This chapter discusses the Rawlsian project of public reason, or public justification-based 'political' liberalism, and its reception. After a brief philosophical rather than philological reconstruction of the project, the chapter revolves around a distinction between idealist and realist responses to it. Focusing on political liberalism’s critical reception illuminates an overarching question: was Rawls’s revival of a contractualist approach to liberal legitimacy a fruitful move for liberalism and/or the social contract tradition? The last section contains a largely negative answer to that (...) question. Nonetheless the chapter's conclusion shows that the research programme of political liberalism provided and continues to provide illuminating insights into the limitations of liberal contractualism, especially under conditions of persistent and radical diversity. The programme is, however, less receptive to challenges to do with the relative decline of the power of modern states. (shrink)

Declining levels of political trust and voter turnout, the shift towards populist politics marked by appeals to ‘the people’ and a rejection of ‘politics-as-usual’, are just some of the commonly cited manifestations of our culture of political disaffection. Democratic politics, it is argued, is in crisis. Whilst considerable energy has been expended on the task of lamenting the status of our politics and pondering over recommendations to tackle this perceived crisis, amid this raft of complaints and solutions lurks confusion. This (...) paper seeks to explore the neglected question of what the precise nature of the crisis with which we are confronted involves, and, in so doing, to go some way towards untangling our confusion. Taking my cue from Machiavelli and his value-pluralist heirs, I argue that there is a rift between a morally admirable and a virtuous political life. Failure to appreciate this possibility causes narrations of crisis to misconstrue the moral messiness of politics in ways that lead us to misunderstand how we should respond to disenchantment. Specifically, I suggest that: we think that there is a moral crisis in politics because we have an unsatisfactorily idealistic understanding of political integrity in the first place; and it is a mistake to imagine that the moral purification of politics is possible or desirable. Put simply, our crisis is not moral per se but primarily philosophical in nature: it relates to the very concepts we employ—the qualities of character and context we presuppose whilst pondering over political integrity. (shrink)

The claim that democratic politics is the art of compromise is a platitude but we seem allergic to compromise in politics when it happens. This essay explores this paradox. Taking my cue from Machiavelli’s claim that there exists a rift between a morally admirable and a virtuous political life, I argue that: a ‘compromising disposition’ is an ambiguous virtue—something which is politically expedient but not necessarily morally admirable; whilst uncongenial to moral integrity, a ‘compromising disposition’ constitutes an essential aspect of (...) political integrity. In so doing, I question certain moralistic assumptions which fuel contemporary vilifications of compromise—that, in theory, democratic politics should be inhospitable to compromise and that political integrity should be akin to moral integrity—and which are shared by Walzer’s Dirty Hands thesis which professes to be sensitive to the realities of politics. These assumptions displace the complex realities of politics and misconstrue the standards of political excellence; they unsatisfactorily idealize political integrity and the messy context in which democratic politicians operate—a context characterized by a plurality of incompatible traditions, each with its own values and principles. Whilst commitment to a set of principles stemming from one’s tradition or pre-election promises implies commitment to realize these, leading a virtuous political life amidst such a grubby domain often requires abandoning some of these. An innocent, all-or-nothing pursuit of one’s principles in politics might prompt political disaster or defeat: an uncompromising disposition entails the entire abandonment of any hope of realizing all of those principles. (shrink)

Cet article est une étude de l’importance de la référence au dialogue institutionnel pour la philosophie sociale critique aujourd’hui. Si le poids des institutions bride la liberté et la créativité dans le dialogue, c’est pour des raisons qu’il convient de chercher à cerner avec précision, en particulier pour comprendre le lien qui existe entre cette dimension institutionnelle et la formation de compromis. La prise en compte du dialogue institutionnel est cependant freinée par l’insistance morale sur la valeur unique du consensus. (...) Cela rend utile de revenir sur les raisons de la valorisation de formes raisonnées - et liées à des principes - de compromis ne se réduisant pas à des cas de modus vivendi imposé par un différentiel des forces. Ces réflexions peuvent conduire à dégager quelques perspectives sur les propriétés de la généralité des principes, de leurs difficultés typiques de mise en œuvre et de leur rôle dans la coordination autour d’interprétations et de significations. Ce travail fait, il devrait devenir possible de se saisir dans une perspective constructive de la question de la délimitation du périmètre des significations et des interprétations dans les échanges discursifs au sein d’un univers institutionnel. Il semble raisonnable d’y chercher la clé d’une éthique du compromis dans laquelle on ne se dissimule pas la distance qui nous sépare (en tant qu’êtres humaine) de ces interlocuteurs non humains que sont les institutions. (shrink)

