The cohesin complex is best known for its role in sister chromatid cohesion. Over the past few years, it has become apparent that cohesin also regulates gene expression, but the mechanisms by which it does so are unknown. Recently, three groups mapped numerous cohesin-binding sites in mammalian chromosomes and found substantial overlap with the CCCTC-binding factor (CTCF).1-3 CTCF is an insulator protein that blocks enhancer–promoter interactions, and the investigators found that cohesin also contributes to this activity. Thus, these studies demonstrate (...) at least one mechanism by which cohesin can control gene expression. BioEssays 30:715–718, 2008. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)

When people of good faith and sound mind disagree deeply about moral, religious, and other philosophical matters, how can we justify political institutions to all of them? The idea of public reason―of a shared public standard, despite disagreement―arose in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the work of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. At a time when John Rawls’ influential theory of public reason has come under fire but its core idea remains attractive to many, it is important not to (...) lose sight of earlier philosophers’ answers to the problem of private conflict through public reason. -/- The distinctive selections from the great social contract theorists in this volume emphasize the pervasive theme of intractable disagreement and the need for public justification. New essays by leading scholars then put the historical work in context and provide a focus of debate and discussion. They also explore how the search for public reason has informed a wider body of modern political theory―in the work of Hume, Hegel, Bentham, and Mill―sometimes in surprising ways. The idea of public reason is revealed as an overarching theme in modern political philosophy―one very much needed today. (shrink)

Das Problem der Asymmetrie des Protoplasmas bedarf einer kritischen Besprechung, die der Formulierung einer Reihe grundlegender Fragen, die in erster Linie einer weiteren experimentellen Bearbeitung bedürfen, förderlich sein kann. Vor allem muss hier mit der Terminologie begonnen werden. Man muss unterscheiden: die Dissymmetrie, als Eigenschaft des individuellen Moleküls ein sich mit dem Urbild nicht deckendes Spiegelbild zu besitzen, welche Eigenschaft bei einem bestimmten Niveau der Kompliziertheit der räumlichen Architektur des Moleküls eintritt, und, andererseits, die Asymmetrie als Eigenschaft der Gesamtheit der (...) Moleküle, die in der Abwesenheit der Gleichheit der rechten und linken dissymmetrischen Formen in diesen Gesamtheiten besteht. Für den Biologen bietet die Asymmetrie der molekulären Gesamtheiten insofern Interesse, als sie eine spezifische Eigenschaft des Protoplasmas ist und bei allen dissymmetrischen Stoffen fehlt, die in den irdischen Prozessen unabhängig von der Tätigkeit lebender Wesen entstehen. Hier können folgende grundlegende Fragen gestellt werden: 1. Welcher Art ist der deskriptive Aspekt der Asymmetrie des Protoplasmas? Für welche Komponenten des Protoplasmas ist die Asymmetrie der molekularen Gesamtheiten bei den verschiedenen Vertretern des Tier- und Pflanzenreiches obligatorisch und für welche nicht? 2. Welcher Art ist die physiologische Bedeutung der Asymmetrie des Protoplasmas, und auf welche Weise wird dieser spezifische Zustand aufrechterhalten? 3. Wie kann man sich im Lichte aller dieser Daten die Entstehung der Asymmetrie des Protoplasmas vorstellen?Die asymmetrische Architektur des Protoplasmas läuft im Grunde darauf hinaus, dass das Protoplasma aus Vertretern einer bestimmten Reihe „natürlicher” Antipoden aufgebaut ist. Hierdurch findet eine genaue Fixiertheit des die räumlichen Eigenschaften des Stoffes charakterisierenden Parameters statt. Diese Fixiertheit ist eine wichtige Bedingung für die Verwirklichung der feinen protoplasmatischen Koordinationen. Von allgemeinerem Standpunkt aus ist die Fixiertheit des räumlichen Parameters ein Spezialfall des bekanntenClaude Bernard'schen Gesetzes: „La fixité du milieu intérieur est la condition de la vie libre”.Im Artikel werden zahlreiche Angaben eingehend besprochen, die es gestatten zu behaupten, dass eine Reihe spezieller und tiefer Anpassungen in der physiologischen Organisation der Zelle die vom thermodynamischen Standpunkt unvermeidliche Razemisation des Protoplasmas verhindern, und den spezifischen Zustand der Asymmetrie des Protoplasmas aufrechterhalten. Im Lichte dieser Angaben kann die Entstehung der Asymmetrie des Protoplasmas mit Hilfe der Theorie der natürlichen Zuchtwahl erklärt werden. Der asymmetrische Zustand des Protoplasmasystems verleiht seinem Besitzer eine Reihe biologischer Vorzüge im Vergleich mit dem razemischen Zustand.Le problème de l'asymétrie du protoplasma mérite un examen critique. Cela pourrait aider à formuler une série de questions fondamentales exigeant en premier lieu une étude expérimentale ultérieure. À commencer par la terminologie, on doit distinguer d'une part la dissymétrie, propriété de la molécule individuelle de posséder une image non superposable, qui apparaît à un niveau déterminé de complexité dans l'architecture spatiale de la molécule, et d'autre part, l'asymétrie comme une propriété des ensembles de molécules, représentant le manque dans ces ensembles de l'égalité de forme dissymétriques de droite et de gauche. Pour le biologiste, l'asymétrie des ensembles moléculaires est d'un intérêt particulier, en ce qu'elle présente une propriété spécifique du protoplasma, et qu'elle manque dans toutes les substances dissymétriques, qui se forment au cours des processus terrestres, indépendamment de l'activité des êtres vivants. On peut poser ici trois questions principales: 1. Quel est l'aspect descriptif de l'asymétrie du protoplasma? Quels sont les composants protoplasmiques pour lesquels l'asymétrie des ensembles moléculaires est obligatoire, et ceux pour lesquels elle ne l'est point, chez les divers représentants du règne animal et du règne végétal? 2. Quelle est la valeur physiologique de l'asymétrie protoplasmique, et de quelle manière cet état spécifique se maintient-il? 3. Comment, à la lumière de ces données, peut on se figurer l'origine de l'asymétrie du protoplasma?Dans l'essentiel, l'architecture asymétrique du protoplasma se ramène au fait que celui-ci est construit avec les représentants d'une série déterminée d'antipodes „naturels”. Par cela même il y a là un état de fixité précise du paramètre, qui caractérise les propriétés spatiales de la matière. Cet état de fixité est une condition importante pour la réalisation des délicates coordinations protoplasmiques. Á un point de vue plus général, l'état de fixité du paramètre spatial constitue un cas particulier de la proposition bien connue deClaude Bernard: „La fixité du milieu intérieur est la condition de la vie libre”.Dans le présent article on discute en détail les faits nombreux qui permettent d'affirmer que dans l'organisation physiologique de la cellule, une série d'adaptations spéciales profondes empêchent la racémisation du protoplasma, inévitable au point de vue thermodynamique, et maintenant l'état asymétrique spécifique du protoplasma. Éclairée ainsi par les faits, l'origine du protoplasma asymétrique peut s'expliquer à l'aide de la théorie de la sélection naturelle. L'état asymétrique du système protoplasmique, par comparaison avec l'état racémique, accorde à son possesseur nombre d'avantages biologiques. (shrink)

