The Integralist Objection to Political Liberalism

Jensen, Mark

doi:10.5840/soctheorpract200531212

Cited by 10 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first line consists in showing that the inclusivist fear of psychologically burdening the religious individual is exaggerated. Mark Jensen, for example, argues that those believers who deserve protection by the liberal state, i.e., those who already accept the principle of equal freedoms and rights for everyone, are themselves interested in maintaining a religiously neutral political discourse about how this principle is to be understood and implemented (Jensen 2005). Others argue that religious individuals normally have a large reservoir of reasons at their disposal that perfectly fulfill the demands of secular deliberation; reasons that are independent of revealed religious truth-claims, fallible, open to rational examination and comprehensible to a non-religious (or differently religious) audience.…”

Section: Habermas' Asymmetry Objectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Defense of Moderate Inclusivism: Revisiting Rawls and Habermas on Religion in the Public Sphere

Jakobsen

Fjørtoft

2018

Etikk Praksis - Nord J Appl Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper discusses Rawls’ and Habermas’ theories of deliberative democracy, focusing on the question of religious reasons in political discourse. Whereas Rawls as well as Habermas defend a fully inclusivist position on the use of religious reasons in the ‘background culture’ (Rawls) or ‘informal public sphere’ (Habermas), we defend a moderately inclusivist position. Moderate inclusivism welcomes religiously inspired contributions to public debate, but it also makes normative demands on public argumentation beyond the ‘public forum’ (Rawls) or ‘formal public sphere’ (Habermas). In particular, moderate inclusivism implies what we call a ‘conversational translation proviso’ according to which citizens have a duty to supplement religious with proper political arguments if – but only if – they are asked to do so by their co-discussants. This position, we argue, is more in line with the deeper intuitions behind Rawls’ political liberalism and Habermas’ deliberative model than is the fully inclusivist alternative. Keywords: conversational translation proviso, deliberative democracy, ethics of citizenship, Habermas, moderate inclusivism, public reason, Rawls

show abstract

Section: Habermas' Asymmetry Objectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In Defense of Moderate Inclusivism: Revisiting Rawls and Habermas on Religion in the Public Sphere

Jakobsen

Fjørtoft

2018

Etikk Praksis - Nord J Appl Ethics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Indeed, they argue, the practice of restraint, as required by the criterion of reciprocity, can be expected adversely to affect the lives specifically of religious citizens: to be unfair to, disproportionately burdensome for and disrespectful of them when it comes to articulating and defending favored laws. Specifically, it undermines their religious integrity, which has resulted in the strong inclusionist challenge to weak inclusionism being dubbed by Mark Jensen (2005) the 'integralist objection'.…”

Section: I:4 Strong Inclusionismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Religion in the public sphere

Smith

2014

Philosophy & Social Criticism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commonplace among deliberative theorists is the view that, when defending preferred laws and policies, citizens should appeal only to reasons they expect others reasonably to accept. This view has been challenged on the grounds that it places an undue burden on religious citizens who feel duty-bound to appeal to religious reasons to justify preferred positions. In response, I develop a conception of democratic deliberation that provides unlimited latitude regarding the sorts of reasons that can be introduced, so long as one is prepared to defend them against criticism. Moreover, I contend that religious citizens have a powerful incentive, based on their religious convictions, to be fully responsive to criticism. I defend this proposition by drawing on Robert Erlewine’s account of Hermann Cohen’s ‘religion of reason’.

show abstract

“…The position here outlined has come to be called that of the religious “integralist” (Herzberg 2010; Jensen 2005; Vallier forthcoming). From the integralist's point of view, the Rawlsian idea of separating the political from the fully comprehensive is understood not as the necessary means to political stability and justice, but rather as the temptation to betray his most fundamental human duties.…”

Section: Habermas Between Liberalism and Revisionismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Habermas, Religion, and Citizenship

Neal

2013

Politics and Religion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

What is the appropriate place for religious argument in the public realm of a liberal-democratic polity? The primary competing positions have been a "liberal" account and a "revisionist" response arguing for a greater role for religious argument in liberal democracy than the liberal position is ordinarily understood to allow. Liberals and their revisionist critics disagree about whether restraints on religious arguments and justifications are justified and desirable. Jürgen Habermas has intervened in this debate with a provocative account of the place of religion in the public sphere. Habermas presents his account as an alternative to both the liberal and the revisionist perspectives, and purports to do justice to the legitimate claims of each without falling prey to the failings of either. This article critically analyzes Habermas's interesting proposal and argues that it does not succeed.

show abstract

The Integralist Objection to Political Liberalism

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

In Defense of Moderate Inclusivism: Revisiting Rawls and Habermas on Religion in the Public Sphere

In Defense of Moderate Inclusivism: Revisiting Rawls and Habermas on Religion in the Public Sphere

Religion in the public sphere

Habermas, Religion, and Citizenship

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About