Advertisement

Res Publica

pp 1–21 | Cite as

Deliberative Democracy, Diversity, and Restraint

  • James BoettcherEmail author
Article

Abstract

Public reason liberals disagree about the relationship between public justification and deliberative democracy. My goal is to argue against the recent suggestion that public reason liberals seek a ‘divorce’ from deliberative democracy. Defending this thesis will involve discussing the benefits of deliberation for public justification as well as revisiting public reason’s standard Rawlisan restraint requirement. I criticize Kevin Vallier’s alternative convergence-based principle of restraint and respond to the worry that the standard Rawlsian restraint requirement reduces the likelihood of public justification by limiting the diversity of inputs into the justificatory process.

Keywords

Public reason Deliberative democracy Public justification Liberalism 

Notes

References

  1. Anderson, Elizabeth. 2006. The Epistemology of Democracy. Episteme 3: 8–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Billingham, Paul. 2016. Convergence Justifications Within Political Liberalism: A Defence. Res Publica 22: 135–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bird, Colin. 2014. Coercion and Public Justification. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 13: 189–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bonotti, Matteo. 2017. Partisanship and Political Liberalism in Diverse Societies. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brennan, Jason. 2016. Against Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cohen, Joshua. 1997. Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy. In Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, ed. James Bohman and William Rehg, 67–92. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  7. Elster, Jon. 1986. The Market and the Forum: Three Varieties of Political Theory. In Foundations of Social Choice Theory, ed. Jon Elster and Aanund Hylland, 103–132. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Estlund, David. 2008. Democratic Authority. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Freeman, Samuel. 2000. Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment. Philosophy & Public Affairs 29: 371–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gaus, Gerald, and Kevin Vallier. 2009. The Roles of Religious Conviction in a Publicly Justified Polity: The Implications of Convergence, Asymmetry and Political Institutions. Philosophy and Social Criticism 35: 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gaus, Gerald, and Chad Van Schoelandt. 2017. Consensus on What? Convergence for What? Four Models of Political Liberalism. Ethics 128: 145–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gaus, Gerald. 2016. The Tyranny of the Ideal. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goodin, Robert. 2003. Reflective Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goodin, Robert. 2008. Innovating Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Habermas, Jürgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms, trans. William Rehg. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hong, Lu, and Scott Page. 2004. Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences 101: 16385–16389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jønch-Clausen, Karin, and Klemens Kappel. 2016. Scientific Facts and Methods in Public Reason. Res Publica 22: 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Laborde, Cécile. 2017. Liberalism’s Religion. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Landemore, Hélène. 2013. Democratic Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Landemore, Hélène, and Scott Page. 2015. Deliberation and disagreement: Problem Solving, Prediction, and Positive Dissensus. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 14: 229–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leland, R.J., and Han van Wietmarschen. 2012. Reasonableness, Intellectual Modesty, and Reciprocity in Political Justification. Ethics 122: 721–747.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mansbridge, Jane. 2009. A ‘Seletion Model’ of Political Representation. Journal of Political Philosophy 17: 369–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parkinson, John, and Jane Mansbridge. 2012. Deliberative Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice, rev. edn. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Rawls, John. 2005. Political Liberalism, exp. edn. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Reidy, David. 2000. Rawls’s Wide View of Public Reason: Not Wide Enough. Res Publica 6: 49–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Quong, Jonathan. 2011. Liberalism without Perfection. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Schwartzman, Micah. 2011. The Sincerity of Public Reason. Journal of Political Philosophy 19: 375–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vallier, Kevin. 2014. Liberal Politics and Public Faith. New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vallier, Kevin. 2015. Public Justification versus Public Deliberation: The Case for Divorce. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45: 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Saint Joseph’s UniversityPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations