HABERMAS' CRITIQUE AND RAWLS' RESPONSE

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.)