FLP0469 - Aula 5 - Rawls - A ideia de razão pública

Summary

This lecture explores John Rawls' concept of public reason, focusing on its relevance to contemporary political theory and its application in pluralistic democratic societies. The discussion highlights Rawls' view on how political justice and legitimacy can be constructed within societies that embrace diverse worldviews. The concept of public reason is examined in contrast to more radical democratic perspectives, which advocate for a more inclusive and porous public sphere. The course connects these ideas to broader debates on political liberalism, religion, and the role of comprehensive doctrines in public discourse, with an emphasis on the challenges and criticisms facing Rawls' framework.

Takeaways

• 😀 Public reason is a central concept in John Rawls' political liberalism, aiming to establish justifiable political principles that all citizens, regardless of their personal doctrines, can accept.
• 😀 Rawls argues that modern democratic societies are pluralistic, with individuals following different comprehensive doctrines (e.g., religious or secular worldviews), making the formation of common political projects a major challenge.
• 😀 A reasonable pluralism is the idea that citizens with diverse beliefs can still coexist peacefully by agreeing on basic political principles such as justice and fairness.
• 😀 Public reason focuses on political matters of justice, including essential constitutional elements and issues of distributive justice, while excluding personal ethical, religious, or philosophical beliefs.
• 😀 Overlapping consensus refers to the minimal, shared political principles that citizens from different worldviews can accept, thus forming a foundation for political legitimacy.
• 😀 Political liberalism rejects endorsing any one comprehensive doctrine over others, ensuring mutual respect and equality in a pluralistic society.
• 😀 Rawls highlights the tension between liberal political reason and more radical democratic positions, which call for a more open and porous public sphere that includes a wider variety of issues and debates.
• 😀 Comprehensive doctrines (whether religious or secular) must be reasonable to be part of public reason; unreasonable doctrines that lead to violence or intolerance cannot be included.
• 😀 Political authorities (judges, legislators, executives) are responsible for offering public reason to citizens, ensuring that their decisions can be accepted through shared political justification.
• 😀 Feminist critiques of Rawls' political liberalism point out that it doesn't sufficiently address gender justice, especially in relation to the family and the division of labor, suggesting a gap in his framework.

Q & A

What is the central concept discussed in the text by John Rawls?

The central concept discussed is 'public reason,' a key idea in Rawls' political liberalism. Public reason refers to the justification of political decisions in a way that all citizens, regardless of their personal doctrines, can accept.

How does John Rawls define the challenge of public reason in a pluralistic society?

Rawls identifies the challenge of creating a common political project in a pluralistic society, where citizens hold diverse worldviews, religious beliefs, and ethical doctrines. The challenge is to establish political principles that everyone, despite their differences, could agree upon as legitimate.

What role do religious and secular doctrines play in Rawls' theory of public reason?

Rawls argues that both religious and secular doctrines can participate in public reason as long as they adhere to a common clause that ensures these doctrines do not impose private or specific truth claims but instead focus on shared principles of political justice.

What is 'reasonable pluralism' in the context of political liberalism?

Reasonable pluralism refers to the coexistence of different, yet mutually acceptable, worldviews within a society. It is the idea that a democratic society can function despite its members holding differing doctrines, as long as these views respect principles of justice and freedom.

How does Rawls' political liberalism address the inclusion of comprehensive doctrines in public reason?

Rawls allows for the inclusion of comprehensive doctrines (religious or secular) in public reason as long as they can be publicly justified within a framework of political liberalism. However, these doctrines must respect the idea of public reason and not impose their specific truth claims on others.

What is the concept of 'overlapping consensus' in Rawls' theory?

'Overlapping consensus' refers to the agreement among citizens with different doctrines on a set of core political principles. This consensus is based on shared values that are general enough to be accepted by people with different comprehensive doctrines.

What does Rawls mean by the 'public reason' being a 'public' reason?

Rawls emphasizes that public reason must be justifiable to all citizens equally. It is 'public' in the sense that its justification must be accessible and acceptable to all, regardless of individual beliefs or worldviews.

How does Rawls distinguish between public reason and private reasons in political deliberation?

Rawls distinguishes between public reason, which is used in political deliberation and must be acceptable to all citizens, and private reasons, which are personal beliefs or worldviews that do not have to be justified in the public sphere.

What critique do feminists raise against Rawls' political liberalism, according to the script?

Feminists critique Rawls' political liberalism for not adequately addressing gender justice, particularly in the context of family structures. They argue that political liberalism should include a reflection on gender legitimacy and justice, which is a theme Rawls later engages with in the text.

What is the key criticism regarding Rawls' restrictive notion of public reason in the broader public sphere?

The key criticism is that Rawls' restrictive notion of public reason limits the scope of deliberation in the public sphere. Critics, such as Habermas, argue for a more porous, diversified public sphere that allows a greater range of issues and viewpoints to be discussed, which Rawls' model may not fully accommodate.