Skip to main content

Religious Reasons in the Public Domain

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 159 Accesses

Part of the book series: Münster Lectures in Philosophy ((MUELP,volume 5))

Abstract

This paper provides a critical discussion of Robert Audi’s thoughts concerning the role of religious reasons within public political debates in modern western societies. The paper departs from an introduction to Audi’s conception of political philosophy that he characterizes as liberal, rights-based and rationalistic. Based on these general observations, Audi’s important principle of secular rationale is introduced and discussed. The principle claims that coercive laws and public policies have to be based on adequate secular reasons. Within this paper, five challenges to Audi’s central principle are identified and explicated: First, the principle might pose an unfair burden on religious citizens who have to find appropriate secular equivalents to their religious convictions. Second, the distinction between secular and religious reasons might be problematic in itself. Third, the principle of secular rationale might be interpreted as a principle of public deliberation as well as a principle of individual conduct and good, virtuous citizenship – and the principle’s plausibility might depend on the differences between these interpretations. Fourth, in some cases, the principle might thwart incentives to secure the inclusiveness and honesty of public political discourses. Fifth, there might be an internal challenge, as the principle seems to be in conflict with some thoughts defended by Audi within his philosophy of religion. The paper concludes with a tentative modification of Audi’s principle that tries to avoid some of the mentioned difficulties.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Interestingly enough, as far as we can see, Audi rarely uses the term “human rights” at all in his political writings. Nevertheless, we cannot see any reasons that would prevent someone from connecting Audi’s theory with the idea of universal rights that have to be respected and / or positivized within a state’s legal framework.

  2. 2.

    The observation that his theory is rights-based obviously does not imply the claim that rights are the only thing that count within Audi’s theory of politics. He himself emphasizes that there can be “wrongs within rights,” that there is more to say about morality than pointing out some moral rights. See also Audi 2011a, 66, 116. For some central ideas underlying rights-based approaches to political philosophy, see Audi 2000, 16.

  3. 3.

    For a well-known example of such a political philosophy, which has been intensively discussed in recent years, see Chantal Mouffe’s “agonistic model of democracy” (2005, e.g., 98–105).

  4. 4.

    United States, Declaration of Independence, 4th July 1776, Preamble, first sentence.

  5. 5.

    This consequence is in our opinion one of the aspects of Audi’s theory that Quinn wanted to underline when he introduced the lengthy example of Megan, the anti-abortionist-activist, in Quinn 2004, 315ff.

  6. 6.

    For this question, cf. Audi 2011a, 74f.

  7. 7.

    Cf. Audi 2011a, 76: “Regarding the basis of the principle [of secular rationale] I will suggest only this: … Second, it helps to prevent religious strife, since it limits coercion to kinds justified on grounds acceptable to any adequately informed, fully rational citizen. Third, adherence to it is needed to achieve the reciprocity among citizens that is required by any plausible understanding of ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’.”

  8. 8.

    For an interesting and detailed analysis of Audi’s conception of non-doxastic faith see Alston 2007.

  9. 9.

    With its focus on the issue of infallibility, this idea is related to the proposal made by Zachary Hoskins in 2009, 406ff.

References

  • Alston, William P. 2007. Audi on Non-Doxastic Faith. In Rationality and the Good. Critical Essays on the Ethics and Epistemology of Robert Audi, ed. Mark Timmons, John Greco, and Alfred R. Mele, 123–139. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Audi, Robert. 2000. Religious Commitment and Secular Reason. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011a. Democratic Authority and the Separation of Church and State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • ———. 2011b. Rationality and Religious Commitment. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Audi, Robert, and Nicholas Wolterstorff. 1997. Religion in the Public Square. The Place of Religious Convictions in Political Debate. London: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoskins, Zachary. 2009. On Highest Authority: Do Religious Reasons Have a Place in Public Policy Debates? Social Theory and Practice 35: 393–412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, Bryan T. 2010. Faith in Politics. Religion and Liberal Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. The Democratic Paradox. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, Philipp L. 2004. Religion and the Liberalism of Fear. In Philosophy of Religion for a New Century. Essays in Honor of Eugene Thomas Long, ed. Jeremiah Hacket and Jerald Wallulis, 307–328. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, John. 1972. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Johannes Müller-Salo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

de Vries, P., Müller-Salo, J. (2018). Religious Reasons in the Public Domain. In: Müller-Salo, J. (eds) Robert Audi: Critical Engagements. Münster Lectures in Philosophy, vol 5. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-00482-8_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics