David Miller
- Published in print:
- 1990
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198278641
- eISBN:
- 9780191599903
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198278640.001.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
Offers a theoretical defence of market socialism, a third way between traditional capitalism and traditional socialism, which combines a market economy with social control of capital and employee ...
More
Offers a theoretical defence of market socialism, a third way between traditional capitalism and traditional socialism, which combines a market economy with social control of capital and employee control of workplaces. The first part offers a critique of the libertarian philosophy used to defend free‐market capitalism, focussing on the issues of freedom, justice, the neutrality of markets, and private charity as an alternative to the welfare state. The second part defends markets against socialist criticism. Here it is shown that consumers are generally the best judges of their own welfare, that people can deserve their market receipts, that exploitation is not an inherent feature of market transactions, and that alienation can be overcome provided the market is subject to political control. The third part develops a model of the socialist state, defending the ideas of national community as a basis of citizenship, of politics as a form of dialogue between citizens, of the integration of cultural minorities into an encompassing community, and of constitutional limits on majority rule. The book concludes by defending the political relevance of the system outlined in previous chapters.Less
Offers a theoretical defence of market socialism, a third way between traditional capitalism and traditional socialism, which combines a market economy with social control of capital and employee control of workplaces. The first part offers a critique of the libertarian philosophy used to defend free‐market capitalism, focussing on the issues of freedom, justice, the neutrality of markets, and private charity as an alternative to the welfare state. The second part defends markets against socialist criticism. Here it is shown that consumers are generally the best judges of their own welfare, that people can deserve their market receipts, that exploitation is not an inherent feature of market transactions, and that alienation can be overcome provided the market is subject to political control. The third part develops a model of the socialist state, defending the ideas of national community as a basis of citizenship, of politics as a form of dialogue between citizens, of the integration of cultural minorities into an encompassing community, and of constitutional limits on majority rule. The book concludes by defending the political relevance of the system outlined in previous chapters.
Antony Black
- Published in print:
- 2009
- Published Online:
- May 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199281695
- eISBN:
- 9780191713101
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199281695.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
The Achaemenid dynasty based its legitimacy on its relationship to the Zoroastrian deity. It saw its functions as the promotion of ‘love of truth’ and agricultural prosperity. They allowed the ...
More
The Achaemenid dynasty based its legitimacy on its relationship to the Zoroastrian deity. It saw its functions as the promotion of ‘love of truth’ and agricultural prosperity. They allowed the peoples of their vast empire an unprecedented degree of autonomy, and advertised their religious toleration. Later, the Sasanian dynasty made Zoroastrianism the state religion.Less
The Achaemenid dynasty based its legitimacy on its relationship to the Zoroastrian deity. It saw its functions as the promotion of ‘love of truth’ and agricultural prosperity. They allowed the peoples of their vast empire an unprecedented degree of autonomy, and advertised their religious toleration. Later, the Sasanian dynasty made Zoroastrianism the state religion.
Monique Deveaux
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199289790
- eISBN:
- 9780191711022
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199289790.003.0001
- Subject:
- Political Science, Democratization
This chapter introduces the main problem of the book: the tensions that exist between cultural rights, and accommodation and formal protection for sexual equality in liberal constitutional ...
More
This chapter introduces the main problem of the book: the tensions that exist between cultural rights, and accommodation and formal protection for sexual equality in liberal constitutional democracies. It also discusses the unsatisfactory treatment of this problem within much recent mainstream political philosophy, especially liberal theories of multiculturalism and deliberative democracy theory.Less
This chapter introduces the main problem of the book: the tensions that exist between cultural rights, and accommodation and formal protection for sexual equality in liberal constitutional democracies. It also discusses the unsatisfactory treatment of this problem within much recent mainstream political philosophy, especially liberal theories of multiculturalism and deliberative democracy theory.
Monique Deveaux
- Published in print:
- 2006
- Published Online:
- January 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780199289790
- eISBN:
- 9780191711022
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199289790.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, Democratization
How have liberal political theorists grappled with liberal democratic states’ sometimes competing commitments to sexual equality and accommodation of minority cultural groups? This chapter begins by ...
