Abstract

This dissertation intends to explore the feasibility and possible worth of the inclusive form of social togetherness adumbrated by the late political philosopher John Rawls; this, with a view to offering a critical assessment of the said model, as a balanced response to the acute problem of creating a sustainable, inclusive platform for public discourse, in the midst of growing social conflict and disagreement, fuelled by religious, cultural, and other partisan differences. A secondary, side goal of the dissertation will be the attempt to demonstrate that Christianity, thoroughly considered naturally supports and endorses the Rawlsian view.Is the creation of such an inclusive public arena for social deliberation possible at all? Is it socially profitable, assuming it is feasible in the first place? In the present dissertation, I shall strive to answer these questions in the affirmative, chiefly by recourse to Rawls freestanding conception of the political, as an artificial theoretical construction free from cultural, ideological, and above all, religious foundations. In Rawls vision, all these metaphysical worldviews, including atheism, are collectively designated by the term comprehensive doctrines, and while not in themselves critique in his work, are deemed inappropriate for political public discourse, because they are perceived as loaded with exclusivist versions of the common Good. As a person of faith and a liberal, I was drawn to Rawls latest work, because unlike previous forms of liberalism, his version refrains from assailing religion or from likewise setting up Enlightenment secularism as an indispensable prerequisite for democracy. It thus strikes a much-needed balance between the private and the public domains, instilling as it does a neutrality which is valuable in all agendas, like my own, aiming to de-politicize faith and de-theologize politics.