DOCSLIB.ORG

Liberalism and Borders: Finding Moral Consensus In

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by The University of Utah: J. Willard Marriott Digital Library LIBERALISM AND BORDERS: FINDING MORAL CONSENSUS IN THE OPEN BORDERS DEBATE by Russell Wayne Askren A dissertation submitted to the faculty of The University of Utah in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Philosophy The University of Utah August 2012 Copyright © Russell Wayne Askren 2012 All Rights Reserved The University of Utah Graduate School STATEMENT OF DISSERTATION APPROVAL The dissertation of Russell Wayne Askren has been approved by the following supervisory committee members: Bruce Landesman , Chair June 19, 2012 Date Approved Margaret Battin , Member June 19, 2012 Date Approved Deen Chatterjee , Member June 19, 2012 Date Approved Mark Button , Member June 19, 2012 Date Approved Darrel Moellendorf , Member June 19, 2012 Date Approved and by Stephen Downes , Chair of the Department of Philosophy and by Charles A. Wight, Dean of The Graduate School. ABSTRACT In recent decades liberal political philosophy has debated a significant question: If the basic commitment of liberal political theory is the equal moral standing of all individuals, how do we justify the presence of borders and their control such that individuals receive different consideration and treatment based solely upon their status as members of a particular political community? One position claims that hard borders are unjustifiable; borders must be open as a matter of right and respect for all individuals. At the other end of the spectrum is the position that hard borders are justifiable; borders can be closed as a matter of the right of particular communities to the goods that community creates and the preservation of that community’s unique identity. A third category of arguments considers the problem from the perspective of the nonideal circumstances in the world; opening borders is an appropriate and necessary response to resolving problems of hunger, poverty and violence in the world. I examine several arguments in each of these categories, finding that the arguments offered are problematic in ways which make them less than fully persuasive, even though they explore in valuable ways different aspects of the debate. A second problem is that this moral debate has failed to influence in any meaningful way the ongoing public policy debate related to immigration. To overcome this second problem I utilize a model proposed by Jonathan Wolf and Avner de-Shalit in which philosophically fragmented concepts, which cannot influence policy in their fragmented state, are brought to bear upon policy through the identification of the moral consensus present in the debate. This moral consensus, which represents the central moral concern of the debate, can be effectively applied to the appropriate policy debate. The proposed consensus is based upon the central moral concern of the open borders debate, the effect of immigration control policies upon the well-being of individuals, and argues that states may control their borders constrained by the obligation to give consideration to the effects of control policies and to ameliorate the negative effects of such policies. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT………………………………………………………………………. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………. vii Chapters 1. INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………. 1 Methodological Approach………………………………………………... 5 Chapter Summaries…………………………………………….…………. 5 2. LIBERALISM AND OPEN BORDERS……………………….…………….. 10 The Common Conclusion Argument……………………….…………….. 11 Nozick, Property and Borders…………………………….…………. 13 Rawls, Justice as Fairness and Borders……………….…….……….. 24 Utilitarianism and Open Borders……………………….……………. 33 Other Critiques of Carens…………………………...…….…………. 36 Open Borders and Single Principle Arguments…………….…………….. 39 Freedom of Movement and Open Borders…………….…………….. 39 Freedom of Association and Open Borders.………….………...……. 54 Resource Entitlement and Open Borders……………….……………. 58 Conclusion………………………………………………………………… 67 3. LIBERALISM AND CLOSED BORDERS.………………..….…………….. 69 The Membership Argument………………………………………………. 71 Membership and Walzer’s Theory of Goods………………………… 71 Cole’s Critique of Walzer……………………….…………………… 81 The Problem of Membership as a Dominant Good…….……….…… 93 National Identity and Culture Arguments………………………………… 99 Miller on National Identity and Culture………….………………….. 101 Cole on Liberal Nationalism……………………….………………… 113 Arguments from Single Principles……..…………………………………. 119 Freedom of Association and Closed Borders..…….………………… 119 Conclusion.……………………………………..………………………… 128 4. NONIDEAL ARGUMENTS AND INTERNATIONAL REGIMES.…..…... 131 Nonideal Arguments……………………………………………………… 133 The Question of Aid or Immigration………………………………… 134 Wilcox and the Global Principle of Harm…………………………… 143 International Regimes..