More
How have liberal political theorists grappled with liberal democratic states’ sometimes competing commitments to sexual equality and accommodation of minority cultural groups? This chapter begins by offering a critique of the paradigm of toleration as a vehicle for reflecting on the accommodation of cultural minorities. It also engages liberal multiculturalism — work by Will Kymlicka, Brian Barry, and Susan Moller Okin — as well as more laissez-faire approaches to cultural accommodation, such as those of Chandran Kukathas, Jeff Spinner-Halev, and Jorge Valadez, critically evaluating their responses to the challenges presented when cultural arrangements (particularly of non-liberal cultural and religious minorities) conflict with sexual equality.Less
How have liberal political theorists grappled with liberal democratic states’ sometimes competing commitments to sexual equality and accommodation of minority cultural groups? This chapter begins by offering a critique of the paradigm of toleration as a vehicle for reflecting on the accommodation of cultural minorities. It also engages liberal multiculturalism — work by Will Kymlicka, Brian Barry, and Susan Moller Okin — as well as more laissez-faire approaches to cultural accommodation, such as those of Chandran Kukathas, Jeff Spinner-Halev, and Jorge Valadez, critically evaluating their responses to the challenges presented when cultural arrangements (particularly of non-liberal cultural and religious minorities) conflict with sexual equality.
John Kilcullen
- Published in print:
- 1988
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198266914
- eISBN:
- 9780191683114
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198266914.001.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Philosophy of Religion
The chapters in this book reflect upon Pierre Bayle's Philosophical Commentary on the Words of the Gospel ‘Compel them to come in’, which appeared in parts in 1686–88, a classic statement of the case ...
More
The chapters in this book reflect upon Pierre Bayle's Philosophical Commentary on the Words of the Gospel ‘Compel them to come in’, which appeared in parts in 1686–88, a classic statement of the case for toleration. The first two chapters are concerned with controversies about religious toleration in the 17th century, and the rest discuss philosophical questions relating to toleration and to the broader liberal idea of an open society. Three of the chapters originally appeared in the Philosophy Research Archives and are reproduced here with alterations.Less
The chapters in this book reflect upon Pierre Bayle's Philosophical Commentary on the Words of the Gospel ‘Compel them to come in’, which appeared in parts in 1686–88, a classic statement of the case for toleration. The first two chapters are concerned with controversies about religious toleration in the 17th century, and the rest discuss philosophical questions relating to toleration and to the broader liberal idea of an open society. Three of the chapters originally appeared in the Philosophy Research Archives and are reproduced here with alterations.
John Kilcullen
- Published in print:
- 1988
- Published Online:
- October 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780198266914
- eISBN:
- 9780191683114
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198266914.003.0001
- Subject:
- Religion, Philosophy of Religion
This introductory chapter presents an overview of the four chapters featured in this volume. The chapters all arose in one way or another from reflection on Pierre Bayle's Philosophical Commentary on ...
More
This introductory chapter presents an overview of the four chapters featured in this volume. The chapters all arose in one way or another from reflection on Pierre Bayle's Philosophical Commentary on the Words of the Gospel, ‘Compel them to come in’, one of the classics of the 17th-century debate about religious toleration. Bayle wrote the Philosophical Commentary to advocate religious toleration at a time when it seemed almost a lost cause. Deeply committed to that cause, he was also an enemy to faulty reasoning even from himself. A man of sharp intelligence, in philosophy and theology he was very well informed.Less
This introductory chapter presents an overview of the four chapters featured in this volume. The chapters all arose in one way or another from reflection on Pierre Bayle's Philosophical Commentary on the Words of the Gospel, ‘Compel them to come in’, one of the classics of the 17th-century debate about religious toleration. Bayle wrote the Philosophical Commentary to advocate religious toleration at a time when it seemed almost a lost cause. Deeply committed to that cause, he was also an enemy to faulty reasoning even from himself. A man of sharp intelligence, in philosophy and theology he was very well informed.
