Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-qxdb6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T12:57:18.480Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rawlsian Reasonableness: A Problematic Presumption?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 January 2006

Shaun P. Young
Shaun P. Young
Affiliation:
York University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. The notion of “reasonableness” has been a prominent feature of liberalism since the latter first emerged as a coherent philosophical project. Indeed, arguably, reasonableness is the core value animating the liberal outlook. Such a claim is especially true with respect to the conception of political liberalism promoted by John Rawls. In essence, the viability of Rawlsian political liberalism is dependent upon the “reasonableness” of both the public conception of justice and the individuals who must live under its constraints. However, this reliance on reasonableness poses a number of potential difficulties for Rawls's argument, particularly insofar as his belief in the ability of his conception to secure the conditions essential to establishing and sustaining a just and stable liberal democracy is premised upon a number of questionable claims and expectations regarding the reasonableness of individual attitudes and behaviour. The primary task of this essay is to identify and explain a number of concerns that render suspect the plausibility of Rawls's conclusions regarding the extent to which it is realistic to presume the reasonableness of individuals and, by extension, the ability of his conception to achieve its stated goal.

Résumé. La notion du “ raisonnable ” constitue un aspect important du libéralisme depuis l'émergence de ce dernier en tant que projet philosophique cohérent. En fait, le raisonnable est sans doute la valeur principale qui anime le point de vue libéral. Ceci est particulièrement vrai de la conception du libéralisme politique défendue par John Rawls. Le libéralisme politique de Rawls dépend essentiellement du caractère raisonnable de la conception publique de la justice, ainsi que des individus qui doivent vivre selon ses contraintes. Toutefois, l'importance du raisonnable dans ce concept soulève un certain nombre de problèmes dans le raisonnement de Rawls. Il est persuadé que ses idées garantissent les conditions essentielles pour établir et maintenir une démocratie libérale, mais ce postulat s'appuie sur de nombreuses affirmations et espérances discutables quant au caractère raisonnable des attitudes et comportements individuels. Cette dissertation s'efforcera principalement d'identifier et d'expliquer un certain nombre de problèmes remettant en cause la plausibilité des conclusions de Rawls. On étudiera tout particulièrement dans quelle mesure il est réaliste de présumer du caractère raisonnable des individus et, par extension, de la capacité de la conception de Rawls à atteindre ses objectifs.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 39 , Issue 1 , March 2006 , pp. 159 - 180
Copyright
© 2006 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bohman, James. 1995. “Public Reason and Cultural Pluralism: Political Liberalism and the Problem of Moral Conflict.” Political Theory 23: 253–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DePaul, Michael. 1998. “Liberal Exclusions and Foundationalism.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1: 103–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galston, William. 1992. Liberal Purposes: Goods, Virtues, and Diversity in the Liberal State. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Huemer, Michael. 1996. “Rawls's Problem of Stability.” Social Theory and Practice 22: 375–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, James. 1990. Culture Wars: The Struggle to Define America. New York: Basic Books.
Hunter, James. 1994. Before the Shooting Begins: Searching for Democracy in America's Culture War. New York: The Free Press.
Klosko, George. 1993. “Rawls's ‘Political’ Philosophy and American Democracy.” American Political Science Review 87: 348–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klosko, George. 1996. “Liberalism and Pluralism.” Social Theory and Practice 22: 251–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klosko, George. 2000. Democratic Procedures and Liberal Consensus. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Klosko, George. 2004. “An Empirical Approach to Political Liberalism.” In Political Liberalism: Variations on a Theme, ed. Shaun Young. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Macedo, Stephen. 1990. Liberal Virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Macedo, Stephen. 2000. “In Defense of Liberal Public Reason: Are Slavery and Abortion Hard Cases?” In Natural Law and Public Reason, eds. Robert George and Christopher Wolfe. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Machiavelli, Niccolò. 1995. The Prince, ed. and trans. David Wootton. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing.
Mandle, Jon. 1999. “The Reasonable in Justice as Fairness.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 29: 75–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Margaret. 1996. “On Reasonableness.” Journal of Applied Philosophy 13: 167–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neal, Patrick. 1994. “Perfectionism with a Liberal Face? Nervous Liberals and Raz's Political Theory.” Social Theory and Practice 20: 25–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nielsen, Kai. 1998. “Liberal Reasonability as a Critical Tool? Reflections after Rawls.” Dialogue 37: 739–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prusak, Bernard. 1998. “Politics, Religion and the Public Good: An Interview with Philosopher John Rawls.” Commonweal 125: 12–18.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, David. 2004. “Defending Reasonability: The Centrality of Reasonability in Later Rawls.” Philosophy and Social Criticism 30: 525–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, John. 1985. “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 14: 223–251.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1989. “The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus.” New York University Law Review 64: 233–255.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, John. 1996. Political Liberalism, paperback edition. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, John. 2001. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, ed. Erin Kelly. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.
Raz, Joseph. 1986. The Morality of Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Raz, Joseph. 1989. “Liberalism, Skepticism and Democracy.” Iowa Law Review 74: 761–86.Google Scholar
Sher, George. 1997. Beyond Neutrality: Perfectionism and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shklar, Judith. 1989. “The Liberalism of Fear.” In Liberalism and the Moral Life, ed. Nancy Rosenblum. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wall, Steven. 1998. Liberalism, Perfectionism and Restraint. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Young, Shaun. 2001. “Divide and Conquer: Separating the Reasonable from the Unreasonable.” Journal of Social Philosophy 32: 53–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar