The idea of public reason involves a standard of legitimacy that requires that laws and institutions be acceptable to all reasonable people, regardless of their conceptions of the good. Many philosophers have argued that public reason should be understood as an answer to the question of how to justify state coercion. However, some authors have criticized this traditional account because it overlooks noncoercive state actions that seem appropriate topics of public reason. More recently, some philosophers have defended the traditional account (...) against that objection. In this paper, I argue that these approaches cannot effectively deal with that objection and offer a different version of the traditional account that can do so. This version rests on the ideas of overlapping consensus and stability. According to this version, the point of public reason is preserving an overlapping consensus on a coercive system of laws and institutions and achieving a stable society. (shrink)

Si la familia es o no parte de la estructura básica es un tema que no queda del todo claro en la teoría de John Rawls. Por un lado, el autor afirma que lo es, pero, por otro lado, al analizar esta institución, la equipara con otras instituciones que explícitamente dice que no son parte de la estructura básica, como las iglesias y las universidades. El objetivo de este trabajo es brindar una interpretación de Rawls que solucione este problema.

In “Democracy and Deliberation: Two Models of Public Justification”, Mariano Garreta Leclercq presents an interesting argument in favor of what he calls “the common ground” conception of justification, as against the “standard” conception of justification. In this note I present an objection to that argument. More precisely, I point out a tension between two statements of that argument: 1) There is no right to decide for others; and 2) the margin of error in moral issues is very considerable. I say (...) that, if we are committed to the statement that the margin of error is very considerable in moral issues, so we cannot be convinced that there is no right to decide for others, because it is a moral principle in itself. (shrink)

Are inborn characteristics deserved or undeserved? Using Bertrand Russell's theory of descriptions and Peter Strawson's objection to this theory, I argue that this question does not make sense. In order to know whether a person deserves something she has, it is necessary to evaluate what she did before having it. But people did not exist before their birth, so they did not exist before having their inborn characteristics. Therefore, talking about people deserving their inborn characteristics does not make sense: these (...) characteristics are neither deserved nor undeserved. (shrink)

Journal of Social Philosophy, EarlyView.