Conjecture and the Division of Justificatory Labour: A Comment on Clayton and Stevens
Publication in refereed journal

香港中文大學研究人員
替代計量分析
.

其它資訊
摘要Clayton and Stevens (Res Publica 20: 65–84, 2014) argue that political liberals should engage with the religiously unreasonable by offering religious responses and showing that their religious views are mistaken, instead of refusing to engage with them. Yet they recognize that political liberals will face a dilemma due to such religious responses: either their responses will alienate certain reasonable citizens, or their engagements will appear disingenuous. Thus, there should be a division of justificatory labour. The duty of engagement should be delegated to religious citizens. In this comment, I will argue that the division of justificatory labour is indefensible. This dilemma can be avoided if politicians and political philosophers correctly use conjecture, a form of discourse that involves non-public reason. As a conditional response, conjecture avoids alienating any reasonable citizens. Also, if conjecture is given in a sincere and open-minded manner, then the problem of disingenuousness can be overcome. My comment concludes that while the engagement of politicians and political philosophers does not necessarily jeopardize overlapping consensus, they should be permitted, or perhaps even required, to engage with the religiously unreasonable due to the natural duty of justice.
出版社接受日期28.09.2017
著者Baldwin Wong
期刊名稱Res Publica
出版年份2019
月份2
卷號25
期次1
出版社Springer Verlag (Germany)
出版地Netherland
頁次119 - 125
國際標準期刊號1356-4765
電子國際標準期刊號1572-8692
語言英式英語
關鍵詞Rawls, Political Liberalism, Religion, Disobedience, Conjecture, Division of Justificatory Labour

上次更新時間 2020-07-08 於 01:27