Public justification-based accounts of liberal legitimacy rely on the idea that a polity’s basic structure should, in some sense, be acceptable to its citizens. In this paper I discuss the prospects of that approach through the lens of Gerald Gaus’ critique of John Rawls’ paradigmatic account of democratic public justification. I argue that Gaus does succeed in pointing out some significant problems for Rawls’ political liberalism; yet his alternative, justificatory liberalism, is not voluntaristic enough to satisfy the desiderata (...) of a genuinely democratic theory of public justification. So I contend that—pace Gaus, but also Rawls—rather than simply amending political liberalism, the claims of justificatory liberalism bring out fatal tensions between the desiderata of any theory of liberal-democratic legitimacy through public justification. (shrink)

Abstract. In Minimal Morality (2018), I develop a multilevel social contract theory that accommodates deep moral pluralism. In this article, I reply to comments by Gaus, Van Schoelandt and Cooper concerning the three core projects of the book that aim to (i) revive orthodox rational choice contractarianism as a viable approach to the social contract, (ii) integrate this approach into a comprehensive social contract theory and (iii) show the applicability of the theory to the real world. My replies clarify (...) some of the main features of the theory, defend its core projects and expand discussion of some of its details in order to show that the theory can address the challenges raised. (shrink)

Gerald Gaus was one of the leading liberal theorists of the early twenty-first century. He defended liberal order based on its unique capacity to handle deep disagreement and pressed liberals toward a principled openness to pluralism and diversity. Yet, almost everything written about Gaus's work is evaluative: determining whether his arguments succeed or fail. This essay breaks from the pack by outlining underlying themes in his work. I argue that Gaus explored how to sustain moral relations between (...) persons in light of the institutional threats of social control, evaluative pluralism, and institutional complexity, and the psychological threat of acting solely from what I shall call themere first-personal point of view. The idea of public justification is the key to sustaining moral relations in the face of such challenges. When a society's moral and political rules are justified to each person, moral relations survive the threats they face. (shrink)

This piece is a response to four essays that critically discuss my book Democratic Authority. In addition to responding to their specific criticisms, it takes up several methodological issues that put some of the critiques in a broader context. Among the issues discussed are “normative consent,” which I offer as a new theory of authority; the “general acceptability requirement,” which advances a broadly Rawlsian approach to political justification; and methodological questions about theory building, including a device I dub the “method (...) of provisional leap.”. (shrink)

Volume 98, Issue 4, December 2020, Page 836-836.

The paper places the work of G. Gaus into the tradition of political thought experimenting. In particular, his strategy of modeling moral decision by the heuristic device of idealized Members of the Public is presented as an iterated thought experiment, which stands in marked contrast with more traditional devices like the veil of ignorance. The consequences are drawn, and issues of utopianism and realism briefly discussed.

