• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文学位 >The liberal dilemma in formulating a fundamental political principle: Political unanimity and non-political diversity.
【24h】

The liberal dilemma in formulating a fundamental political principle: Political unanimity and non-political diversity.

机译：制定基本政治原则的自由困境：政治上的一致和非政治上的多样性。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The fundamental question facing the well being of contemporary liberal democratic societies is whether people with diverse and comprehensive religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines can coexist peacefully. Political liberals respond to this challenge by proposing a project of political unanimity and non-political diversity in the attempt to construct unanimous agreement through the fundamental principle of justice as the basis for toleration, regulation, and the free pursuit of divergent doctrines and conceptions of the good.; I argue that political liberals fail to work out a unanimous political principle because they avoid the problem of reasonable disagreement, whether by way of “original position” in John Rawls or the “principle of neutrality” in Ronald Dworkin, Charles Larmore, and Bruce Ackerman. The exclusion of comprehensive commitments to and conceptions of the good in political construction, I argue, does not ensure political agreement and may result in moral skepticism and value-blindness in politics. Faced the necessity of reintroducing conceptions of the good, political liberals have difficulty in determining what is a common good and a common value. Political liberals are confronted with a complicated dilemma when forced to address the problem of diversity, namely, the dilemma of including various conceptions of the good that falsify the original position of neutrality.; In order to address the challenge of reasonable pluralism in human coexistence, and to overcome the liberal dilemma, I propose an “engaged model for the mutual understanding of differences” as the basis of reaching political consensus. This model consists of a procedural presentation of differences in order to achieve mutual understanding and a rationale for a common political project. I argue that different reasonable doctrines, religious and non-religious, political and non-political, liberal and non-liberal, should have legitimate status in solving the basic problems of human coexistence and the determination of justice in a pluralistic democratic society. I further argue that an “engaged model” opens new possibilities for the comparative study of political, philosophical, moral, and religious doctrines that enhance the prospect of toleration, political consensus and political justice in pluralistic democratic societies.
机译：当代自由民主社会的幸福所面临的根本问题是，具有多种多样和全面的宗教，哲学和道德学说的人们是否可以和平共处。政治自由主义者通过提出一个政治上一致和非政治上的多样性的项目来应对这一挑战，以通过正义的基本原则为容忍，规制和自由地追求不同的学说和思想观念的基础来达成一致的协议。好。;我认为政治自由主义者未能制定出一致的政治原则，因为他们避免了合理分歧的问题，无论是通过约翰·罗尔斯的“原始立场”还是罗纳德·德沃金，查尔斯·拉莫尔和布鲁斯·阿克曼的“中立原则” 。我认为，排除对政治建设中的全面承诺和善意的观念并不能确保政治共识，并可能导致政治上的道德怀疑和价值盲目。面对重新引入商品概念的必要性，政治自由主义者很难确定什么是共同的商品和共同的价值。政治自由主义者在被迫解决多样性问题时面临着一个复杂的难题，即，包括各种伪造善意的商品概念的困境。为了应对合理的多元化在人类共处中的挑战，并克服自由主义的困境，我提出了“相互理解差异的订婚模式”，作为达成政治共识的基础。该模型包括对差异的程序表示，以实现相互理解和共同政治项目的理由。我认为，不同的合理学说，宗教和非宗教，政治和非政治，自由和非自由，在解决人类共处的基本问题和多元化民主社会中的正义决心时，应具有合法地位。我进一步指出，“参与模式”为政治，哲学，道德和宗教学说的比较研究开辟了新的可能性，从而增强了多元民主社会中宽容，政治共识和政治正义的前景。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号