…………………………………………………… 152 The Global Agreement on the Movements of People..……………… 153 The New International Regime for the Orderly Movements of People...…………………………………… 166 Conclusion.……………………………………..………………………… 174 5. MORAL CONSENSUS IN THE OPEN BORDERS DEBATE.…………….. 177 Developing Moral Consensus.…….……………..….…………………… 179 Consensus in the Open Borders Debate.…………….…………………… 185 Identifying the Consensus…………...……………………………… 185 The State in the Consensus..…………...…………………………… 187 Rights and Constraints in the Consensus.…………...……………… 193 Individual and State Interests..…………...………………………… 198 Determining Negative Effects.…………...………………………… 204 Conclusion……………………………………..………………………… 208 6. CONCLUSION.……………………………………..…………………….… 211 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY..………………………..…………………….… 217 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My philosophical interests are driven by the commitment that philosophy should change the way we live our lives. This pragmatic commitment has caused me no end of trouble. I owe deep thanks to Bruce Landesman for his unfailing support and guidance as I learned how to be both philosophical and practical at the same time. The success of this thesis and my completion of the program are in no small way due to his support. I hope it has not been this task that has sent him into retirement. I wish him well. I owe similar support to Darrel Moellendorf, of San Diego State University, who has supported me since I decided to turn my life upside down by leaving the comfortable world of business and turn to academia. Darrel has been supportive of my work since the very beginning, including participating in this thesis, which is above and beyond the call of duty. Through this process he has become a good friend. To the other members of my committee, Peggy Battin, Deen Chatterjee and Mark Button I owe varying levels of thanks for their support to this thesis and to other aspects of my academic career and interests, both in the classroom and outside. They have each taught me much and provided interesting and useful guidance during the program. I would also like to think Douglas G. Adler, M.D., Associate Professor of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine at the University of Utah. Dr. Adler has not only helped me to stay healthy during my studies, but amazingly always remembers to ask about the progress of the dissertation. Dr. Adler – It’s done! I often joke that I am living life backwards, pursuing goals that are usually pursued by people half my age. So I must thank my family for their many sacrifices along the way. My wife, Lynn Conger, joined me partway through this journey. Marrying a manager in the software industry in idyllic San Diego, she has without hesitation supported me as I have pursued new endeavors that have taken us far from home. She has been supportive, encouraging and borne far more of the duties at home for our family than she should have needed to do. Our children, Simon, Rowan and Naomi, have also given up much time with their father, especially over the last ten months. They do not fully understand what I am doing, but they sacrifice anyway. There will be more time to play now. I promise. viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Since the first human left the Olduvai Gorge, humans have been on the move. Whether pushed from a place by hunger, disease, war or natural disaster, or pulled to a place by better weather, better resources, or better opportunities, people have migrated from old places to new places, sometimes in hope of a better life and other times without any choice. For most of history, when people have moved they did so without regard for the invisible lines we call borders. Since the initiation of the Peace of Westphalia in the mid-seventeenth century, international law has recognized the state rights of political sovereignty and territorial integrity. Countries had the right to control their borders, but none did except in the case of war. State control of borders, especially as regards controlling the movement of people across them, is a recent phenomenon. Passports were created during the First World War and formal state policies are only a few decades older. Migrating peoples have often clashed with the established population, but the clash with state authority is a recent problem. Immigration policies developed to control borders and those who would move across them often lead to difficult decisions with ugly results. People die in ship holds and in deserts trying to reach the Promised Land. When they make it, they are often not allowed to stay. France deports thousands of Roma, Israel hundreds of Arabs and the United States thousands of Mexicans, splitting families,
Recommended publications
  • Moving Labor Power and Historical Forms of Migration: the Internationalist Socialist Worker, the Social Benefit Tourist and the Economic Migrant

