (ii) guaranteeing actual endorsement to political principles and social norms by real-world individuals. I illustrate that these two goals often (...) are in tension with one another, especially in highly conflictual contexts as contemporary multicultural societies. In the chapter I suggest that the only winning strategy to satisfy both desiderata, while being loyal to the overall liberal project, is to clearly establish that these desiderata can be satisfied, though not simultaneously, by implementing different justificatory strategies. According to this twofold model of legitimacy I shall defend in this work, a normative approach of justification for democratic decisions cannot rely solely on standards that are drawn from an idealized analysis, because there is another essential goal, that is, developing a theory that proves also politically efficacious, that cannot be satisfied with the same strategy. This means that a liberal account of legitimate political authority should look for establishing political procedures of decision-making, deliberative settings, ex-post forms of contestation, checks and balances rules that are both normatively justifiable and also efficacious enough to overcome indeterminacy and to be stably supported by the majority of the members of the polity. (shrink)

In this chapter I develop my own proposal for a workable form of political liberalism that can be intuitively referred to as relational liberalism and that I describe, a little provocatively, as laying out a path ‘beyond Rawls’. My goal is to argue that relational liberalism is compelled to establish procedures of decision-making that try to include every member of the constituency, whether they are reasonable or not. In order to show the distance between my proposal and the Rawlsian paradigm, (...) in this chapter I begin by illustrating what I believe is the most coherent and reliable defense of Rawls’s justificatory paradigm, the one provided by Jonathan Quong in Liberalism without Perfection (2011). The justificatory strategy that I support relies upon the alternative view of the overlapping consensus defended by Quong and focuses on the possibility that real-world citizens might converge on the validity of a loose normative framework of evaluative standards and liberal organizing ideas extrapolated from ongoing democratic practices. Thus, I shall argue that the nonideal phase has two goals: (i). putting in place justificatory processes to legitimate political decisions to the widest possible constituency of real citizens (criterion of liberal inclusivity); (ii). trying to establish a workable (for the specific political community of reference) public justification of a specific interpretation of the normative intuitions, standards and ideals that constitute the loose background framework of political liberalism (criterium of shared standards). (shrink)

Polarization often happens asymmetrically. One political actor radicalizes, and the results reverberate through the political system. This is how the deep divisions in contemporary American politics arose: the Republican Party radicalized. Republican officeholders began to use extreme legislative tactics. Republican voters became animated by contempt for their political rivals and by the defense of their own social superiority. The party as a whole launched a wide-ranging campaign of voter suppression and its members endorsed violence in the face of electoral defeat. (...) This paper is about how such asymmetric polarization affects everyone else’s obligations. My core claim is that two kinds of relationship – civic friendship and non-subordination – underpin critical democratic norms. Republican misbehavior has severed cross-partisan civic friendships. Their authoritarianism forfeits their claim to non-subordination. The former means that non-Republicans need not justify policy on public grounds. The latter undercuts Republicans’ claim to enjoy minority vetoes when out of power and it gives their rivals reason to disobey the laws that Republicans make when they are in power. More generally, when one political actor contravenes the proper norms of democratic politics, their opposition is not bound by those norms. (shrink)

As to why human beings resort to torturing others is a question that has been left largely unanswered by criminologists and like social scientists world over. The present work strives to provide a definitive answer, albeit within the confines of the author’s own capacities and experiences. -/- Though presented as a ‘Sri Lankan’ study conforming to the grounded theory method, this book takes pains to both accommodate and analyze regional as well as global instances of torture toward inducing causal conclusions (...) on the generic phenomenon that it has now evolved into. -/- While its inquiry into torture’s inciting factors appears ‘specific’ to the island-nation, that undertaken in respect of the predisposition to torture is undoubtedly of much wider relevance, even global. Offering an in-depth understanding of the mindsets borne by ‘conditioned’ police torturers, it also proceeds to reveal those of potential layman perpetrators, thereby rendering the resort to cruelty more an innate trait than an acquired habit. Several naturally occurring mental-formations are thus identified and presented as specific ‘amalgams’ that precipitate and perpetuate torture, which at all times is deemed a volitional departure from morality. -/- This writing constitutes essential reading for those engaged in whatever noble initiatives bent on truly freeing this world from torture. (shrink)

This book extract contributes to the literature by inter alia (1) identifying societal justification as incentivizing torture, (2) disclosing man’s innate cruelty and habitual recourse to elective disassociation as facilitating its unperturbed discharge and (3) deeming moral realization its universal panacea.

