Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:29:13.519Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Boundaries of Public Reason

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 August 2014

Fred M. Frohock
Fred M. Frohock*
Affiliation:
Syracuse University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Modern versions of public reason occasionally must address disputes so profound and divisive that the adjudicative powers of reason cannot resolve them on the expectations of liberal governance. The beliefs underlying these disputes represent the legitimate pluralism of the liberal state, but they also reproduce within the languages of public reason the same divisive views that the liberal state must manage in the larger society. The effects of divisive beliefs can be mitigated, however, with a noncomputational version of public reason that allows collective terms to dominate simple merit adjudication. This type of reasoning requires a survey of considerations beyond the merits of the case at hand and opens public reason to the more general needs of the political society.

Type
Articles
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 91 , Issue 4 , December 1997 , pp. 833 - 844
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1997

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barber, Benjamin. 1988. The Conquest of Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beauchamp, Tom L., and Childress, James E.. 1994. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Calabresi, Guido. 1985. Ideals, Beliefs, Attitudes and the Law. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.Google Scholar
Castaneda, Hector-Neri, and Nakhnikian, George, eds. 1965. Morality and the Language of Conduct. Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
Choper, Jesse H. 1982. “Defining Religion in the First Amendment.” University of Illinois Law Review 3(Summer):579–613.Google Scholar
Dagger, Richard. 1993. “Playing Fair with Punishment.” Ethics 103(04):473–88.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel. 1991. Consciousness Explained. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Dworkin, Ronald. 1993. Life's Dominion. New York: Knopf.Google Scholar
Eddy, Mary Baker. 1971. Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures. Boston, MA: First Church of Christ, Scientist.Google Scholar
Ericksen, Eugene P., Ericksen, Julia A., and Hostetler, John. 1980. “The Cultivation of the Soil as a Moral Directive: Population Growth, Family Ties, and the Maintenance of Community among the Old Order Amish.” Rural Sociology 45(Spring):46–98.Google Scholar
Foot, Philippa. 1969. “Moral Beliefs.” In The Is-Ought Question, ed. Hudson, W. D.. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Frohock, Fred M. 1978. “The Structure of Politics.” American Political Science Review 72(09):859–70.Google Scholar
Galston, William. 1991. Liberal Purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Galston, William. 1996. “Value Pluralism and Political Liberalism.” Philosophy and Public Policy 16(Spring):7–13.Google Scholar
Goodin, Robert, and Reeve, Andrew, eds. 1990. Liberal Neutrality. London and New York: Routledge, Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
Gray, John. 1996. “From Post-Liberalism to Pluralism.” In Political Order, ed. Shapiro, Ian and Hardin, Russell. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Green, Donald P., and Shapiro, Ian. 1994. Pathologies of Rational Choice. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hare, R. M. 1965. Freedom and Reason. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Harel, David. 1989. The Science of Computing. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1963. Law, Liberty and Morality. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
Hostetler, John. 1993. Amish Society. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, W. D. 1970. Modern Moral Philosophy. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Paul, John II. 1995. “Evangelium Vitae.” Sherbrooke, Quebec: Mediaspaul.Google Scholar
Kraybill, Donald B. 1989. The Riddle of Amish Culture. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Macedo, Steven. 1990. Liberal Virtues. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
MacIntyre, Alasdair. 1981. After Virtue. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Maclntyre, Alasdair. 1988. Whose Justice? Whose Rationality?. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Peel, Robert. 1988. Health and Medicine in the Christian Science Tradition. New York: Crossroad.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1960. Word and Object. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Quine, W. V. O. 1969. Ontological Relativity and Other Essays. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1996. Political Liberalism, 2d ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John, Sandel, Michael, Thiemann, Ronald, and West, Cornell. 1995. “Political Liberalism: Religion and Public Reason—A Symposium.” Religion and Values in Public Life 3(Summer):1–11.Google Scholar
Riker, William. 1983. Liberalism against Populism. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. “How to Derive ‘Ought’ from ‘Is.’ ” In The Is-Ought Question, ed. Hudson, W. D.. New York: St. Martin's Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1980. “Minds, Brains, and Programs.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3(09):417–57.Google Scholar
Singer, Marcus. 1963. Generalization in Ethics. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode.Google Scholar
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1971. “A Defense of Abortion.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(Fall):47–66.Google Scholar
Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynocologists. 1986. 476 U.S. 747, 106 S.Ct. 2169, 90 L.Ed.2d 779.Google Scholar
Tribe, Lawrence. 1988. American Constitutional Law. Mineola, NY: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, George. 1990. Nested Games: Rational Choice in Comparative Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Turing, A. M. 1950. “Computing Machinery and Intelligence.” Mind 59(10):433–60.Google Scholar
Velleman, J. David. 1993. “The Story of Rational Action.” Philosophical Topics 21(Spring):229–54.Google Scholar
Wisconsin v. Yoder. 1972. 406 U.S. 205, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15.Google Scholar
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.