    Moving Labor Power and Historical Forms of Migration: the Internationalist Socialist Worker, the Social Benefit Tourist and the Economic Migrant

    Moving Labor Power and Historical Forms of Migration: The Internationalist Socialist Worker, the Social Benefit Tourist and the Economic Migrant By Raia Apostolova Submitted to Central European University Department of Sociology and Social Anthropology In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Supervisors: Professor Prem Kumar Rajaram Professor Dan Rabinowitz Budapest, Hungary CEU eTD Collection 2017 Statement I hereby state that this dissertation contains no materials accepted for any other degrees in any other institutions. The thesis contains no material previously written and/or published by another person, except where appropriate acknowledgment is made in the form of bibliographical reference. Budapest, September 31, 2017 CEU eTD Collection Table of Contents INTRODUCTION FORMS OF MOVEMENT .................................................................................... 1 CHAPTER ONE THE METHODOLOGY BEHIND MOVING LABOR POWER .......................... 10 1.1. What is Moving Labor Power?.............................................................................................. 10 1.2. Methodological Liberalism: Liberal Philisophy and the Praxis of Movement ..................... 12 1.3. Approaching Movement from the Point of View of Labor Power ......................................... 22 1.4. Movement: The Potentiality and Actuality of Capitalism ..................................................... 31 1.5. Organized and Anarchic Forms of Migration ......................................................................
  • Conservation and the Myth of Consensus

    Conservation and the Myth of Consensus

    Essays Conservation and the Myth of Consensus M. NILS PETERSON,∗ MARKUS J. PETERSON,† AND TARLA RAI PETERSON‡ ∗Department of Fisheries and Wildlife, Michigan State University, 13 Natural Resources Building, East Lansing, MI 48824-1222, U.S.A., email [email protected] †Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-2258, U.S.A. ‡Department of Communication, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0491, U.S.A. Abstract: Environmental policy makers are embracing consensus-based approaches to environmental de- cision making in an attempt to enhance public participation in conservation and facilitate the potentially incompatible goals of environmental protection and economic growth. Although such approaches may pro- duce positive results in immediate spatial and temporal contexts and under some forms of governance, their overuse has potentially dangerous implications for conservation within many democratic societies. We suggest that environmental decision making rooted in consensus theory leads to the dilution of socially powerful con- servation metaphors and legitimizes current power relationships rooted in unsustainable social constructions of reality. We also suggest an argumentative model of environmental decision making rooted in ecology will facilitate progressive environmental policy by placing the environmental agenda on firmer epistemological ground and legitimizing challenges to current power hegemonies that dictate unsustainable practices. Key Words: democracy, environmental conflict,
  • FREE to MOVE the Costs and Consequences of Restrictions on Migration

    FREE to MOVE the Costs and Consequences of Restrictions on Migration

    IEA Discussion Paper No.77 FREE TO MOVE The costs and consequences of restrictions on migration Philippe Legrain November 2016 Institute of Economic Aairs With some exceptions, such as with the publication of lectures, IEA Discussion Papers are blind peer-reviewed by at least one academic or researcher who is an expert in the field. As with all IEA publications, the views expressed in IEA Discussion Papers are those of the author and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff. 3 Contents About the author 04 Summary 06 Introduction 08 Problems 10 Solutions 35 Pathways 44 References 49 4 About the author 5 Philippe Legrain is a senior visiting fellow at the London School of Economics’ European Institute and the founder of Open Political Economy Network (OPEN), an international think-tank focused on international political economy and openness issues. A columnist for Project Syndicate, Foreign Policy and CapX, he commentates for a wide range of international media outlets. From 2011–14 he was economic adviser to European Commission President José Manuel Barroso and head of the team providing the president with strategic policy advice. Previously, he was special adviser to World Trade Organisation Director-General Mike Moore and trade and economics correspondent for The Economist. Philippe is the author of four critically acclaimed books, including Immigrants: Your Country Needs Them (2007), which was shortlisted for the Financial Times Business Book of the Year award. His first study for OPEN is Refugees Work: A humanitarian investment that yields economic dividends (2016).
  • Open Borders in the European Union and Beyond: Migration Flows and Labor Market Implications

