The later Rawls attempts to offer a non-comprehensive, but nonetheless moral justification in political philosophy. Many critics of political liberalism doubt that this is successful, but Rawlsians often complain that such criticisms rely on the unwarranted assumption that one cannot offer a moral justification other than by taking a philosophically comprehensive route. In this article, I internally criticize the justification strategy employed by the later Rawls. I show that he cannot offer us good grounds for the rational hope that citizens will assign political values priority over non-political values in cases of conflict about political matters. I also suggest an alternative approach to justification in political philosophy (that is, a weak realist, Williams-inspired account) that better respects the later Rawls’s concern with non-comprehensiveness and pluralism than either his own view or more comprehensive approaches. Thus, if we take reasonable pluralism seriously, then we should adopt what Shklar aptly called ‘liberalism of fear’.
Baier K. ( 1989) Justice and the aims of political philosophy. Ethics99(4): 771-90.
2.
Barry B. ( 1995) John Rawls and the search for stability. Ethics105(4): 874-915.
3.
Cohen J. ( 1993) Moral pluralism and political consensus. In: Copp D, Hampton J, Roemer J (eds) The Idea of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 270-91.
4.
Cohen J. ( 1994) A more democratic liberalism. Michigan Law Review92(6): 1503-46.
5.
Cohen J. ( 2009) Truth and public reason. Philosophy and Public Affairs37(1): 2-42.
6.
Dreben B. ( 2003) On Rawls and political liberalism. In: Freeman S (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 316-46.
7.
Dworkin R. ( 2000) Sovereign Virtue. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
8.
Estlund D. ( 1998) The insularity of the reasonable: Why political liberalism must admit the truth. Ethics108: 252-75.
9.
Forst R. ( 2007) Die Rechtfertigung der Gerechtigkeit: Rawls’ Politischer Liberalismus und Habermas’ Diskurstheorie in der Diskussion. Reprinted in: Das Recht auf Rechtfertigung: Elemente einer konstruktivistischen Theorie der Gerechtigkeit. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, Ch. 4.
10.
Galston WA ( 1989) Pluralism and social unity. Ethics99(4): 711-26.
11.
Galston WA ( 2009) Realism and moralism in political theory. In: Young SP (ed.) Reflections on Rawls: An Assessment of his Legacy. Farnham: Ashgate, Ch. 6.
12.
Gauthier D. ( 1986) Morals by Agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
13.
Geuss R. ( 2008) Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14.
Gowan P. ( 2001) Neoliberal cosmopolitanism. New Left Review11: 79-93.
15.
Habermas J. ( 1995) Reconciliation through the public use of reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s political liberalism. Journal of Philosophy92(3): 109-31.
16.
Habermas J. ( 1998) ‘Reasonable’ versus ‘True,’ or the morality of worldviews. In: Cronin C, De Gruff P (ed.), Cronin C (trans.) Inclusion of the Other: Studies in Political Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
Hill TE Jr ( 2000) The problem of stability in Political Liberalism. Reprinted in: Respect, Pluralism, and Justice: Kantian Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch. 9.
18.
Krasnoff L. ( 1998) Consensus, stability, and normativity in Rawls’s political liberalism. Journal of Philosophy95(6): 269-92.
19.
Kymlicka W. ( 2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
Laden AS ( 2003) The house that jack built: Thirty years of reading Rawls . Ethics113(2): 367-90.
21.
Larmore C. ( 1990) Political liberalism. Political Theory18(3): 339-60.
22.
Larmore C. ( 1999) The moral basis of political liberalism. Journal of Philosophy96(12): 599-625.
23.
McCarthy T. ( 1994) Kantian constructivism and reconstructivism: Rawls and Habermas in dialogue. Ethics105(1): 44-63.
24.
Macebo S. ( 1990) The politics of justification. Political Theory18(2): 280-304.
25.
Morgenthau HJ ( 1948) Politics among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace . New York: Alfred Knopf.
26.
Peritz D. (n.d.) Substantive and procedural democracy: Reflections on the reasonable and the rational in Rawls and Habermas. Available at: http://pages.slc.edu/∼dperitz/papers/substantive-and-procedural.pdf
27.
Rawls J. ( 1995) Reply to Habermas. Journal of Philosophy92(3): 132-80. Reprinted in: Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press, Lecture IX.
28.
Rawls J. ( 1996) Political Liberalism, paperback edn. New York: Columbia University Press.
29.
Rawls J. ( 1999) Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
30.
Rawls J. ( 2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Kelly E (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
Rawls J. ( 2007) Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy, Freeman S (ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
32.
Raz J. ( 1990) Facing diversity: The case of epistemic abstinence. Philosophy and Public Affairs19(1): 3-46.
33.
Scanlon TM ( 2003) Rawls on justification. In: Freeman S (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Ch. 3.
34.
Schaub J. ( 2009) Gerechtigkeit als Versöhnung: John Rawls’ politischer Liberalismus. Frankfurt and New York: Campus.
35.
Scheffler S. ( 1994) The appeal of political liberalism. Ethics105(1): 4-22.
36.
Shklar J. ( 1998) Liberalism of fear. In: Hoffmann S (ed.) Political Thought and Political Thinkers . Chicago, IL and London: Chicago University Press, Ch. 1.
37.
Simmons AJ ( 1999) Justification and legitimacy. Ethics109(4): 739-71.
38.
Wenar L. ( 1995) Political liberalism: An internal critique. Ethics106(1): 32-62.
39.
Williams B. ( 1981) Moral Luck. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Williams B. ( 1985) Ethics and the Limits of Philosophy. London: Fontana Press.
41.
Williams B. ( 2005) In the Beginning was the Deed, Hawthorn G (ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42.
Wolf U. ( 1997) Übergreifender Konsens und öffentliche Vernunft . In: Philosophische Gesellschaft Bad Homburg, Hinsch W (eds.) Zur Idee des polilitischen Liberalismus: John Rawls in der Diskussion. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp, 52-66.
