The debate between Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls concerns the question of how to do political philosophy under conditions of cultural pluralism, if the aim of political philosophy is to uncover the normative foundation of a modern liberal democracy. Rawls’s political liberalism tries to bypass the problem of pluralism, using the intellectual device of the veil of ignorance, and yet paradoxically at the same time it treats it as something given and as an arbiter of justification within the political conception of justice. Habermas argues that Rawls not only incorrectly operationalizes the moral point of view from which we discern what is just but also fails to capture the specificity of democracy which is given by internal relations between politics and law. This deprives Rawls’s political philosophy of the conceptual tools needed to articulate the normative foundation of democracy.
AckermanB. (1994). Political liberalisms. The Journal of Philosophy, 91(7), 364–386.
2.
AvineriSde-ShalitA. (eds) (1992). Communitarianism and individualism. Clarendon Press.
3.
BarryB. (1995). John Rawls and the search for stability. Ethics, 105(4), 874–915.
4.
BaxterH. (2011). Habermas: The discourse theory of law and democracy. Stanford University Press.
5.
BedauA. H. (1978). Social justice and social institutions. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 3(1), 159–175.
6.
BoettcherJ. W. (2004). What is reasonableness?Philosophy & Social Criticism, 30(5–6). 597–621.
7.
CortinaA.ConillJ. (2019). Ethics and morality. In AllenA.MendietaE. (Eds.), The Cambridge Habermas Lexicon. Cambridge University Press, pp. 117–122.
8.
EdwardsG. (2017). Habermas and social movements research. Colonisation as a living battle. In MurphyM. (Ed.), Habermas and social research. Routledge.
9.
FinlaysonJ. G. (2019). The Habermas-Rawls debate. Columbia University Press.
10.
FinlaysonJ. G.FreyenhagenF. (2011). Introduction: The Habermas-Rawls dispute – analysis and reevaluation. In FinlaysonJ. G.FreyenhagenF. (Eds.), Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the political. Routledge, pp. 1–21.
11.
ForstR. (2018). Discourse ethics. In BrunkhorstH.KreideR.LafontC. (Eds.), The Habermas handbook. Columbia University Press.
12.
FreemanS. (2007). Rawls. Routledge.
13.
HabermasJ. (1990). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Polity Press.
14.
HabermasJ. (1992). Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Suhrkamp Verlag.
15.
HabermasJ. (1995). Reconciliation through the public use of reason: Remarks on John Rawls’s political liberalism. The Journal of Philosophy. 92(3), 109–131.
16.
HabermasJ. (1996). Between facts and norms: Contributions to a discourse theory of law and democracy. The MIT Press.
17.
HabermasJ. (1998a). A genealogical analysis of the cognitive content of morality. In: The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory. The MIT Press, pp. 3–46.
18.
HabermasJ. (1998b). ‘Reasonable’ versus ‘True’, or the morality of worldviews. In: The inclusion of the other: Studies in political theory. The MIT Press, pp. 49–101.
19.
HabermasJ. (2008). On the architectonics of discursive differentiation: A brief response to a major controversy. In: Between naturalism and religion. Polity Press, pp. 77–97.
20.
HabermasJ. (2011). Reply to my critics. In FinlaysonJ. G.FreyenhagenF. (Eds.), Habermas and Rawls: Disputing the political. Routledge, pp. 283–304.
21.
KędzioraK. (2019). Habermas and Rawls on an epistemic status of the principles of justice. Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Philosophica. Ethica-Aesthetica-Practica, 34, 31–46.
22.
KhanG. (2012). Politics and morality in Habermas’ discourse ethics. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 38(2), 149–168.
23.
LarmoreCh. (1990). Political liberalism. Political Theory, 18(3), 339–360.
24.
MulhallS.SwiftA. (1996). Liberals and communitarians. 2nd ed. Blackwell.
25.
Nunner-WinklerG. (2018). Learning processes. In BrunkhorstH.KreideR.LafontC. (Ed.), The Habermas handbook. Columbia University Press.
26.
RawlsJ. (1971). A Theory of justice. The Belknap Press.
27.
RawlsJ. (1977). The basic structure as subject. American Philosophical Quarterly, 14(2), 159–165.
28.
RawlsJ. (1985). Justice as fairness: Political not metaphysical. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 14(3), 223–251.
29.
RawlsJ. (1987). The idea of an overlapping consensus. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 7(1), 1–25.
30.
RawlsJ. (1988). The priority of right and ideas of the good. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 17(4), 251–276.
31.
RawlsJ. (1989). The domain of the political and overlapping consensus. New York University Law Review, 64(2), 233–255.
32.
RawlsJ. (1993). Political liberalism. Columbia University Press.
33.
RawlsJ. (1995). Political liberalism: Reply to Habermas. The Journal of Philosophy, 92(3), 132–180.
34.
RawlsJ. (2005). Political liberalism. Expanded edition. Columbia University Press.
35.
SearleJ. R. (1964). How to derive “Ought” From “Is”. The Philosophical Review, 73(1), 43–58.
36.
StreckerD. (2018). The theory of society. In BrunkhorstH.KreideR.LafontC. (Eds.), The Habermas handbook. Columbia University Press.
37.
WaldronJ. (1994). Disagreements about justice. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 75(3–4), 372–387.
38.
WeithmanP. (2010). Why political liberalism? On John Rawls’s political turn. Oxford University Press.