    Open Borders in the European Union and Beyond: Migration Flows and Labor Market Implications

    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES OPEN BORDERS IN THE EUROPEAN UNION AND BEYOND: MIGRATION FLOWS AND LABOR MARKET IMPLICATIONS John Kennan Working Paper 23048 http://www.nber.org/papers/w23048 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 January 2017 This paper was presented at the Economic Policy Panel meeting in Florence, October 2015. I thank Sascha Becker, Ted Bergstrom, Gino Gancia, Richard Lipsey and many seminar participants for helpful comments. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research. NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer-reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2017 by John Kennan. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. Open Borders in the European Union and Beyond: Migration Flows and Labor Market Implications John Kennan NBER Working Paper No. 23048 January 2017 JEL No. E25,F22,J61 ABSTRACT In 2004, the European Union admitted 10 new countries, and wages in these countries were generally well below the levels in the existing member countries. Citizens of these newly- admitted countries were subsequently free to take jobs anywhere in the EU, and many did so. In 2015, a large number of refugees from Syria and other broken countries sought to migrate to EU countries (along very dangerous routes), and these refugees were met with fierce resistance, at least in some places.
  • Notes to Understand Migration Policy with International Trade Theoretical Tools

    Notes to Understand Migration Policy with International Trade Theoretical Tools

    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Cebreros, Alfonso; Chiquiar, Daniel; Roa, Mónica; Tobal, Martín Working Paper Notes to understand migration policy with international trade theoretical tools Working Papers, No. 2017-03 Provided in Cooperation with: Bank of Mexico, Mexico City Suggested Citation: Cebreros, Alfonso; Chiquiar, Daniel; Roa, Mónica; Tobal, Martín (2017) : Notes to understand migration policy with international trade theoretical tools, Working Papers, No. 2017-03, Banco de México, Ciudad de México This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/174456 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen
  • Ethnicity As a Construct in Leisure Research: a Rejoinder to Gobster

    Ethnicity As a Construct in Leisure Research: a Rejoinder to Gobster

    Joumat of Leisure Research Copyright 2007 2007, Voi 39, No. 3, pp. 554-566 National Recreation and Park Association Ethnicity as a Construct in Leisure Research: A Rejoinder to Gobster Garry Chick The Pennsylvania State University Chieh-lu Li The University of Hong Kong Harry C. Zinn The Pennsylvania State University James D. Absher The USDA Forest Service Alan R. Graefe The Pennsylvania State University Gobster addresses several issues in our paper. These include, first, a suggestion that the measure of cultural values that we used is not appropriate for understanding possible variations in racial and ethnic patterns of' outdoor leisure preferences and behavior. He claims, as well, that we limit our use of ethnicity to alleged cultural differences among groups and, specifically, to cultural values, unlike what most leisure researchers have done. Second, Gobster questions our concern with the use of common racial and ethnic labels because these are part and parcel of the way in which people look at others. Third, grouping people by racial and ethnic labels has often contrib- uted to social justice. Fourth, ethnic groups in the U.S. are growing and what may have been small differences between groups in the past may be mag- nified in the future due to these demographic shifts. Fifth, research is con- strained by resources that limit sampling designs and, therefore, collapsing smaller ethnic and/or racial groups into larger ones may be required for statistical comparisons of adequate power to be made. Sixth, Gobster ex- presses concern over our use of' cultural consensus analysis, a single method, in claiming that ethnicity may not be a useful concept.
  • Open Trade, Closed Borders: Immigration in the Era of Globalization

