Abstract

Theories of disagreement object to attempts to found normative primary principles of democracy, on the model of the famous Rawlsian principles of justice, that they misconceive the depth of moral disagreement. Along that line of reasoning, democracy is precisely the adequate procedure to decide on dispute, so that it cannot be constrained by a set of rights once and for all stated. However, a full-fledged procedural conception of democracy is impossible: the choice of democracy, rather than that of another procedure, entails a minimal core of moral values. This study aims at specifying their nature. It is argued that individuals who commit themselves to democracy while disagreeing about justice share a minimal practical rationality, the concept of which, in spite of appearances, can be found in Rawlsian public reason. Indeed, public reason can be understood as a procedure carrying out the principle of equitable reciprocity, rather than a determined conception of justice. Since it constitutes a procedural concept of practical rationality, it makes it possible to outline a theory of democracy that takes into account disagreement about justice — and not only about the good.