{"title":"Na cestě k ideálu: sociální spravedlnost, normativní diverzita a modelování v politické filosofii","authors":"Pavel Dufek, Matouš Mencl","doi":"10.14712/1803-8220/11_2021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Set against the background of the clash between ideal and non-ideal theorising in political philosophy, this review article outlines two complex approaches to the modelling of an ideal of justice. We reconstruct the moderately anti-utopian position championed by Gerald Gaus, who suggests we should give up the efforts to discover a conclusive truth about ideal justice, and confront it with David Estlund’s steadfast belief that unearthing some such ideal is nevertheless a preeminent philosophical goal. Utilising Gaus’s formalised model of what searching for an ideal of justice must encompass, we show why the formulation of the normative ideal depends on the very conditions of and obstacles to the achievement of such an ideal. Under conditions of normative pluralism which is ubiquitous in constitutional democracies, this means that the first desideratum of modelling an ideal should be outlining the ways of productively harnessing the diverse perspectives which populate any reasonably free society. Put bluntly, discovering an ideal requires giving up the philosophical search for the ideal. Ramifications for how best to construe the vocation of political philosophy as such are substantial: Rather than monologically digging deeper and deeper towards an elusive ideal of justice which tells us what we collectively ought to do, we need to figure out how to make cohabitation of contrasting worldviews possible, perhaps even enjoyable. We conclude the article by linking the argument to a defence of convergence public justification we offered in a previous paper.","PeriodicalId":37729,"journal":{"name":"Acta Politologica","volume":"67 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Politologica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14712/1803-8220/11_2021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
Na cestě k ideálu: sociální spravedlnost, normativní diverzita a modelování v politické filosofii
Set against the background of the clash between ideal and non-ideal theorising in political philosophy, this review article outlines two complex approaches to the modelling of an ideal of justice. We reconstruct the moderately anti-utopian position championed by Gerald Gaus, who suggests we should give up the efforts to discover a conclusive truth about ideal justice, and confront it with David Estlund’s steadfast belief that unearthing some such ideal is nevertheless a preeminent philosophical goal. Utilising Gaus’s formalised model of what searching for an ideal of justice must encompass, we show why the formulation of the normative ideal depends on the very conditions of and obstacles to the achievement of such an ideal. Under conditions of normative pluralism which is ubiquitous in constitutional democracies, this means that the first desideratum of modelling an ideal should be outlining the ways of productively harnessing the diverse perspectives which populate any reasonably free society. Put bluntly, discovering an ideal requires giving up the philosophical search for the ideal. Ramifications for how best to construe the vocation of political philosophy as such are substantial: Rather than monologically digging deeper and deeper towards an elusive ideal of justice which tells us what we collectively ought to do, we need to figure out how to make cohabitation of contrasting worldviews possible, perhaps even enjoyable. We conclude the article by linking the argument to a defence of convergence public justification we offered in a previous paper.
期刊介绍:
Acta Politologica (AcPo) is a political science peer-reviewed journal published by the Institute of Politcal Studies of the Faculty of Social Sciences at Charles University. The journal was established in 2009 and is published three times a year (January, April and October). The standard issues are on-line. Special issues are occasionally published in printed form. Articles are published in Czech or English. The journal is published with the financial support of the Faculty of Social Sciences. Acta Politologica publishes texts on a wide range of political science themes, including comparative politics, political philosophy, political sociology, international relations, European studies, security studies etc. The journal accepts for peer-review original manuscripts based on the author''s own research, as well as review articles, reviews, reports from conferences, etc. AcPo’s readership includes a wide range of people, who are interested in political science as a broad academic discipline. The journal addresses scholars and students, but also policy makers and other readers. AcPo is committed to objective, impartial and fair review process. All original articles undergo double-blind peer-review process, which results in at least two reviews and recommendations. The reviewers receive an anonymous version of the original scientific articles exclusively through the AcPo online submission system, which is also used for the subsequent submission of reviews. However, the editors reserve the right to “desk reject” (without review, or after a quick examination by an editorial board member) articles submitted to AcPo on the basis of a low quality of the articles (such as poor language, unclear message, inconsistency, inaccuracy, unsuitability, unclear impact or novelty of the article etc.).