Journal of Moral Philosophy 8 (3):366-389 (2011)
AbstractPublic reason liberals typically defend an accessibility requirement for reasons offered in public political dialog. The accessibility requirement holds that public reasons must be amenable to criticism, evaluable by reasonable persons, and the like. Public reason liberals are therefore hostile to the public use of reasons that appear inaccessible, especially religious reasons. This hostility has provoked strong reactions from public reason liberalism's religion-friendly critics. But public reason liberals and their religion-friendly critics need not be at odds because the accessibility requirement is implausible. In fact, the accessibility requirement is ambiguous between two interpretations, one of which is too stringent and the other too loose. Depending upon the interpretation, accessibility either restricts the use of too many secular reasons or permits appeal to a wide range of religious reasons. The accessibility requirement should therefore be rejected.
Similar books and articles
Liberalism, Religion And Integrity.Kevin Vallier - 2012 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1):149 - 165.
The roles of religious conviction in a publicly justified polity: The implications of convergence, asymmetry and political institutions.Gerald F. Gaus & Kevin Vallier - 2009 - Philosophy and Social Criticism 35 (1-2):51-76.
Feminism, religion, and shared reasons: A defense of exclusive public reason.Christie Hartley & Lori Watson - 2009 - Law and Philosophy 28 (5):493 - 536.
The beginning of community: Politics in the face of disagreement.Kyla Ebels-Duggan - 2010 - Philosophical Quarterly 60 (238):50-71.
The Ethics of Reasoning from Conjecture.Micah Schwartzman - 2012 - Journal of Moral Philosophy 9 (4):521-544.
Reconciling Public Reason and Religious Values.James P. Sterba - 1999 - Social Theory and Practice 25 (1):1-28.
Restraint on reasons and reasons for restraint: A problem for Rawls' ideal of public reason.Micah Lott - 2006 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 87 (1):75–95.
Conceptual exclusion and public reason.Brandon Morgan-Olsen - 2010 - Philosophy of the Social Sciences 40 (2):213-243.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
On Justification, Idealization, and Discursive Purchase.Thomas M. Besch - 2019 - Philosophia 47 (3):601-623.
In Defence of Intelligible Reasons in Public Justification.Kevin Vallier - 2016 - Philosophical Quarterly 66 (264):596-616.
Against the Asymmetric Convergence Model of Public Justification.James W. Boettcher - 2015 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 18 (1):191-208.
Coercion and public justification.Colin Bird - 2014 - Politics, Philosophy and Economics 13 (3):189-214.
Public Justification, Inclusion, and Discursive Equality.Thomas M. Besch - 2018 - Dialogue 57 (3):591-614.
References found in this work
Moral conflict and political legitimacy.Thomas Nagel - 1987 - Philosophy and Public Affairs 16 (3):215-240.
Political Liberalisms and Their Exclusions of the Religious.Philip L. Quinn - 1995 - Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association 69 (2):35 - 56.