Advertisement

Synthese

, Volume 196, Issue 1, pp 429–450 | Cite as

Constructivism, representation, and stability: path-dependence in public reason theories of justice

  • John ThrasherEmail author
Article

Abstract

Public reason theories are characterized by three conditions: constructivism, representation, and stability. Constructivism holds that justification does not rely on any antecedent moral or political values outside of the procedure of agreement. Representation holds that the reasons for the choice in the model must be rationally explicable to real agents outside the model. Stability holds that the principles chosen in the procedure should be stable upon reflection, especially in the face of diversity in a pluralistic society. Choice procedures that involve at least two-stages with different information, as Rawls’s theory does, will be path-dependent and not meet the condition of representation since it will not be globally coherent. Attempts to solve this problem without eliminating the segmentation of choice in the procedure will run afoul of constructivism or stability. This problem is instructive because it highlights how public reason theories must evolve in the face of increased concerns about diversity.

Keywords

Public reason Stability Path-dependence Social contract Constructivism 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Alexei Procyshyn, Hun Chung, Justin Bruner, Keith Hankins, Leif Wenar, Jerry Gaus, Brian Kogelmann, Chad van Schoelandt, Danny Shahar, and audiences at the University of New South Wales, the University of Canterbury, Seoul National University, The University of Utah, and the University of Arizona for helpful comments on earlier version of this paper and for discussion on the topic.