Susan E. Schreiner
- Published in print:
- 2010
- Published Online:
- September 2011
- ISBN:
- 9780195313420
- eISBN:
- 9780199897292
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313420.003.0008
- Subject:
- Religion, Religion and Society, Theology
This concluding chapter addresses those voices that questioned the value and access to the various 16th-century claims to certainty. The focus is on only those protests that argued for the ...
More
This concluding chapter addresses those voices that questioned the value and access to the various 16th-century claims to certainty. The focus is on only those protests that argued for the impossibility and dangers of certitude as well as the salutary effects of doubt. However, the thesis that skepticism led to toleration has been seriously challenged by historians such as Geoffrey Elton and R. Tuck. The field of toleration studies is a growing one and beyond the scope of this study. The discussion does not claim that 16th-century skepticism was a part of some triumphant march toward the victory of toleration. In fact, any such claim overestimates the effects of all pleas for toleration. Rather, it demonstrates that there were significant voices in the 16th century that saw the dangers involved in certainty. Such voices called for toleration because of the limitations of human knowledge. The “skepticism” of this age functioned as a corrective and a warning, but not as a “doctrine” for toleration. Such warnings were not ultimately successful. They were, however, eloquent voices that once again brought the problem of certitude to the fore.Less
This concluding chapter addresses those voices that questioned the value and access to the various 16th-century claims to certainty. The focus is on only those protests that argued for the impossibility and dangers of certitude as well as the salutary effects of doubt. However, the thesis that skepticism led to toleration has been seriously challenged by historians such as Geoffrey Elton and R. Tuck. The field of toleration studies is a growing one and beyond the scope of this study. The discussion does not claim that 16th-century skepticism was a part of some triumphant march toward the victory of toleration. In fact, any such claim overestimates the effects of all pleas for toleration. Rather, it demonstrates that there were significant voices in the 16th century that saw the dangers involved in certainty. Such voices called for toleration because of the limitations of human knowledge. The “skepticism” of this age functioned as a corrective and a warning, but not as a “doctrine” for toleration. Such warnings were not ultimately successful. They were, however, eloquent voices that once again brought the problem of certitude to the fore.
Andrew Kuper
- Published in print:
- 2004
- Published Online:
- November 2004
- ISBN:
- 9780199274901
- eISBN:
- 9780191601552
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199274908.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, International Relations and Politics
Develops a cosmopolitan theory of global justice, in critical dialogue with John Rawls’s The Law of Peoples. Kuper argues that Rawls has begged some of the central questions of global justice by ...
More
Develops a cosmopolitan theory of global justice, in critical dialogue with John Rawls’s The Law of Peoples. Kuper argues that Rawls has begged some of the central questions of global justice by adopting a ‘thin statist’ conception of legitimate global order. Thus, Rawls effectively supports a system of unitary nation-states with limited sovereignty, while Kuper rejects this idea in favour of multi-level and multi-type political institutions. Similarly, Rawls disavows free speech and democratic rights at the global level, while Kuper establishes that they are fundamental requirements of global justice. Kuper then proposes a new notion of ‘plurarchic sovereignty’ governed by Principles of Democracy and Subsidiarity. Important practical implications are demonstrated in three areas: economic development, the rules of engagement with illiberal states, and the use of force in humanitarian intervention.Less
Develops a cosmopolitan theory of global justice, in critical dialogue with John Rawls’s The Law of Peoples. Kuper argues that Rawls has begged some of the central questions of global justice by adopting a ‘thin statist’ conception of legitimate global order. Thus, Rawls effectively supports a system of unitary nation-states with limited sovereignty, while Kuper rejects this idea in favour of multi-level and multi-type political institutions. Similarly, Rawls disavows free speech and democratic rights at the global level, while Kuper establishes that they are fundamental requirements of global justice. Kuper then proposes a new notion of ‘plurarchic sovereignty’ governed by Principles of Democracy and Subsidiarity. Important practical implications are demonstrated in three areas: economic development, the rules of engagement with illiberal states, and the use of force in humanitarian intervention.