According to John Rawls’s famous Liberal Principle of Legitimacy, the exercise of political power is legitimate only if it is justifiable to all citizens. The currently dominant interpretation of what is justifiable to persons in this sense is an internalist one. On this view, what is justifiable to persons depends on their beliefs and commitments. In this paper I challenge this reading of Rawls’s principle, and instead suggest that it is most plausibly interpreted in externalist terms. On this alternative view, (...) what is justifiable to persons is not in any way dependent on, or relativized to, their beliefs and commitments. Instead, what is justifiable to all in the relevant sense is what all could accept as free and equal. I defend this reinterpretation of the view by showing how it is supported by Rawls’s account of the freedom and equality of persons. In addition, a considerable advantage of this suggestion is that it allows for an inclusive account of to whom the exercise of political power must be made justifiable. (shrink)

The discussion develops the view that public justification in Rawls’s political liberalism, in one of its roles, is actualist in fully enfranchising actual reasonable citizens and fundamental in political liberalism’s order of justification. I anchor this reading in the political role Rawls accords to general reflective equilibrium, and examine in its light the relationship between public justification, pro tanto justification, political values, full justification, the wide view of public political culture and salient public reason intuitions. This leaves us with the (...) question of how a more plausible, post-Rawlsian political liberalism should understand the commitment to discursive respect and robust discursive equality that is reflected in its view of actualist and fundamental public justification. (shrink)

Ethics committees like Institutional Review Boards and Research Ethics Committees are typically empowered to approve or reject proposed studies, typically conditional on certain conditions or revisions being met. While some have argued this power should be primarily a function of applying clear, codified requirements, most institutions and legal regimes allow discretion for IRBs to ethically evaluate studies, such as to ensure a favourable risk-benefit ratio, fair subject selection, adequate informed consent, and so forth. As a result, ethics committees typically make (...) moral demands on researchers: require them to act in a way the committee considers ethically right or appropriate. This paper argues that moral demands are legitimate only if publicly justifiable; and as a result, committee decisions are subject to a public justification requirement. Ethics committees can permissibly request for more information, changes to the research protocol or that the research is delayed or even stopped only if these demands are publicly justifiable. This latter claim is in turn justified on the basis that moral demands to φ are permissible only if we are in a position to know that the addressee ought to φ and that we are in a position to know a proposition only if it is publicly justifiable. This argument suggests that ethics committees must consciously and explicitly appeal to public reasons in their decision-making. In cases where public reasons cannot be offered, committees would not be permitted to reject a given study or make approval conditional on an amendment. (shrink)

This book advances a novel justification for the idea of "public reason": citizens within diverse societies can realize the ideal of shared political autonomy, despite their adherence to different religious and philosophical views, by deciding fundamental political questions with "public reasons." Public reasons draw upon or are derived from ecumenical political ideas, such as toleration and equal citizenship, and mutually acceptable forms of reasoning, like those of the sciences. This book explains that if citizens share equal political autonomy—and thereby constitute (...) "a civic people"—they will not suffer from alienation or domination and can enjoy relations of civic friendship. Moreover, it contends that the ideal of shared political autonomy cannot be realized by alternative accounts of public justification that eschew any necessary role for public reasons. In addition to explaining how the ideal of political autonomy justifies the idea of public reason, this book presents a new analysis of the relation between public reason and "ideal theory": by engaging in "public reasoning," citizens help create a just society that can secure the free compliance of all. It also explores the distinctive policy implications of the ideal of political autonomy for gender equality, families, children, and education. (shrink)

Political liberals assume an accessibility requirement, which means that, for ensuring civic respect and non-manipulation, public officials should offer accessible reasons during political advocacy. Recently, critics have offered two arguments to show that the accessibility requirement is unnecessary. The first is the pluralism argument: Given the pluralism in evaluative standards, when officials offer non-accessible reasons, they are not disrespectful because they may merely try to reveal their strongest reason. The second is the honesty argument: As long as officials honestly confess (...) their beliefs after offering non-accessible reasons, disrespect and non-manipulation do not occur. This paper defends the accessibility requirement and asserts that these two arguments overlook a unique feature of the political domain. While all citizens collectively own political power as a corporate body, an official does not privately own her political power. Instead, she is a trustee who has a duty to act on behalf of the corporate body, that is, she has to make decisions on grounds that are accessible to others. This duty explains why, despite pluralism, the accessibility requirement is necessary. Moreover, given that political decisions are profoundly influential to each person, requiring people to be honest is ineffective in discouraging disrespectful and manipulative acts. (shrink)