    Open Trade, Closed Borders: Immigration in the Era of Globalization

    Open Trade, Closed Borders: Immigration in the Era of Globalization Margaret E. Peters1 Yale University Forthcoming: World Politics Accepted 17 June 2014 Abstract This paper argues that trade and immigration policy cannot be studied as separate policies but instead scholars must take an integrated view of these two foreign economic policies. Trade and immigration policy are substitutes. The choice of trade policy affects immigration policy in labor scarce countries through its effects on firms. Closure to trade increases the average firm level demand for immigration, leading to immigration openness, and free trade decreases the average firm demand, leading to restricted immigration. To test this argument, I develop a new dataset on the immigration policies of 19 states from the late 18th century through the early 21st century. This is one of the few datasets on immigration policy and is the only one to cover the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. The data show that indeed, trade policy has the hypothesized effect on immigration; immigration policy cannot be fully understood without examining trade policy. This paper, therefore, suggests that trade and other foreign economic policies should be examined in light of immigration policy and each other as well. 1 Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science, Yale University, 115 Prospect St., New Haven, CT 06520; [email protected]. I would like to thank the editors and anonymous reviewers for their comments. I would like to thank Judith Goldstein for her comments on several drafts as well as financial support for the project. I would also like to thank Michael Tomz, Kenneth Schultz, James Fearon, Jon Pevehouse, Jeffery Colgan, Ashley Jester, Andrew Kerner, James Morrison, Molly Roberts, David Steinberg and Felicity Vabulas for their comments and suggestions as well.
  • Blueprint for America

    Blueprint for America

    CPTERhA 9 TAR dE ANd IMMIGRATIoN John H. Cochrane ix months of xenophobic political bloviation do not overturn S centuries of experience. Trade and immigration are good for the US economy. As Adam Smith and David Ricardo explained two centuries ago, it is better for England to make wool and Portugal to make wine, and to trade, than for each country to do both. English wine-makers likely disagreed. The founders understood the benefits of immigration, com- plaining in the Declaration of Independence that King George “. has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreign- ers; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither.” Their Constitution brilliantly forbids internal protectionism against the movement of goods and people, setting up the world’s largest free trade and free migration zone and, not coincidentally, what became the wealthiest nation on Earth. Two centuries of economic scholarship have only deepened and reinforced these lessons. We now recognize that much trade occurs among similar countries: the United States and Canada, not England and Portugal. This fact tells us that specialization of production and knowledge, the dizzying variety of goods a mod- ern economy produces, and increasing returns are deeper sources of trade patterns than simple facts like British vs. Portuguese weather. But the fact that your car—even an “American” one—is 109 Copyright © 2016 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights reserved. 110 blueprint for america produced from parts made in a hundred different countries re- mains vital to the low cost and high quality of the car you buy today.
  • Rights, Needs, and the Creation of Ethical Community Natalie Susan Gaines Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

    Rights, Needs, and the Creation of Ethical Community Natalie Susan Gaines Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College

    Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2011 Rights, needs, and the creation of ethical community Natalie Susan Gaines Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Gaines, Natalie Susan, "Rights, needs, and the creation of ethical community" (2011). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 2317. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/2317 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. RIGHTS, NEEDS, AND THE CREATION OF ETHICAL COMMUNITY A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Political Science by Natalie Susan Gaines B.A., University of Louisville, 2005 M.A., Louisiana State University, 2008 December 2011 ©Copyright 2011 Natalie Susan Gaines All rights reserved ii To my wonderful parents, Kenneth and Charlotte, without whose unfaltering love and encouragement this dissertation never would have been possible iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I should probably begin by thanking the individual who set me on the road to academia, Dr. Gary L. Gregg, II at the University of Louisville. In my early years as an undergraduate, I was unsure of the path I would take after graduation. Dr. Gregg served as a wonderful mentor and opened my eyes to the vocation of teaching and the excitement of political theory.
  • Book Reviews

