J 2021

Ideální konsenzus, reálná diverzita a výzva veřejného ospravedlnění : k limitům idealizace v liberální politické teorii

MENCL, Matouš a Pavel DUFEK

Základní údaje

Originální název

Ideální konsenzus, reálná diverzita a výzva veřejného ospravedlnění : k limitům idealizace v liberální politické teorii

Název anglicky

Ideal Consensus, Real Diversity, and the Challenge of Public Justification : On the Limits of Idealisation in Liberal Political Theory

Autoři

MENCL, Matouš (203 Česká republika) a Pavel DUFEK (203 Česká republika, garant, domácí)

Vydání

Acta Politologica, Praha, Univerzita Karlova, 2021, 1803-8220

Další údaje

Jazyk

čeština

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

50601 Political science

Stát vydavatele

Česká republika

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14230/21:00118933

Organizační jednotka

Fakulta sociálních studií

Klíčová slova česky

ideální teorie; anti-utopismus; normativní diverzita; Gaus; Estlund; liberalismus; rozumnost, veřejné ospravedlnění

Klíčová slova anglicky

ideal theory; anti-utopianism; normative diversity; Gaus; Estlund; liberalism; reasonableness; public justification

Štítky

Příznaky

Recenzováno
Změněno: 23. 3. 2022 12:01, Mgr. Blanka Farkašová

Anotace

V originále

The paper deals with the methodological clash between idealism and anti-idealism in political philosophy, and highlights its importance for public reason (PR) and public justification (PJ) theorising. Upon reviewing the broader context which harks back to Rawls’s notion of a realistic utopia, we focus on two major recent contributions to the debate in the work of David Estlund (the prototypical utopian) and Gerald Gaus (the cautious anti-utopian). While Estlund presents a powerful case on behalf of ideal theorising, claiming that motivational incapacity and other non-ideal features of “human nature” – the so-called bad facts – do not normally refute the desirability of highly utopian theories of justice, we show that Gaus is correct in stressing the importance of feasibility considerations, including empirical knowledge about human societies. Because moral disagreement is to be expected even among cognitively and morally excellent reasoners, we argue that Estlund’s search for Truth about justice must idealise away normative diversity as just another bad fact. This methodological dispute has important ramifications for current debates about PR and PJ as the grounds of liberal legitimacy. Because consensual approaches rely on strong idealisation which results in exclusion of numerous comprehensive doctrines from consideration, we conclude that convergence-based liberal political theory has distinct advantage as regards exploiting normative diversity to the advantage of everyone

Anglicky

The paper deals with the methodological clash between idealism and anti-idealism in political philosophy, and highlights its importance for public reason (PR) and public justification (PJ) theorising. Upon reviewing the broader context which harks back to Rawls’s notion of a realistic utopia, we focus on two major recent contributions to the debate in the work of David Estlund (the prototypical utopian) and Gerald Gaus (the cautious anti-utopian). While Estlund presents a powerful case on behalf of ideal theorising, claiming that motivational incapacity and other non-ideal features of “human nature” – the so-called bad facts – do not normally refute the desirability of highly utopian theories of justice, we show that Gaus is correct in stressing the importance of feasibility considerations, including empirical knowledge about human societies. Because moral disagreement is to be expected even among cognitively and morally excellent reasoners, we argue that Estlund’s search for Truth about justice must idealise away normative diversity as just another bad fact. This methodological dispute has important ramifications for current debates about PR and PJ as the grounds of liberal legitimacy. Because consensual approaches rely on strong idealisation which results in exclusion of numerous comprehensive doctrines from consideration, we conclude that convergence-based liberal political theory has distinct advantage as regards exploiting normative diversity to the advantage of everyone

Návaznosti

GA19-11091S, projekt VaV
Název: Jak dál s veřejným rozumem? Kritiky a obhajoby veřejného ospravedlnění podle liberalismu
Investor: Grantová agentura ČR, Jak dál s veřejným rozumem? Kritiky a obhajoby veřejného ospravedlnění podle liberalismu

Přiložené soubory