The paper critically discusses the dualism in the interpretation of the moral basis of public reason. We argue that in order to maintain the complementarity of both liberal and democratic values within the debate on public reason, the arguments from liberty and from civic friendship cannot be considered in isolation. With regard to the argument from liberty, we contend that because the idea of natural liberty is an indispensable starting point of liberal theory, no explanation of the justification of political (...) power can do without it. In particular, we focus on the requirement of reasonableness and show that we should retain the epistemic aspect of the reasonableness of persons. The main reason for this is to be found in the criterion of reciprocity which provides the deepest justification of the respect for people’s liberty – that is, the liberal aspect of liberal democracy. At the same time, however, we argue that reciprocity also provides the grounds for responding to the criticism that the essentially liberal approach fails to adequately take into consideration the role of political community. Because reciprocity may also be interpreted as being based on civic friendship, it provides the resources to respond to such criticism. It thus supplies the normative background also for the second, democratic pillar of public reason. We then critically examine the newly emerging approach built predominantly on the argument from civic friendship, arguing that by prioritising the civic friendship interpretation and, at times, tending to completely abandon the liberty-based one, it overlooks the indispensability of liberty-based considerations for the criterion of reciprocity. We conclude that in order to adequately capture the common liberal-democratic basis of public reason, both interpretations of reciprocity must be linked within a comprehensive account. (shrink)

In this paper, we argue that solutions to normative challenges associated with autonomous driving, such as real-world trolley cases or distributions of risk in mundane driving situations, face the problem of reasonable pluralism: Reasonable pluralism refers to the fact that there exists a plurality of reasonable yet incompatible comprehensive moral doctrines within liberal democracies. The corresponding problem is that a politically acceptable solution cannot refer to only one of these comprehensive doctrines. Yet a politically adequate solution to the normative challenges (...) of autonomous driving need not come at the expense of an ethical solution, if it is based on moral beliefs that are (1) shared in an overlapping consensus and (2) systematized through public reason. Therefore, we argue that a Rawlsian justificatory framework is able to adequately address the normative challenges of autonomous driving and elaborate on how such a framework might be employed for this purpose. (shrink)

A wide range of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been introduced to stop or slow down the COVID-19 pandemic. Examples include school closures, environmental cleaning and disinfection, mask mandates, restrictions on freedom of assembly and lockdowns. These NPIs depend on coercion for their effectiveness, either directly or indirectly. A widely held view is that coercive policies need to be publicly justified—justified to each citizen—to be legitimate. Standardly, this is thought to entail that there is a scientific consensus on the factual propositions (...) that are used to support the policies. In this paper, we argue that such a consensus has been lacking on the factual propositions justifying most NPIs. Consequently, they would on the standard view be illegitimate. This is regrettable since there are good reasons for granting the state the legitimate authority to enact NPIs under conditions of uncertainty. The upshot of our argument is that it is impossible to have both the standard interpretation of the permissibility of empirical claims in public justification and an effective pandemic response. We provide an alternative view that allows the state sufficient room for action while precluding the possibility of it acting without empirical support. (shrink)

This article addresses the debate between Jürgen Habermas and Charles Taylor on the implications of state secularism for the public use of reason. Recent commentators have traced this debate either to Habermas’s and Taylor’s divergent views about the status of Western modernity or to their disagreement about the relation between the good and the right. I argue that these readings rest on misinterpretations of Habermas’s theory of social evolution and understanding of impartial justification. I show that the debate rests on (...) diverging interpretations of what it means for citizens to embed the principles of liberal democracy in their respective conceptions of the good. This difference in turn leads Habermas and Taylor to espouse different criteria of democratic legitimacy. I conclude by suggesting that we have prima facie reasons to prefer Habermas’s conception of legitimacy to Taylor’s, and to that extent, to favor his model of the public use of reason. (shrink)