Lavinia Stan and Lucian Turcescu
- Published in print:
- 2007
- Published Online:
- September 2007
- ISBN:
- 9780195308532
- eISBN:
- 9780199785728
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195308532.003.0002
- Subject:
- Religion, Religion and Society
Since 1989, four competing models of church‐state relations have been advocated by the dominant Orthodox Church, the religious minority groups, the humanistic civil society, and the Romanian ...
More
Since 1989, four competing models of church‐state relations have been advocated by the dominant Orthodox Church, the religious minority groups, the humanistic civil society, and the Romanian authorities. This chapter presents church‐state relations in pre‐communist, communist and post‐communist times as reflected in the 1831, 1923, 1948 and 1991 constitutions and contrasts the post‐communist model to Alfred Stepan's democratic requirement of twin tolerations between church and state.Less
Since 1989, four competing models of church‐state relations have been advocated by the dominant Orthodox Church, the religious minority groups, the humanistic civil society, and the Romanian authorities. This chapter presents church‐state relations in pre‐communist, communist and post‐communist times as reflected in the 1831, 1923, 1948 and 1991 constitutions and contrasts the post‐communist model to Alfred Stepan's democratic requirement of twin tolerations between church and state.
Antony Black
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- May 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780199533206
- eISBN:
- 9780191714498
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199533206.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
Early Christianity saw church and state as separate. Early Islam conceived a single 'umma under a single caliphate. It prescribed an all-embracing Shari'a. But after Constantine Christianity brought ...
More
Early Christianity saw church and state as separate. Early Islam conceived a single 'umma under a single caliphate. It prescribed an all-embracing Shari'a. But after Constantine Christianity brought church and state together. In the Byzantine East, the emperor was assigned a divine mission. The Western church insisted on the clergy's independence. Some in the West tried to subordinate state to church, or vice versa; but the main trend was towards separation, and political thought became more secular. In Islam, the 'ulama became separate from the sultan but the relationship was not defined. Orthodox Jurists sought reintegration of religion and government. Separation between religion and politics in principle found little support. Christians, who had started as pacifists, adopted holy war and religious persecution; Muslims favoured limited toleration. There was thus both convergence and divergence between the two cultures: church and state.Less
Early Christianity saw church and state as separate. Early Islam conceived a single 'umma under a single caliphate. It prescribed an all-embracing Shari'a. But after Constantine Christianity brought church and state together. In the Byzantine East, the emperor was assigned a divine mission. The Western church insisted on the clergy's independence. Some in the West tried to subordinate state to church, or vice versa; but the main trend was towards separation, and political thought became more secular. In Islam, the 'ulama became separate from the sultan but the relationship was not defined. Orthodox Jurists sought reintegration of religion and government. Separation between religion and politics in principle found little support. Christians, who had started as pacifists, adopted holy war and religious persecution; Muslims favoured limited toleration. There was thus both convergence and divergence between the two cultures: church and state.
Thomas Christiano
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- September 2008
- ISBN:
- 9780198297475
- eISBN:
- 9780191716867
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198297475.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, Comparative Politics, Political Theory
This chapter argues that liberal rights — such as the rights of freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of speech — are grounded in the fundamental interests of persons and the ...
More
This chapter argues that liberal rights — such as the rights of freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of speech — are grounded in the fundamental interests of persons and the requirement that individuals be treated publicly as equals. The underlying rationale for liberal rights is essentially the same as that for democratic rights — they are grounded in the principle of public equality. The idea that liberal rights are grounded in the principle of public equality has a number of advantages. It captures the fine grained nuance of liberal rights as they are experienced in contemporary liberal societies, and it also captures the strength of liberal rights when they come up against the interests of majorities. The chapter also displays the implications of the book's account for the rule of law, toleration of the intolerant, and responds to a number of possible objections.Less
This chapter argues that liberal rights — such as the rights of freedom of conscience, freedom of association, and freedom of speech — are grounded in the fundamental interests of persons and the requirement that individuals be treated publicly as equals. The underlying rationale for liberal rights is essentially the same as that for democratic rights — they are grounded in the principle of public equality. The idea that liberal rights are grounded in the principle of public equality has a number of advantages. It captures the fine grained nuance of liberal rights as they are experienced in contemporary liberal societies, and it also captures the strength of liberal rights when they come up against the interests of majorities. The chapter also displays the implications of the book's account for the rule of law, toleration of the intolerant, and responds to a number of possible objections.
Cécile Laborde
- Published in print:
- 2008
- Published Online:
- January 2009
- ISBN:
- 9780199550210
- eISBN:
- 9780191720857
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199550210.003.0006
- Subject:
- Political Science, European Union, Political Theory
Chapter 6 presents a range of radical feminist objections to the hijab ban. It first interprets the paternalistic ban on hijab as a form of state oppression, which claims to coerce individuals into ...
More
Chapter 6 presents a range of radical feminist objections to the hijab ban. It first interprets the paternalistic ban on hijab as a form of state oppression, which claims to coerce individuals into being free, in the name of a highly contestable conception of individual autonomy as secular liberation from religion. It then sets out an alternative sociology of contemporary religion to the modernist paradigm implicitly endorsed by laïcistes, showing that the contemporary religious revival is not necessarily a traditionalist and anti-individualistic backlash but is, rather, compatible with ‘post-modern’ agential individualism. Bringing these conceptual and sociological arguments to bear on the moral and normative case, the Chapter then argues that toleration of the hijab in schools expresses respect for Muslim female agency.Less
Chapter 6 presents a range of radical feminist objections to the hijab ban. It first interprets the paternalistic ban on hijab as a form of state oppression, which claims to coerce individuals into being free, in the name of a highly contestable conception of individual autonomy as secular liberation from religion. It then sets out an alternative sociology of contemporary religion to the modernist paradigm implicitly endorsed by laïcistes, showing that the contemporary religious revival is not necessarily a traditionalist and anti-individualistic backlash but is, rather, compatible with ‘post-modern’ agential individualism. Bringing these conceptual and sociological arguments to bear on the moral and normative case, the Chapter then argues that toleration of the hijab in schools expresses respect for Muslim female agency.
Robert Audi
- Published in print:
- 2011
- Published Online:
- January 2012
- ISBN:
- 9780199796083
- eISBN:
- 9780199919345
- Item type:
- book
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199796083.001.0001
- Subject:
- Philosophy, Political Philosophy, Philosophy of Religion
Democratic states must protect the liberty of citizens and must accommodate both religious liberty and cultural diversity. This democratic imperative is one reason for the increasing secularity of ...
More
Democratic states must protect the liberty of citizens and must accommodate both religious liberty and cultural diversity. This democratic imperative is one reason for the increasing secularity of most modern democracies. Religious citizens, however, commonly see a secular state as unfriendly toward religion. This book articulates principles that enable secular governments to protect liberty in a way that judiciously separates church and state and fully respects religious citizens. After presenting a brief account of the relation between religion and ethics, the book shows how ethics can be independent of religion—evidentially autonomous in a way that makes moral knowledge possible for secular citizens—without denying religious sources a moral authority of their own. With this account in view, it portrays a church-state separation that requires governments not only to avoid religious establishment but also to maintain religious neutrality. The book shows how religious neutrality is related to such issues as teaching evolutionary biology in public schools, the legitimacy of vouchers to fund private schooling, and governmental support of “faith-based initiatives.” The final chapter shows how the proposed theory of religion and politics incorporates toleration and forgiveness as elements in flourishing democracies. Tolerance and forgiveness are described; their role in democratic citizenship is clarified; and in this light a conception of civic virtue is proposed. Overall, the book advances the theory of liberal democracy, clarifies the relation between religion and ethics, provides distinctive principles governing religion in politics, and provides a theory of toleration for pluralistic societies. It frames institutional principles to guide governmental policy toward religion; it articulates citizenship standards for political conduct by individuals; it examines the case for affirming these two kinds of standards on the basis of what, historically, has been called natural reason; and it defends an account of toleration that enhances the practical application of the ethical framework both in individual nations and in the international realm.Less
