自治、共同体与公共理性的正当性

IF 1.7 2区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Emil Andersson
{"title":"自治、共同体与公共理性的正当性","authors":"Emil Andersson","doi":"10.1017/can.2024.18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Recently, there have been attempts at offering new justifications of the Rawlsian idea of <jats:italic>public reason.</jats:italic> Blain Neufeld has suggested that the ideal of <jats:italic>political autonomy</jats:italic> justifies public reason, while R.J. Leland and Han van Wietmarschen have sought to justify the idea by appealing to the value of <jats:italic>political community.</jats:italic> In this paper, I show that both proposals are vulnerable to a common problem. In realistic circumstances, they will often turn into reasons to <jats:italic>oppose</jats:italic>, rather than support, public reason. However, this counterintuitive result can be avoided if we conceive of autonomy and community differently.","PeriodicalId":51573,"journal":{"name":"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Autonomy, Community, and the Justification of Public Reason\",\"authors\":\"Emil Andersson\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/can.2024.18\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Recently, there have been attempts at offering new justifications of the Rawlsian idea of <jats:italic>public reason.</jats:italic> Blain Neufeld has suggested that the ideal of <jats:italic>political autonomy</jats:italic> justifies public reason, while R.J. Leland and Han van Wietmarschen have sought to justify the idea by appealing to the value of <jats:italic>political community.</jats:italic> In this paper, I show that both proposals are vulnerable to a common problem. In realistic circumstances, they will often turn into reasons to <jats:italic>oppose</jats:italic>, rather than support, public reason. However, this counterintuitive result can be avoided if we conceive of autonomy and community differently.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-05-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2024.18\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/can.2024.18","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,有人试图为罗尔斯的公共理性思想提供新的理由。布莱恩-诺伊菲尔德(Blain Neufeld)提出,政治自治的理想证明了公共理性的合理性,而R.J. 利兰(R.J. Leland)和韩-范-维特马申(Han van Wietmarschen)则试图通过诉诸政治共同体的价值来证明这一理念的合理性。在本文中,我将说明这两种提议都容易受到一个共同问题的影响。在现实情况下,它们往往会变成反对而非支持公共理性的理由。然而,如果我们对自治和共同体有不同的理解,就可以避免这种反直觉的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Autonomy, Community, and the Justification of Public Reason
Recently, there have been attempts at offering new justifications of the Rawlsian idea of public reason. Blain Neufeld has suggested that the ideal of political autonomy justifies public reason, while R.J. Leland and Han van Wietmarschen have sought to justify the idea by appealing to the value of political community. In this paper, I show that both proposals are vulnerable to a common problem. In realistic circumstances, they will often turn into reasons to oppose, rather than support, public reason. However, this counterintuitive result can be avoided if we conceive of autonomy and community differently.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
16
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信