References

  1. Alexander, J., & Skyrms, B. (1999). Bargaining with neighbors: Is justice contagious? Journal of Philosophy, 96(11), 588–598.Google Scholar
  2. Bandyopadhyay, T., & Sengupta, K. (2006). Rational choice and von Neumann–Morgenstern’s stable set: The case of path-dependent procedures. Social Choice and Welfare, 27(3), 611–619. doi: 10.1007/s00355-006-0147-6.Google Scholar
  3. Binmore, K. (1998). Game theory and the social contract, vol. 2: Just playing. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. Binmore, K. (2005). Natural justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bossert, W., Sprumont, Y., & Suzumura, K. (2006). Rationalizability of choice functions on general domains without full transitivity. Social Choice and Welfare, 27(3), 435–458.Google Scholar
  6. Bossert, W., & Suzumura, K. (2011). Rationality, external norms, and the epistemic value of menus. Social Choice and Welfare, 37(4), 729–741. doi: 10.1007/s00355-011-0568-8.Google Scholar
  7. Bruner, J. P. (2015). Diversity, tolerance, and the social contract. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 14(4), 429–448.Google Scholar
  8. Buchanan, J. (2000). The limits of liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. The collected works of James M. Buchanan. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  9. Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1999). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. The collected works of James M. Buchanan. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  10. D’Agostino, F. (1996). Free public reason: Making it up as we go. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Dworkin, R. (1976). The original position. In D. Norman (Ed.), Reading Rawls: Critical studies on Rawls’ “a theory of justice”. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Enoch, D. (2013). The disorder of public reason: A critical study of Gerald Gaus’s the order of public reason. Ethics, 124(1), 141–176.Google Scholar
  13. Estlund, D. (2011). Human nature and the limits (if any) of political philosophy. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 39(3), 207–237. doi: 10.1111/j.1088-4963.2011.01207.x.Google Scholar
  14. Freeman, S. (2002). Congruence and the good of justice. In S. Freeman (Ed.), The Cambridge companion to Rawls (pp. 277–315). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gaertner, W., & Xu, Y. (1999). On rationalizability of choice functions: A characterization of the median. Social Choice and Welfare, 16(4), 629–638. doi: 10.1007/s003550050165.Google Scholar
  16. Gaus, G. (2011). The order of public reason: A theory of freedom and morality in a diverse and bounded world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Gaus, G. (2013). The turn to a political liberalism. In M. Jon & D. Reidy (Eds.), A companion to Rawls (pp. 233–250). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Gaus, G. (2016). The tyranny of the ideal: Justice in a diverse society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  20. Gilabert, P. (2012). Comparative assessments of justice, political feasibility, and ideal theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15(1), 39–56.Google Scholar
  21. Gold, N., & List, C. (2004). Framing as path dependence. Economics and Philosophy, 20(2), 253–277.Google Scholar
  22. Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist no. 1. In G. W. Carey & J. McClellan (Eds.), The federalist, The Gideon Edition, (pp. 1–4). Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  23. Hardin, R. (1988). Morality within the limits of reason. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harman, G. (1975). Moral relativism defended. The Philosophical Review, 84(1), 3–22.Google Scholar
  25. Korsgaard, C. (1996). The sources of normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Miller, D. (2012). Justice for earthlings: Essays in political philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Mills, C. (2005). ‘Ideal theory’ as ideology. Hypatia, 20(3), 165–184.Google Scholar
  29. Moehler, M. (2014). The scope of instrumental morality. Philosophical Studies, 167(2), 435–451.Google Scholar
  30. Muldoon, R., Lisciandra, C., Colyvan, M., Martini, C., Sillari, G., & Sprenger, J. (2014). Disagreement behind the veil of ignorance. Philosophical Studies, 170(3), 377–394.Google Scholar
  31. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  32. O’Neill, O. (1987). Abstraction, idealization and ideology in ethics. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 22, 55–69. doi: 10.1017/S0957042X00003667.Google Scholar
  33. Pettit, P. (1996). The common mind: An essay on psychology, society, and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Pettit, P. (2006). Can contract theory ground morality? In J. Dreier (Ed.), Contemporary debates in moral theory (pp. 77–96). Hoboken: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  35. Plott, C. R. (1973). Path independence, rationality, and social choice. Econometrica, 41(6), 1075–1091.Google Scholar
  36. Poproski, R. (2010). The rationalizability of two-step choices. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39(6), 713–743. doi: 10.1007/s10992-010-9148-0.Google Scholar
  37. Quong, J. (2010). Liberalism without perfection. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Rawls, J. (1980). Kantian constructivism in moral theory. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(9), 515–572.Google Scholar
  39. Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. Paperback. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rawls, J. (1999a). A theory of justice (Revised ed.). Cambridge: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
  41. Rawls, J. (1999b). Distributive justice. In S. Freeman (Ed.), Collected papers (pp. 130–153). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Rawls, J. (1999c). Kantian constructivism in moral theory. In S. Freeman (Ed.), Collected papers (pp. 303–358). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Rawls, J. (1999d). The independence of moral theory. In S. Freeman (Ed.), Collected papers (pp. 286–302). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Sabl, A. (2012). Hume’s politics: Coordination and crisis in the “History of England”. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Schmidtz, D. (2011). Nonideal theory: What it is and what it needs to be. Ethics, 121(4), 772–796.Google Scholar
  46. Sen, A. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day Inc.Google Scholar
  47. Sen, A. (1993). Internal consistency of choice. Econometrica, 61(3), 495–521.Google Scholar
  48. Sen, A. (1997). Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica, 65(4), 745–779.Google Scholar
  49. Sen, A. (2006). What do we want from a theory of justice? The Journal of Philosophy, 103(5), 215–238.Google Scholar
  50. Simmons, A. J. (2010). Ideal and nonideal theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 38(1), 5–36.Google Scholar
  51. Skyrms, B. (1996). Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Stemplowska, Z. (2008). What’s ideal about ideal theory? Social Theory and Practice, 34(3), 319–340.Google Scholar
  53. Thrasher, J., & Vallier, K. (2015). The fragility of consensus. European Journal of Philosophy, 23(4), 933–954.Google Scholar
  54. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.Google Scholar
  55. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S251–S278.Google Scholar
  56. Valentini, L. (2009). On the apparent paradox of ideal theory. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(3), 332–355.Google Scholar
  57. Valentini, L. (2012). Ideal vs. non-ideal theory: A conceptual map. Philosophy Compass, 7(9), 654–664.Google Scholar
  58. Waldron, J. (2013). Political political theory: An inaugural lecture. Journal of Political Philosophy, 21(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  59. Weithman, P. (2010). Why political liberalism? On John Rawls’s political turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Wiens, D. (2012). Prescribing institutions without ideal theory. Journal of Political Philosophy, 20(1), 45–70.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Philosophy Department, School of Philosophy, History, and International StudiesMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations