Advertisement

Res Publica

, Volume 25, Issue 1, pp 119–125 | Cite as

Conjecture and the Division of Justificatory Labour: A Comment on Clayton and Stevens

  • Baldwin WongEmail author
Article

Abstract

Clayton and Stevens (Res Publica 20: 65–84, 2014) argue that political liberals should engage with the religiously unreasonable by offering religious responses and showing that their religious views are mistaken, instead of refusing to engage with them. Yet they recognize that political liberals will face a dilemma due to such religious responses: either their responses will alienate certain reasonable citizens, or their engagements will appear disingenuous. Thus, there should be a division of justificatory labour. The duty of engagement should be delegated to religious citizens. In this comment, I will argue that the division of justificatory labour is indefensible. This dilemma can be avoided if politicians and political philosophers correctly use conjecture, a form of discourse that involves non-public reason. As a conditional response, conjecture avoids alienating any reasonable citizens. Also, if conjecture is given in a sincere and open-minded manner, then the problem of disingenuousness can be overcome. My comment concludes that while the engagement of politicians and political philosophers does not necessarily jeopardize overlapping consensus, they should be permitted, or perhaps even required, to engage with the religiously unreasonable due to the natural duty of justice.

Keywords

Rawls Political liberalism Religion Disobedience Conjecture Division of justificatory labour 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Joseph Chan, Chandran Kukathas, Albert Weale and an anonymous reviewer for their comments and encouragement.

References

  1. Clayton, Matthew, and David Stevens. 2014. When god commands disobedience: Political liberalism and unreasonable religions. Res Publica 20: 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Corasaniti, Nick. 2015. Bernie Sanders makes rare appeal to Evangelicals at Liberty University. New York: New York Times.Google Scholar
  3. C-SPAN. 2015. Bernie Sanders Full Speech at Liberty University. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5ZB8Lg1tcA.
  4. Gaus, Gerald, and Kevin Vallier. 2009. The roles of religious conviction in a publicly justified policy. Philosophy & Social Criticism 35: 51–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Macedo, Stephen. 2000. Diversity and distrust. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Quong, Jonathan. 2011. Liberalism without perfection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Rawls, John. 1999. The idea of public reason revisited. In Collected papers, ed. John Rawls, and Samuel Freeman, 573–615. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Rawls, John. 2005. Political liberalism, Expanded edn. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Roberts, Dan. 2015. Bernie Sanders’ appeal to Christian students met with polite scepticism. London: The Guardian.Google Scholar
  10. Schwartzman, Micah. 2012. The ethics of reasoning from conjecture. Journal of Moral Philosophy 9: 521–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.General Education Foundation ProgramThe Chinese University, Hong KongShatinHong Kong

Personalised recommendations