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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Throughout, I use “public reason” theories to also refer to many forms of contractualist, contractarian, and constructivist theories generally. It should be clear from the arguments below what theories these criticisms will apply to.
I thank an anonymous reviewer for pushing me on this point.
In this context, rationalizability means that the choice set can be understood as a maximal set of a binary ordering of the underlying set of options. This is a basic concept in the theory of rational choice, see: (Bossert et al. 2006).
What Sen sometimes calls “property \(\upbeta \),” that \( [\forall x,y \in C(A) \& A \subset B] \rightarrow [x \in C(B)\rightarrow y \in C(A)]\) (1970, pp. 7–10). I will refer to this property as “expansion consistency.”
References
Alexander, J., & Skyrms, B. (1999). Bargaining with neighbors: Is justice contagious? Journal of Philosophy, 96(11), 588–598.
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.
Binmore, K. (1998). Game theory and the social contract, vol. 2: Just playing. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Binmore, K. (2005). Natural justice. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
Bruner, J. P. (2015). Diversity, tolerance, and the social contract. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 14(4), 429–448.
Buchanan, J. (2000). The limits of liberty: Between Anarchy and Leviathan. The collected works of James M. Buchanan. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
Buchanan, J., & Tullock, G. (1999). The calculus of consent: Logical foundations of constitutional democracy. The collected works of James M. Buchanan. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
D’Agostino, F. (1996). Free public reason: Making it up as we go. New York: Oxford University Press.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Gaus, G. (2011). The order of public reason: A theory of freedom and morality in a diverse and bounded world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaus, G. (2013). The turn to a political liberalism. In M. Jon & D. Reidy (Eds.), A companion to Rawls (pp. 233–250). Hoboken: Wiley.
Gaus, G. (2016). The tyranny of the ideal: Justice in a diverse society. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gauthier, D. (1986). Morals by agreement. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Gilabert, P. (2012). Comparative assessments of justice, political feasibility, and ideal theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15(1), 39–56.
Gold, N., & List, C. (2004). Framing as path dependence. Economics and Philosophy, 20(2), 253–277.
Hamilton, A. (1788). Federalist no. 1. In G. W. Carey & J. McClellan (Eds.), The federalist, The Gideon Edition, (pp. 1–4). Liberty Fund.
Hardin, R. (1988). Morality within the limits of reason. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.
Harman, G. (1975). Moral relativism defended. The Philosophical Review, 84(1), 3–22.
Korsgaard, C. (1996). The sources of normativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luce, R. D., & Raiffa, H. (1957). Games and decisions: Introduction and critical survey. New York: Wiley.
Miller, D. (2012). Justice for earthlings: Essays in political philosophy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mills, C. (2005). ‘Ideal theory’ as ideology. Hypatia, 20(3), 165–184.
Moehler, M. (2014). The scope of instrumental morality. Philosophical Studies, 167(2), 435–451.
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.
Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, state, and utopia. New York: Basic Books.
O’Neill, O. (1987). Abstraction, idealization and ideology in ethics. Royal Institute of Philosophy Supplements, 22, 55–69. doi:10.1017/S0957042X00003667.
Pettit, P. (1996). The common mind: An essay on psychology, society, and politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pettit, P. (2006). Can contract theory ground morality? In J. Dreier (Ed.), Contemporary debates in moral theory (pp. 77–96). Hoboken: Blackwell.
Plott, C. R. (1973). Path independence, rationality, and social choice. Econometrica, 41(6), 1075–1091.
Poproski, R. (2010). The rationalizability of two-step choices. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 39(6), 713–743. doi:10.1007/s10992-010-9148-0.
Quong, J. (2010). Liberalism without perfection. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1980). Kantian constructivism in moral theory. The Journal of Philosophy, 77(9), 515–572.
Rawls, J. (1996). Political liberalism. Paperback. New York: Columbia University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999a). A theory of justice (Revised ed.). Cambridge: Belknap Press.
Rawls, J. (1999b). Distributive justice. In S. Freeman (Ed.), Collected papers (pp. 130–153). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999c). Kantian constructivism in moral theory. In S. Freeman (Ed.), Collected papers (pp. 303–358). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999d). The independence of moral theory. In S. Freeman (Ed.), Collected papers (pp. 286–302). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sabl, A. (2012). Hume’s politics: Coordination and crisis in the “History of England”. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schmidtz, D. (2011). Nonideal theory: What it is and what it needs to be. Ethics, 121(4), 772–796.
Sen, A. (1970). Collective choice and social welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day Inc.
Sen, A. (1993). Internal consistency of choice. Econometrica, 61(3), 495–521.
Sen, A. (1997). Maximization and the act of choice. Econometrica, 65(4), 745–779.
Sen, A. (2006). What do we want from a theory of justice? The Journal of Philosophy, 103(5), 215–238.
Simmons, A. J. (2010). Ideal and nonideal theory. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 38(1), 5–36.
Skyrms, B. (1996). Evolution of the social contract. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stemplowska, Z. (2008). What’s ideal about ideal theory? Social Theory and Practice, 34(3), 319–340.
Thrasher, J., & Vallier, K. (2015). The fragility of consensus. European Journal of Philosophy, 23(4), 933–954.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S251–S278.
Valentini, L. (2009). On the apparent paradox of ideal theory. Journal of Political Philosophy, 17(3), 332–355.
Valentini, L. (2012). Ideal vs. non-ideal theory: A conceptual map. Philosophy Compass, 7(9), 654–664.
Waldron, J. (2013). Political political theory: An inaugural lecture. Journal of Political Philosophy, 21(1), 1–23.
Weithman, P. (2010). Why political liberalism? On John Rawls’s political turn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wiens, D. (2012). Prescribing institutions without ideal theory. Journal of Political Philosophy, 20(1), 45–70.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thrasher, J. Constructivism, representation, and stability: path-dependence in public reason theories of justice. Synthese 196, 429–450 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1488-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-017-1488-7