Q3 Social Sciences
Pavel Dufek, Matouš Mencl
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文以政治哲学中理想与非理想理论化的冲突为背景,概述了两种构建正义理想模型的复杂方法。我们重建了杰拉尔德·高斯倡导的适度反乌托邦的立场,他建议我们应该放弃发现关于理想正义的结论性真理的努力,并与大卫·埃斯特伦德坚定的信念——尽管如此,发现这样的理想仍然是一个卓越的哲学目标——对抗。利用高斯关于寻找正义理想必须包含什么的形式化模型,我们展示了为什么规范性理想的形成取决于实现这种理想的条件和障碍。在宪政民主国家普遍存在的规范多元主义的条件下,这意味着为理想建模的第一个愿望应该是概述有效利用任何合理自由社会中存在的各种观点的方法。坦率地说,发现理想需要放弃对理想的哲学探索。如何最好地解释政治哲学的使命,其结果是实质性的:我们需要弄清楚如何使截然不同的世界观共存成为可能,甚至是令人愉快的,而不是一味地向一个难以捉摸的正义理想深入挖掘,告诉我们集体应该做什么。我们通过将这一论点与我们在前一篇论文中提供的对趋同公共理由的辩护联系起来,来结束这篇文章。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
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
Acta Politologica
Acta Politologica Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
13
审稿时长
48 weeks
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.).
×
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