Abstract

In recent debates in philosophy and, more specifically, in liberal democratic theory, theorists have drawn attention to the philosophical ideas associated with the Enlightenment and their significance for understanding liberal democracy. Many of the most well known theoretical accounts of liberalism have faced powerful criticisms, in part, because critics have linked their views to controversial assumptions associated with "Enlightenment philosophers" such as Kant, Mill, and Locke. In response, two distinguished philosophers who would defend liberal politics, John Rawls and Richard Rorty, have tried to shift the basis of liberal democracy away from an abstract and universalist version to a historically rooted understanding which relies on the traditions of a particular political culture for its substance. My project is to examine to what extent this newer strategy changes the debate between liberal thinkers and their critics, and how it may create room for more constructive dialogue with the critics I explore in the dissertation. ;I will look at the understanding of justification, and the distinction between public and private as the vehicle to focus the discussion and gauge the presence of conflict or agreement. After a look at Rawls's work in terms of these themes I turn to Rorty's account and then proceed to look at four prominent critics who represent two fields where liberal thought has become increasingly problematic: religion and feminism. I conclude by assessing the merits of the debates about liberal thought, how the strategy offered by Rorty and Rawls impacts the dialogue, and how the efforts of these theorists might enrich the moral vision of persons in existing social institutions and their capacity to generate constructive change.