Introduction to Political Liberalism and Justice as Fairness A Restatement

Pavol Krajcer Michal Minrik

 Comprehensive vs political doctrine

Comprehensive doctrine-covers all recognized values and virtues within one rather precisely articulated system, system of moral beliefs, not only about specific subject of political institutions

Political doctrine-purely political conception, no interest in personal matters, does not address the question of how should one conduct its life examples?
To maintain common comprehensive doctrine one would need to surpress the opponents (state terror)

 Idea of public justification works within the frame of effectively regulated, well-ordered society (everyone accepts the same principles of justice) An essential feature of well-ordered society is that its public conception of political justice establishes a shared basis for citizens to justify to one another their political judgements: each cooperates, politically and socially, with the rest on terms all endorse as just. Ralws does not expect agreement on all political issues, therefore aiming at narrow disagreement urgent consensus on 2 main principles a) structure of government, the political process, division of power b) basic rights and liberties-right to vote, freedom of association, of thought... the aim of PJ-to create a public basis justification that all citizens endosres from their comprehensive doctrines

so how do we find the common ground?

Idea of an overlapping consensus to maintain stability and longevity in the environment of reasonable pluralism (existence of more, often conflicting comprehensive doctrines which persists) By this we mean that the political conception is supported by the reasonable though opposing religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines that gain a significant body of adherents and endure over time from one generation to the next. people follow two views-the political conception of justice and their own comprehensive doctrine Can you think of any political issue that is generally accepted by conflicting comprehensive doctrines? Rawls' well-ordered society is an ideal one, however he introduces the notion of reasonable disagreement-burden of judgement: for example-weight of arguments 2 final notions to avoid misunderstanding: overlapping consensus does not mean that all comprehensive doctrines must agree-some are simply incompatible with the values of democracy constitutional democratic regime is just and workable and therefore worth of defending; the political system of justice is created first without acknowledging the existence of comprehensive doctrines-they create their own reasons why to follow this structure

Public vs non-public reason building on Kant's distinction between private and public reasoning (from a public office position) functioning of public justification-there need to be rules about what sort of information and arguments are permissible, only(mainly?) when constitutional provisions and basic justice is at stake common sense, methods and conclusions of science when not controversial (excludes religious and philosophical doctrines)

non-public reason-internal rules and procedures of associations, churches... one must be free in accepting as well as rejecting these rules (heresy is not against a state law)
whereas in society the power of state cannot be evaded (only by leaving the country-but then what is the difference?) the state authority cannot guard its political principles by offer to leave the country ergo liberalism argues that political society is not an association

Idea of Good in JF
necessity of good in JF-right and good are complementary; JF creates institutions (rightlaw), which must support the ideas of good (personal pursuit of happiness, career, religion) and loyalty-guarantees their sustainability

1. civic humanism vs 2. classical republicanism 1. idea in ancient Greece and later during Italian Renaissance that the only way to truly mature as an individual was to participate in the life of the state; proposes study of humanities-wellbeing of a state Rawls argues it is a comprehensive theory and therefore not in accordance with his theory of JF, though it does not 2. the idea where in general the political rights have less intrinsic value than the liberties of the moderns, though it does not mean that the political participation is banned! It is only the way to sustain the liberties of the moderns Classical republicanism is not a comprehensive theory therefore is compatible with the theory of JF

Political vs comprehensive liberalism

Comprehensive liberalism of Mill and Kant-society is best served when individuals lead autonomous and selfdirected lives; always reason, question, do not go with the flow According to political liberalism state should be neutral 2 ways of discouraging comprehensive doctrinesby stating that they are in direct conflict with principles of JF-comprehensive theory of slavery in the South by stating that they are admissible but generally applicable only by exercising the tools of state terror-state religion

example of Kant, Mill on education religious sect aspires to live outside from fereign influnces-what about their education? To impose requirements designed to foster the value of autonomy and individuality as the main ideals to govern their lives To include knowledge of their constitutional rights, introduce freedom of conscience, raise awareness that leaving the community is not a crime punishable by the state But does it not make JF only one of the comprehensive theories?

Political Liberalism (PL)

Aim
How to understand a society of justice as fairness when it is adjusted to the fact of reasonable pluralism and regulated by a political conception of justice and what can be the basis of social unity given these two conditions How can the followers of a religious doctrine based on a religious authority also hold a political conception that supports a just democratic regime?

