MALÝ, Vojtěch and Pavel DUFEK. Náboženské racionale v liberální demokracii: Vyloučení, zahrnutí a hledání třetích cest (The Religious Rationale in Liberal Democracy: Exclusion, Inclusion and the Search for Third Ways). Sociální studia. Brno: Masarykova univerzita, 2013, vol. 10, No 3, p. 61-83. ISSN 1214-813X.
Other formats:   BibTeX LaTeX RIS
Basic information
Original name Náboženské racionale v liberální demokracii: Vyloučení, zahrnutí a hledání třetích cest
Name (in English) The Religious Rationale in Liberal Democracy: Exclusion, Inclusion and the Search for Third Ways
Authors MALÝ, Vojtěch (203 Czech Republic, belonging to the institution) and Pavel DUFEK (203 Czech Republic, guarantor, belonging to the institution).
Edition Sociální studia, Brno, Masarykova univerzita, 2013, 1214-813X.
Other information
Original language Czech
Type of outcome Article in a journal
Field of Study 50601 Political science
Country of publisher Czech Republic
Confidentiality degree is not subject to a state or trade secret
WWW URL
RIV identification code RIV/00216224:14230/13:00066580
Organization unit Faculty of Social Studies
Keywords (in Czech) náboženské argumenty; liberální demokracie; veřejné ospravedlnění; ospravedlňující liberalismus; doktrína náboženské zdrženlivosti
Keywords in English religious arguments; liberal democracy; public justification; justificatory liberalism; doctrine of religious restraint
Tags International impact, Reviewed
Changed by Changed by: doc. Mgr. Pavel Dufek, Ph.D., učo 4597. Changed: 20/1/2016 14:03.
Abstract
Článek soustředí svoji pozornost na současné debaty v politické filozofii, které se týkají role náboženských argumentů (jakožto důvodů k jednání) v liberální demokracii, stejně jako předběžné obhajobě specifického přístupu k tomuto problému. Vychází přitom z typologie Christophera Eberleho, která rozlišuje tři základní tábory: ospravedlňující liberalismus, jeho liberální kritiky a nový tradicionalismus.
Abstract (in English)
This article provides a critical overview of the recent debates in political philosophy on the role of religious arguments (as reasons for action) in liberal democracy, as well as a preliminary defence of a particular approach to the issue. Drawing on Christopher Eberle’s typology, we distinguish three main camps – justificatory liberalism, basing its advocacy of a “doctrine of religious restraint” on Rawls’s account of public justification; its liberal critics, embracing a wholly permissive position vis-a-vis religious arguments in the public sphere; and new traditionalism, which assigns priority to the religious rationale. The article deals in more detail with the exchange between the first two camps. After considering their strengths and weaknesses, we argue for a more robust “third way” between exclusion from and unqualified inclusion of religious arguments in public debates in liberal democracy. Inspired by the work of Gerald Gaus and Kevin Vallier, we then outline in the closing sections a framework of such “minimal justificatory liberalism” that steers clear of several errors shared by both the defenders and the critics of justificatory liberalism.
Links
GAP408/11/0709, research and development projectName: Soudobé výzvy demokracii ve středovýchodní Evropě
Investor: Czech Science Foundation, Contemporary challenges of democracy in East Central Europe
PrintDisplayed: 27/4/2024 12:03