Democratic states must protect the liberty of citizens and must accommodate both religious liberty and cultural diversity. This democratic imperative is one reason for the increasing secularity of most modern democracies. Religious citizens, however, commonly see a secular state as unfriendly toward religion. This book articulates principles that enable secular governments to protect liberty in a way that judiciously separates church and state and fully respects religious citizens. After presenting a brief account of the relation between religion and ethics, the book shows how ethics can be independent of religion—evidentially autonomous in a way that makes moral knowledge possible for secular citizens—without denying religious sources a moral authority of their own. With this account in view, it portrays a church-state separation that requires governments not only to avoid religious establishment but also to maintain religious neutrality. The book shows how religious neutrality is related to such issues as teaching evolutionary biology in public schools, the legitimacy of vouchers to fund private schooling, and governmental support of “faith-based initiatives.” The final chapter shows how the proposed theory of religion and politics incorporates toleration and forgiveness as elements in flourishing democracies. Tolerance and forgiveness are described; their role in democratic citizenship is clarified; and in this light a conception of civic virtue is proposed. Overall, the book advances the theory of liberal democracy, clarifies the relation between religion and ethics, provides distinctive principles governing religion in politics, and provides a theory of toleration for pluralistic societies. It frames institutional principles to guide governmental policy toward religion; it articulates citizenship standards for political conduct by individuals; it examines the case for affirming these two kinds of standards on the basis of what, historically, has been called natural reason; and it defends an account of toleration that enhances the practical application of the ethical framework both in individual nations and in the international realm.
Chandran Kukathas
- Published in print:
- 2003
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199257546
- eISBN:
- 9780191599705
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/019925754X.003.0005
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
This chapter examines the case of placing toleration at the core of a political theory. It explains why toleration occupies a central position in a theory founded on freedom of association and ...
More
This chapter examines the case of placing toleration at the core of a political theory. It explains why toleration occupies a central position in a theory founded on freedom of association and liberty of conscience. It argues that taking toleration seriously means tolerating much that liberals are often unwilling to countenance, since it means that liberal societies should tolerate illiberalism.Less
This chapter examines the case of placing toleration at the core of a political theory. It explains why toleration occupies a central position in a theory founded on freedom of association and liberty of conscience. It argues that taking toleration seriously means tolerating much that liberals are often unwilling to countenance, since it means that liberal societies should tolerate illiberalism.
James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain
- Published in print:
- 1998
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198294962
- eISBN:
- 9780191598708
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198294964.003.0020
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
To the extent Sandel hints at substance, his republican virtues suitable for multiple-situated selves sound suspiciously liberal or at least compatible with liberalism, raising the question whether ...