Recent political theory has seen a wave of interest in the topic of compromise. Its conceptualizations tend to be unstable, however, resulting in varying and shifting appreciations of compromise, not least in debates between political realists and liberal moralists. This article presents a new and integrated theoretical framework of compromise to facilitate theoretical and empirical enquiry. In this framework, every compromise has two underlying dimensions (inter-actor and intra-actor), four necessary and sufficient elements (conflict, consensus, concessions, and consent), and four corresponding (...) conceptual boundaries (stalemate, synthesis, surrender, and shift-of-position). The framework is used to show how compromise can clarify and mitigate the Rawlsian contrast between modus vivendi and overlapping consensus and thus between realism and moralism. Ultimately, the framework not only serves to transcend established distinctions in the theoretical literature, but also to develop counterintuitive hypotheses for empirical research and stimulate the phenomenological enquiry of political compromise making. (shrink)

Formulating sound and acceptable embryo research policy remains challenging especially in a pluralistic world. This challenge has acquired a new dimension of complexity with the advent of so-called embryo models, which are derived from stem cells. In this article, we present a normative strategy to facilitate the process of sound policy-making in the field of human embryology. This strategy involves seeking neutral agreements on higher level theories and doctrines as well as seeking agreements on the level of concrete policy proposals. (...) We call this strategy: going high and low. By going high and low, the plurality of reasonable moral and epistemic convictions of stakeholders involved in the domain of human embryology is respected while the process of policy-making in this area is improved. (shrink)

One source of controversy surrounding John Rawls's later work — a source of both criticism and praise — has been the impression that he abandoned the philosophical project of figuring out what is truly just, in favour of the political project of working out a feasible consensus for people from a particular political tradition. One aspect of this controversy is the question of whether Rawls could advance his theory as being worthy of endorsement on the basis of good reasons without (...) also claiming it to be true. In preferring to claim reasonableness rather than truth, Rawls's main concern seems to have been to distinguish the ‘whole truth’ as represented by a particular comprehensive religious or philosophical doctrine, from the truth about politics given that reasonable people will inevitably disagree about the whole truth. (shrink)

La réanimation néonatale donne lieu à une demande publique et institutionnelle d'élaboration de normes, appelée par les dilemmes éthiques, induits par la pratique d'arrêt de vie ou de non réanimation. Ces dilemmes sont pratiquement levés par une référence aux « grands principes » qui régissent généralement la pratique médicale (dignité humaine, droit à la vie, droit à l'autonomie, obligation de soins, principe de non nuisance) ainsi que par l'exigence de suivre, pour procéder aux arrêts de vie, une « démarche transparente (...) et progressive », incluant une dimension délibérative. Dans la mesure où, en dépit de ces conditions, des désaccords éthiques légitimes demeurent et s'avèrent à l'analyse insolubles, il paraît nécessaire d'institutionnaliser ces désaccords afin de permettre aux personnes de « vivre ensemble » et de « travailler ensemble », en dépit de leurs divergences éthiques, toutes fondées sur de « bonnes raisons » morales. (shrink)

Starting from a reading of Jonathan Glover's Causing Death and Saving Lives, the article addresses the general assumptions involved in conceptions of the dignity of life. Compatibility with a consequentialist point of view makes it possible to clarify the meaning given to thresholds in the intrapersonal comparisons between states of the world. These themes are then discussed within the perspective of dialogue related to the collective assessment of practical guidelines.