RAWLS' IDEA OF PUBLIC REASON AND DEMOCRATIC LEGITIMACY

被引:7
作者
Peter, Fabienne [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Warwick, Philosophy, Coventry, W Midlands, England
关键词
Deliberative democracy; justice; legitimacy; proceduralism; public reason; Rawls;
D O I
10.1177/1743453X0700300110
中图分类号
D0 [政治学、政治理论];
学科分类号
0302 ; 030201 ;
摘要
Critics and defenders of Rawls' idea of public reason have tended to neglect the relationship between this idea and his conception of democratic legitimacy. I shall argue that Rawls' idea of public reason can be interpreted in two different ways, and that the two interpretations support two different conceptions of legitimacy. What I call the substantive interpretation of Rawls' idea of public reason demands that it applies not just to the process of democratic decision-making, but that it extends to the substantive justification of democratic decisions. I shall argue against this interpretation and suggest a procedural interpretation instead. On this view, public reason is invoked when it comes to the political justification of the principles that should govern the process of democratic decision- making, but not - at least not directly - in relation to the content of public deliberation.
引用
收藏
页码:129 / 143
页数:15
相关论文
共 19 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1996, THE RULE OF THE MANY
[2]  
Cohen J., 1989, GOOD POLITY, P17
[3]   Deliberative democracy: A sympathetic comment [J].
Freeman, S .
PHILOSOPHY & PUBLIC AFFAIRS, 2000, 29 (04) :371-418
[4]  
Gaus G, 1997, DELIBERATIVE DEMOCRA, P205
[5]  
Habermas J., 1996, FACTS NORMS, DOI DOI 10.7551/MITPRESS/1564.001.0001
[6]  
Habermas J., 1990, MORAL CONSCIOUSNESS
[7]   The discursive dilemma and public reason [J].
List, C .
ETHICS, 2006, 116 (02) :362-402
[8]   Aggregating sets of judgments: Two impossibility results compared [J].
List, C ;
Pettit, P .
SYNTHESE, 2004, 140 (1-2) :207-235
[9]   Aggregating sets of judgments: An impossibility result [J].
List, C ;
Pettit, P .
ECONOMICS AND PHILOSOPHY, 2002, 18 (01) :89-110
[10]   ON LEGITIMACY AND POLITICAL DELIBERATION [J].
MANIN, B .
POLITICAL THEORY, 1987, 15 (03) :338-368