More
To the extent Sandel hints at substance, his republican virtues suitable for multiple-situated selves sound suspiciously liberal or at least compatible with liberalism, raising the question whether there is a significant distance between his pluralistic republicanism and the most attractive form of liberalism. If republicanism’s concern is simply that citizens engage in morally worthy social practices, then a regime that places no value on choice could simply assign citizens to engage in those practices; if Sandel objects that forcing persons into particular relationships and practices compromises the moral worth of those practices, he must implicitly assume that there is some value attached to the element of choice, autonomy, or personal self-government. Sandel does not comment on perhaps the most republican aspect of the joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the latitude that it gives to the state to shape women’s decision-making process in favor of childbirth over abortion to encourage “wise” or responsible decisions, in part because of the “consequences” of the abortion decision for the women, the community, and prenatal life. Toleration need not be grudging and fragile if its proponents persuasively make a moral argument for it and its possible tempering of the formative project: autonomy is a human good, as are diversity, equal citizenship, and toleration itself, and a commitment to protecting those goods should often (but not always) constrain government from coercively acting to make citizens lead good lives by compelling “moral” and prohibiting “immoral” choices. It remains an open question whether we should wish to revitalize the republican tradition and to search for a substantive republic, but even if we should, most of the work of developing a moral reading of the Constitution of the substantive republic remains to be done.Less
To the extent Sandel hints at substance, his republican virtues suitable for multiple-situated selves sound suspiciously liberal or at least compatible with liberalism, raising the question whether there is a significant distance between his pluralistic republicanism and the most attractive form of liberalism. If republicanism’s concern is simply that citizens engage in morally worthy social practices, then a regime that places no value on choice could simply assign citizens to engage in those practices; if Sandel objects that forcing persons into particular relationships and practices compromises the moral worth of those practices, he must implicitly assume that there is some value attached to the element of choice, autonomy, or personal self-government. Sandel does not comment on perhaps the most republican aspect of the joint opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey: the latitude that it gives to the state to shape women’s decision-making process in favor of childbirth over abortion to encourage “wise” or responsible decisions, in part because of the “consequences” of the abortion decision for the women, the community, and prenatal life. Toleration need not be grudging and fragile if its proponents persuasively make a moral argument for it and its possible tempering of the formative project: autonomy is a human good, as are diversity, equal citizenship, and toleration itself, and a commitment to protecting those goods should often (but not always) constrain government from coercively acting to make citizens lead good lives by compelling “moral” and prohibiting “immoral” choices. It remains an open question whether we should wish to revitalize the republican tradition and to search for a substantive republic, but even if we should, most of the work of developing a moral reading of the Constitution of the substantive republic remains to be done.
Joseph H. Carens
- Published in print:
- 2000
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198297680
- eISBN:
- 9780191598937
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198297688.003.0006
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
Asks how liberal democratic states should respond to immigrants whose cultural commitments are (or are alleged to be) at odds with liberal democratic norms and practices. The chapter takes Muslim ...
More
Asks how liberal democratic states should respond to immigrants whose cultural commitments are (or are alleged to be) at odds with liberal democratic norms and practices. The chapter takes Muslim immigrants as its focus because in both Europe and North America, this is the group that has most often been portrayed as a cultural threat to liberal democracy. In particular, the chapter addresses the claim that Islamic beliefs and practices are incompatible with the liberal democratic commitment to gender equality. It considers the assertion that Islam requires or warrants female genital mutilation, wife‐beating, polygamy, and a form of dress (hijab) that subordinates women. It argues that the critics of Islam misconstrue the normative issues or misrepresent Islamic norms and practices or criticize Islam for practices and beliefs that liberal democracies (rightly) tolerate in other religious traditions.Less
Asks how liberal democratic states should respond to immigrants whose cultural commitments are (or are alleged to be) at odds with liberal democratic norms and practices. The chapter takes Muslim immigrants as its focus because in both Europe and North America, this is the group that has most often been portrayed as a cultural threat to liberal democracy. In particular, the chapter addresses the claim that Islamic beliefs and practices are incompatible with the liberal democratic commitment to gender equality. It considers the assertion that Islam requires or warrants female genital mutilation, wife‐beating, polygamy, and a form of dress (hijab) that subordinates women. It argues that the critics of Islam misconstrue the normative issues or misrepresent Islamic norms and practices or criticize Islam for practices and beliefs that liberal democracies (rightly) tolerate in other religious traditions.
Susan Mendus
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198297819
- eISBN:
- 9780191599880
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198297815.003.0002
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
Impartialist political philosophy must show how and why the priority of impartial justice can be reconciled with a belief in the permanence of pluralism. Although the argument from epistemological ...
More
Impartialist political philosophy must show how and why the priority of impartial justice can be reconciled with a belief in the permanence of pluralism. Although the argument from epistemological abstinence explains the permanence of pluralism, it cannot explain why justice should have motivational priority. It delivers only, and at most, a modus vivendi defence of toleration. The way to attain a defence that is more than a modus vivendi is to ground political impartialism in moral impartialism.Less
Impartialist political philosophy must show how and why the priority of impartial justice can be reconciled with a belief in the permanence of pluralism. Although the argument from epistemological abstinence explains the permanence of pluralism, it cannot explain why justice should have motivational priority. It delivers only, and at most, a modus vivendi defence of toleration. The way to attain a defence that is more than a modus vivendi is to ground political impartialism in moral impartialism.
Samuel Scheffler
- Published in print:
- 2002
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780199257676
- eISBN:
- 9780191600197
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0199257671.003.0009
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
Attempts to ground liberal toleration in pluralism about value, in scepticism about value, or in the simple need for a modus vivendi are all subject to various difficulties. John Rawls, in his book ...
More
Attempts to ground liberal toleration in pluralism about value, in scepticism about value, or in the simple need for a modus vivendi are all subject to various difficulties. John Rawls, in his book Political Liberalism, develops a fourth proposal, one that aims to give toleration and other liberal institutions a basis in moral reasons without presupposing any controversial moral outlook. In this essay, Scheffler critically examines Rawls's argument that the principles of justice can rest on an overlapping consensus of comprehensive moral and religious doctrines. Among the issues Scheffler discusses are the possibility of including classical utilitarianism in an overlapping consensus, the relationship between such a consensus and the ideal of public reason, and the relevance of political liberalism for societies that lack liberal, democratic traditions.Less
Attempts to ground liberal toleration in pluralism about value, in scepticism about value, or in the simple need for a modus vivendi are all subject to various difficulties. John Rawls, in his book Political Liberalism, develops a fourth proposal, one that aims to give toleration and other liberal institutions a basis in moral reasons without presupposing any controversial moral outlook. In this essay, Scheffler critically examines Rawls's argument that the principles of justice can rest on an overlapping consensus of comprehensive moral and religious doctrines. Among the issues Scheffler discusses are the possibility of including classical utilitarianism in an overlapping consensus, the relationship between such a consensus and the ideal of public reason, and the relevance of political liberalism for societies that lack liberal, democratic traditions.
David Miller
- Published in print:
- 1990
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198278641
- eISBN:
- 9780191599903
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198278640.003.0012
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
Should socialists encourage or discourage the expression of cultural diversity, especially ethnic diversity? Because they believe in grounding citizenship, in a common national identity, socialists ...
More
Should socialists encourage or discourage the expression of cultural diversity, especially ethnic diversity? Because they believe in grounding citizenship, in a common national identity, socialists must try to integrate ethnic groups into such an identity. They should not intervene in the area of private culture, but they should be prepared to design both political and education systems so as to discourage narrow sectional identities and foster a strong sense of citizen identity.Less
Should socialists encourage or discourage the expression of cultural diversity, especially ethnic diversity? Because they believe in grounding citizenship, in a common national identity, socialists must try to integrate ethnic groups into such an identity. They should not intervene in the area of private culture, but they should be prepared to design both political and education systems so as to discourage narrow sectional identities and foster a strong sense of citizen identity.
Colin M. Macleod
- Published in print:
- 1998
- Published Online:
- November 2003
- ISBN:
- 9780198293972
- eISBN:
- 9780191599798
- Item type:
- chapter
- Publisher:
- Oxford University Press
- DOI:
- 10.1093/0198293976.003.0007
- Subject:
- Political Science, Political Theory
Takes up the relation between Dworkin's liberal egalitarianism and state perfectionism. A distinction is drawn between an ideal of liberal neutrality and liberal tolerance. The latter is compatible ...
More
Takes up the relation between Dworkin's liberal egalitarianism and state perfectionism. A distinction is drawn between an ideal of liberal neutrality and liberal tolerance. The latter is compatible with a mild form of state perfectionism and is more attractive than the variety of liberal neutrality associated with equality of resource.Less
Takes up the relation between Dworkin's liberal egalitarianism and state perfectionism. A distinction is drawn between an ideal of liberal neutrality and liberal tolerance. The latter is compatible with a mild form of state perfectionism and is more attractive than the variety of liberal neutrality associated with equality of resource.