    Book Reviews

    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 76 | Issue 2 Article 6 1985 Book Reviews Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Book Reviews, 76 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 512 (1985) This Book Review is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. 0091-4169/85/7602-512 THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 76. No. 2 Copyright 0 1985 by Northwestern University, School of Law Printed in US.A. BOOK REVIEWS THE CONSENSUS-CONFLICT DEBATE. By Thomas J. Bernard. New York: Columbia University Press, 1983. Pp. 229. $28.00 (cloth), $14.00 (paper). Approximately fifteen years ago, a major debate raged in aca- demic sociology between theorists identified as consensus oriented and those defined as conflict oriented. A central theme of this great debate was whether social order was best described as emerging from a commonly held set of values and beliefs (the consensus posi- tion) or is, instead, due to power and coercion (the conflict posi- tion). Although much was written by both sides, the debate never attained satisfactory closure and the issue slowly faded from socio- logical attention. Now there appears in journals only scattered es- says related to the consensus-conflict debate. In his book, Thomas Bernard has not only resurrected the consensus-conflict debate, he has made it more general by examining the writings of classical moral and legal philosophers as well as sociologists.
  • The Leibnizian Vision in Frank Ankersmit's Philosophy of History

    The Leibnizian Vision in Frank Ankersmit's Philosophy of History

    INTENSION, SUBSTANCE AND CALCULUS – THE LEIBNIZIAN VISION IN FRANK ANKERSMIT’S PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY Oulu University Faculty of History Master’s thesis 20.5.2019 Aleksi Oja 1 Due to the abundance of referral to the extensive work of Frank Ankersmit and my general reliance on his published books and selected papers as sources, I ask the reader to use the following list of abbreviations of some of the most featured works: NL – Ankersmit, F. R. 1983: Narrative Logic – a Semantic Analysis of the Historian’s Language. Martinus Nijhoff publishers, The Hague, Netherlands. HT – Ankersmit, F. R. 1994. History and Tropology: The Rise and Fall of Metaphor. University of California Press. London, England. HR – Ankersmit, F. R. 2001: Historical Representation. Stanford University Press, California, USA. PR – Ankersmit, F. R. 2002: Political Representation. Stanford University Press, California, USA. SHE – Ankersmit, F. R. 2005: Sublime Historical Experience. Stanford University Press, California, USA. MTR – Ankersmit F. R. 2012: Meaning, Truth and Reference in Historical Representation. Stanford University Press, California, USA. HSI – Ankersmit, F. R. 2013: History as the Science of the Individual. Journal of the Philosophy of History Vol. 7 (3), 396 – 425. WEM – Ankersmit, F. R. 2017: Where the extremes meet. A presently still an unpublished paper, given as the handout for Frank Ankersmit’s opening speech at the Seminar of philosophy of history in October 2017 in Oulu university. 2 Table of Contents Introduction ..............................................................................................................................
  • Public Reason G.F. Gaus and Chad Van Schoelandt University Of

    Public Reason G.F. Gaus and Chad Van Schoelandt University Of

    Public Reason G.F. Gaus and Chad Van Schoelandt University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA Doubts about the possibility of shared public rationality and reasons derive from a variety of sources: social science, the philosophy of science, and the moral pluralism of modern societies. This article begins by examining the lines of inquiry that have led many to question whether all fully-informed and fully-competent inquirers would come to the same conclusions about science and morals. According to some philosophers and social scientists, the very concept of reason has broken apart, leaving different individuals and groups with different conceptions of rationality, and so of reasons for belief and action. The article then considers the different ideals of public reason that have been advanced to overcome worries about the ‘fragmentation of reason.’ 1 The Diversity of Reason 1.1 The Enlightenment Before considering different conceptions of public reason, it is important to grasp what the very idea of public reason presupposes. According to the conception of reasoning that dominated the European Enlightenment of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, reason is inherently universal, and so shared and public. On this Enlightenment conception, reason is a shared capacity of all human beings, and norms of good reasoning are universal. Any premise p that is true for one person is necessarily true for all others; if the inferential rule ‘(p·(p→q))→q’ is valid for one person, it is necessarily valid for all. The true and valid results of one person's reasoning are thus necessarily true and valid for all. According to this standard Enlightenment view, the use of common human reason produces consensus on not only scientific beliefs, but also moral and political opinions.