This is a review of Gerald Gaus's recent book, _The Order of Public Reason_.

This piece is a response to four essays that critically discuss my book Democratic Authority. In addition to responding to their specific criticisms, it takes up several methodological issues that put some of the critiques in a broader context. Among the issues discussed are “normative consent,” which I offer as a new theory of authority; the “general acceptability requirement,” which advances a broadly Rawlsian approach to political justification; and methodological questions about theory building, including a device I dub the “method (...) of provisional leap.”. (shrink)

This paper offers replies to the contributors of a symposium on Jonathan Quong's book, Liberalism Without Perfection (2011).

This is a book review of Gerald Gaus's book The Order of Public Reason: A Theory of Freedom and Morality in a Diverse and Bounded World.

Discussion Christian List, Philip Pettit, Episteme, FirstView Article.

The reply to five reviews of Bourgeois equality in a symposium in EJPE observes that all the reviewers admit the great force of ideas in causing the Great Enrichment. Materialism is dead. Liberalism reigns.

In the first part of the paper, Gaus’ ground for the ideal of persons as free and equal is described. Doubts are raised about the appropriateness of the use of his account of this ideal as endogenous to our moral practice. Th e worries are related to the use of the concept of having a reason that Gaus makes in his book, as well as to the aptness of his account of our moral practice from the viewpoint of (...) our moral phenomenology. Some doubts are raised in relation to the pertinence of Gaus’ concept of having a reason from the perspective of the motivation of the public reason project. In the second part of the paper, a summary is off ered of Gaus’ model of public justification and some of its consequences are discussed. Th e primary intention here is to show that, contrary to Gaus’ view, egalitarian liberalism, and not classical liberalism, is the most appropriate result of such a model of justification. (shrink)

This paper proposes a novel method for identifying the public evaluative standards that contribute to the classification of certain conditions as mental disabilities. Public evaluative standards could contribute to ascertaining disabilities by outlining characteristics whose presence beyond a threshold is fundamentally important for the life of a person and whose absence or reduced occurrence constitutes a disability. Additionally, they can participate in determining disabilities by delineating particularly grave difficulties, impairments, or incapacities. Our method relies on a model of public justification (...) of evaluative standards that is inspired by Gerald Gaus’s theory of public reason. Thus, our approach recommends the justification of evaluative standards through sound deliberative routes from reasons accessible to all persons who participate in the process of justification and the convergence of what is justified in this way to each of them. We deem that disabilities could be caused both by problems in the internal characteristics of a person as well as by unfairness or a lack of hospitality in external circumstances. This is why the method of justification is applied to the assessment of those circumstances as well. If social or environmental circumstances cannot be justified through the convergence of reasons accessible to all persons involved in the process of justification, we have reasons to exclude the presence of a disability and ascertain the presence of inadequate external conditions. (shrink)

Social norms regulating carework and social reproduction tend to be inegalitarian. At the same time, such norms often play a crucial role when we plan our lives. How can we criticise objectionable practices while ensuring that people can organise their lives around meaningful and predictable rules? Gerald Gaus argues that only ‘publicly justified’ rules, rules that everyone would prefer over ‘blameless liberty,’ should be followed. In this paper, we uncover the inegalitarian implications of this feature of Gaus's framework. (...) We show that because a society without clear social norms for how social reproduction and care work ought to be organised would be so unattractive, inegalitarian rules would pass Gaus's test. They would pass this test since they would nevertheless be better than ‘blameless liberty.’ Those who are disproportionately burdened by a rule are faced with the daunting task of showing that they would be better off under no rule, instead of merely having to show that they would be better off with a different rule. (shrink)

In this critical notice of Gerald Gaus's The Order of Public Reason, I reject two arguments Gaus advances for the claim that social moral rules must be publicly justified.

This book develops a novel multilevel social contract theory that, in contrast to existing theories in the liberal tradition, does not merely assume a restricted form of reasonable moral pluralism, but is tailored to the conditions of deeply morally pluralistic societies which may be populated by liberal moral agents, nonliberal moral agents, and, according to the traditional understanding of morality, nonmoral agents alike. The book draws on the history of the social contract tradition, especially the work of Hobbes, Hume, Kant, (...) Rawls, and Gauthier, as well as on the work of some of the critics of this tradition, such as Sen and Gaus. The two-level contractarian theory holds that morality in its best contractarian version for the conditions of deeply morally pluralistic societies entails Humean, Hobbesian, and Kantian moral properties. The theory defines the minimal behavioral restrictions that are necessary to ensure, compared to violent conflict resolution, mutually beneficial peaceful long-term cooperation in deeply morally pluralistic societies. The theory minimizes the problem of compliance for morally diverse societies by maximally respecting the interests of all members of society. Despite its ideal nature, the theory is, in principle, applicable to the real world and, for the conditions described, most promising for securing mutually beneficial peaceful long-term cooperation in a world in which a fully just society, due to moral diversity, is unattainable. If Rawls’ intention was to carry the traditional social contract argument to a higher level of abstraction, then the two-level contractarian theory brings it back down to earth. (shrink)