Created by yassinr
over 10 years ago
|
||
POLITICAL LIBERALISM: HABERMAS vs RAWLS
1. HABERMAS: Does the OVERLAPPING CONSENSUS play a COGNITIVE or merely INSTRUMENTAL role?
a) RAWLS uses REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM to pin down underlying normative ideas. But if these have already been sedimented in society, then such a reconstructive appropriation can appomplish more than merely a HERMENEUTIC CLARIFICATION of a contingent tradition
HABERMAS:
b)i)HOW is this 2nd step related to the 1st stage of JUSTIFICATION of the 2 HIGHEST PRINCIPLES?
ii) Is it even properly a 2nd step of JUSTIFICATION?
HABERMAS:
c) This misleading methodological parallel casts in the wrong light the "OVERLAPPING CONSENSUS" with which the PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE are supposed to CONVERGE.
1. HOW RAWLS RESPONDS:
HABERMAS:
d) RAWLS must make a SHARPER DISTINCTION between ACCEPTABILITY and ACCEPTANCE
HABERMAS:
2. Q: WHY does Rawls not think his theory admits of TRUTH?
-IN WHAT SENSE does he use the predicate 'REASONABLE' in place of the predicate 'TRUE'?
HABERMAS:
WHY Rawls introduces the predicate 'REASONABLE' as a complementary to 'TRUE'
HABERMAS:
Q: What sense is the one a 'COMPLEMENTARY CONCEPT' to the other?
HABERMAS:
iv) Rawls calls NORMATIVE statements OBJECTIVE and he explains "OBJECTIVITY" in a PROCEDURAL MANNER with reference to a public use of reason that satisfies certain COUNTERFACTUAL conditions:
HABERMAS:
Do we understand REASONABLE to mean a) MORALLY TRUE?
HABERMAS:
BUT Rawls does not intend the predicate 'reasonable' to be a claim of validity, as this undermines his entire theory:
HABERMAS:
Do we understand REASONABLE to mean b) 'THOUGHTFULNESS'?
HABERMAS:
the REFLEXIVE ATTITUDE does not necessarily ultimately lead to TRUTH:
HABERMAS:
RAWLS prioritises the RIGHT over the GOOD (i.e. accommodating for comprehensive doctrines, rather than ensuring justice):
2. HOW RAWLS RESPONDS:
RAWLS' RESPONSE:
HABERMAS has not explained why political liberalism cannot avoid the questions of TRUTH and the PHILOSOPHICAL CONCEPTION of the person
WHAT RAWLS SAYS:
3 KINDS OF JUSTIFICATION
1 PRO TANTO JUSTIFICATION
RAWLS:
2. FULL JUSTIFICATION
RAWLS:
3. PUBLIC JUSTIFICATION BY POLITICAL SOCIETY
RAWLS:
PUBLIC JUSTIFICATION AND REFLECTIVE EQUILIBRIUM
RAWLS:
DISTINCTION between 2 different ideas of CONSENSUS:
RAWLS:
In a DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY marked by REASONABLE PLURALISM, showing that STABILITY for the right reasons is possible is also part of PUBLIC JUSTIFICATION
RAWLS:
What STABILITY FOR THE RIGHT REASONS shows
RAWLS:
Such consensus means the achievement of the DEEPEST and MOST REASONABLE BASIS of SOCIAL UNITY available to us as citizens of a modern democratic society, yielding STABILITY FOR THE RIGHT REASONS
RAWLS:
Why this basis of SOCIAL UNITY is the MOST REASONABLE and the DEEPEST:
RAWLS:
Contrast to such social unity through CONSENSUS:
MODUS VIVENDI
RAWLS:
addressing the Q:
If political justification is always PRO TANTO, how can PUBLIC JUSTIFICATION of the political conception of justification be carried out?
RAWLS:
Why such public justification on the basis of overlapping consensus is NOT UNREALISTIC:
RAWLS:
Why this understanding by reasonable citizens that unanimity is rarely reached enables their recognition between JUSTICE and LEGITIMACY:
RAWLS:
Why the Quakers' rejection of the concept of 'just war' does not put their allegiance in doubt:
IN SUMMARY:
SUMMARY (CONT.)