Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10077/12702
Title: RISPETTO, DISACCORDO E GIUSTIFICAZIONE PUBBLICA: COSA È DAVVERO IN GIOCO?
Authors: Ceva, Emanuela
Keywords: Respectpublic justificationpublic reasondisagreement
Issue Date: 9-May-2016
Publisher: EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste
Source: Emanuela Ceva, "RISPETTO, DISACCORDO E GIUSTIFICAZIONE PUBBLICA: COSA È DAVVERO IN GIOCO?", in: "Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics (2016) XVIII/1", Trieste, EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2016, pp. 35-47
Series/Report no.: Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics
(2016) XVIII/1
Abstract: On the basis of what reasons ought the state’s coercive action to be justified? In this article, I discuss the Rawlsian response to this question, which singles out shared and accessible reasons grounded in political values as the only possible bases for public justification. By engaging with Christopher Eberle’s critique of this position, I defend the Rawlsian argu-ment for public reason as capable of resolving epistemic disagreements in a context of per-sistent practical disagreement. I build my defence on a proceduralist interpretation of pub-lic reason. This interpretation rejects the common idea that central to the project of public justification is the restriction of the kinds of reasons that citizens have in support of collec-tive decisions. The project of public justification requires, rather, that the constraints of public reason apply to the establishment of respectful and legitimacy–generating processes capable of giving citizens valid reasons to comply with collective decisions (while the sub-stance of such decisions may remain the object of disagreement).
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10077/12702
ISSN: 1825-5167
Appears in Collections:Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics (2016) XVIII/1

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
CEVA.pdf148.03 kBAdobe PDFView/Open
Show full item record


CORE Recommender

Page view(s)

325
Last Week
0
Last month
2
checked on Oct 16, 2018

Download(s)

236
checked on Oct 16, 2018

Google ScholarTM

Check


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons