• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Philosophia >Naked in the Public Square
【24h】

Naked in the Public Square

机译：裸体在公共广场

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

Responding to Rawls’ pleas in Political Liberalism against appeals to comprehensive doctrines, be they religious or metaphysical, I argue that such constraints are inherently illiberal—and unworkable. Rawls deems political proposals inherently coercive and judges everyone in a democracy a participant in governance—thus, in effect, complicit in state coercion. He seeks to limit the sweep of his exclusionary rule to core questions of rights. But in an individualistic and litigious society like ours it proves hard to draw a firm boundary around issues that raise core (constitutional) questions. The standards Rawls proposes seem oppressive in effect, their likeliest yield, a kind of doublethink, encouraging many citizens to cloak their deepest normative concerns in neutered language. I worry about the means by which Rawls’ ‘overlapping consensus’ might be attained, and about the exclusion (as metaphysical) of policy proposals in behalf of broadly conceived human goods. I find it suppositious in Rawls to presume the innocence of seemingly secular arguments while placing in the stocks the religious appeals critical to many, along with old and new metaphysical arguments that may seek to bridge the gap between religious and secular appeals.
机译：为了回应罗尔斯在政治自由主义中的呼吁，反对对宗教或形而上学等全面学说的呼吁，我认为这样的制约本质上是自由的，是行不通的。罗尔斯认为政治提议本质上是强制性的，并判断民主国家中的每个人都是治理的参与者，因此实际上是国家强制的同谋。他力图将排除规则的范围限制在核心权利问题上。但是，在像我们这样的个人主义和诉讼社会中，事实证明很难就提出核心（宪法）问题的问题划清界限。罗尔斯提出的标准实际上似乎是令人沮丧的，其最高的收益率是一种双重思维，鼓励许多公民用中性语言掩盖其最深层的规范性关注。我担心可能会达成罗尔斯的“重叠共识”，也担心将代表广泛构思的人类产品的政策建议排除在外（作为形而上学）。我发现在罗尔斯假定表面上的世俗论点是无罪的，而在股票中放置对许多人至关重要的宗教诉求，以及可能寻求弥合宗教和世俗诉求之间差距的新旧形而上学的论据。

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