Political Liberalism
Is NOT a form of Enlightenment liberalism
Which creates another comprehensive and secular doctrine to replace a religious authority

PL accepts reasonable pluralism of comprehensive doctrines even if they are religious or nonliberal and does not seek to replace them Common good?
Religious good of salvation Liberty, equality and primary goods

Political Liberalism
Theory of Justice
Supposes that a society of justice as fairness is possible and somehow comes about

Such society requires a constitutional democratic regime (the idea that all citizens hold the same comprehensive doctrine) but the long-term outcome of a society living under these free institutions is pluralism = contradiction

Political Liberalism
PL transforms justice as fairness into a political conception of justice to take into account the reasonable pluralism
This conception has to bee freestanding = it has its own normative and moral ideal which is the criterion of reciprocity

Criterion of reciprocity
Citizens are reasonable when
They are prepared to offer one another fair terms of social cooperation and to act on those terms even at the cost of their own interests in particular situations given that the other side also accepts those terms For the terms to be fair the offering citizens must reasonably think that the other side will accept them A person having moral personality transformed into that of the citizen

Criterion of reciprocity
Reasonable pluralism
We as people have different doctrines, by what principles can we exercise power so that it can be reasonably justified to each other? Our exercise of political power is only proper when we believe that the other side would reasonably accept the justification of those actions

The criterion has to apply then to both the constitutional structure and to the laws enacted under this structure giving it legitimacy

Overlapping consensus
Rather than confronting religious and nonliberal doctrines with a liberal one, overlapping consensus tries to find a common ground in this case the political ideal expressed by the criterion of reciprocity There is no guarantee it would form Not only between liberal and nonliberal doctrines but also among liberal doctrines themselves

Basis of social unity

In simple terms: the most reasonable basis (one that actually might come about) = where all citizens agree that the conception is reasonable and for some it is even the most reasonable
This leads to a stable political society

Public reason
Applies to debates of political parties and those seeking public office and NOT to all places where political matters are discussed but from within peoples comprehensive doctrines Criterion of reciprocity applies the public discussions of political matters happen within the framework of what people believe others might reasonably expect to endorse (e.g. the Original Position)

Example of Public reason

I argue that religious liberty has to be denied
I have to make my argument not only clear and understandable but I must reasonably expect that they as free and equal citizens would accept the argument In this sense, the criterion of reciprocity is normally violated whenever basic liberties are denied

The content of Public reason is not fixed and changes as the society progresses, raising new questions and issues

Critique of Public reason

Too restrictive?
PL accepts that there can be matters that cannot be resolved under Public reason but it is rarely so

Does it settle questions in advance?

It does not say what conclusion should be reached but by which standards and ideals should citizens come to it

What if I dont agree with the conclusion?

Can happen but there are times when decisions have to be made (judges, enacted laws) and by the standards of Public reason they can be reasonably justified

Critique of Public reason

The case of abortion
There is not an unanimity of views in society so citizens have to simply vote on the questions. They vote in accordance with the idea of public reason. Lets assume that a law that allows you to have an abortion is passed. Catholics may disagree with this decision but need not to exercise it themselves. Rawls argues that they can still recognize it as belonging to the legitimate law and therefore not resist it with force.

Critique of Public reason

The case of abortion
Question: Catholics believe that abortion is a murder of a human being. As such, in their view, abortion violates the basic liberties set out by Rawls. Should they still accept it? Should they wait until the public reason changes? Can there be an overlapping consensus between liberal and religious doctrines? Do we come back to the argument of what are the basic liberties and to whom (what?) they apply to?

The Basic Structure

Without it inequalities would develop which are not justifiable under the criterion of reciprocity. It has to involve these (or similar) arrangments 1. Public financing of elections 2. Fair equality of opportunity 3. A decent distribution of income so that citizens can take advantage of their basic freedoms 4. Society as an employer of last resort 5. Basic healthcare

Limits of reconciliation by public reason

1. Conflicts arising from conflicting doctrines
Mitigated by PL (not eliminated)

2. Conflicts arising from different status, occupation, gender, race

Since we accept the principles of justice and understand our political and social institutions conform to them, this conflict does not arise or at least not so forcefully

3. Conflicts arising from the burdens of judgment (pluralism)

Are here to stay

Conclusions on Political Liberalism

Many are prepared to accept that a just wellordered democratic society is not possible. We have to ask then, what is the effect of doing so? What if we for a while assume that such structure can exist. That a reasonably just political society is possible and that people have a moral nature (even if not perfect). Then this acceptance can affect attitudes before we come to actual politics and change the way how we act in it.

The focus on these questions no doubt explains in part what seems to many readers the abstract and unworldly character of these texts. I do not apologize for that.