首页> 外文学位 >Reasonableness and political justification: A study of John Rawls' idea of public reason
【24h】

Reasonableness and political justification: A study of John Rawls' idea of public reason

机译:合理性与政治合理性:约翰·罗尔斯的公共理性思想研究

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

My dissertation examines the theory of public reasoning and political justification that is at the heart of John Rawls' political liberalism. In exploring both the merits and limitations of Rawls' idea of public reason, I pursue three main goals in the dissertation. First, I defend the idea of public reason as a deliberative ideal and demonstrate its internal relation to a first-person standard of political justification for fundamental political questions. I respond to charges that public reason would encourage insincerity in public deliberation, that it is inconsistent with an ideal of objectivity in political decision-making, and that it is an impracticable ideal for a public culture characterized by widespread religious belief. A second goal of the dissertation is to provide a more convincing interpretation of reasonableness. The relatively brief exposition of the reasonable in Political Liberalism is inadequate, considering the importance of this idea in the very formulation of Rawls' principles of liberal legitimacy and public reasoning. I argue that while the basic normative content of the reasonable is derived from the fundamental ideas of political liberalism, judgments about the reasonableness of specific claims and arguments must be left to citizens themselves. It is in this sense that the reasonable applies primarily to citizens rather than to their particular beliefs and doctrines. Citizens are able to reassure one another of their reasonableness by acknowledging these fundamental ideas and also by exercising certain liberal and deliberative virtues. A final goal of the dissertation is to uncover the limits of Rawls' idea of public reason. I focus on Rawls' failure to explain the moral basis of a citizen's obligation to adhere to public reason's ideal, especially when that ideal requires restraints on the appeal to a comprehensive religious or philosophical doctrine in political advocacy and choice. I suggest that this failure to account for the moral basis of the obligation to reason publicly is connected to the very structure of political liberalism.
机译:本文研究了约翰·罗尔斯(John Rawls)政治自由主义核心的公共推理和政治辩护理论。在探索罗尔斯的公共理性观念的优缺点时,我追求了三个主要目标。首先,我捍卫公共理性作为审议理想的观念,并证明其与针对基本政治问题的第一人称政治辩护标准的内在联系。我回应了这样的指控:公共理性会鼓励公共审议中的不诚实行为,这与政治决策中的客观性理想不符,对于以宗教信仰为特征的公共文化来说,这是不切实际的理想。论文的第二个目标是对合理性提供更令人信服的解释。考虑到该思想在罗尔斯的自由合法性和公共推理原则的制定中的重要性,对政治自由主义中的合理性的相对简短的阐述是不够的。我认为,虽然合理性的基本规范内容是从政治自由主义的基本思想中衍生出来的,但对于具体主张和论点的合理性的判断必须留给公民自己来做。从这个意义上讲,合理性主要适用于公民,而不适用于他们的特定信仰和学说。公民通过承认这些基本思想,并通过行使某些自由和协商的美德,可以相互保证自己的合理性。论文的最终目的是揭示罗尔斯公共理性思想的局限性。我着眼于罗尔斯未能解释公民遵守公共理性理想的义务的道德基础,尤其是在该理想要求限制在政治倡导和选择中诉诸综合宗教或哲学学说的时候。我认为,这种无法解释公开推理义务的道德基础的现象与政治自由主义的结构有关。

著录项

  • 作者

    Boettcher, James Ward.;

  • 作者单位

    Boston College.;

  • 授予单位 Boston College.;
  • 学科 Philosophy.;Political science.
  • 学位 Ph.D.
  • 年度 2002
  • 页码 375 p.
  • 总页数 375
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号