The paper examines a specific charge against Rawls's political liberalism, namely that the manner in which it uses the notion of reasonableness renders it a form of secular fundamentalism. The paper begins with an examination of what Rawls means by his notion of ‘the reasonable’ and briefly outlines its role in his version of political liberalism. This leads to a discussion of the different meanings of ‘secular fundamentalism’ and how it is specifically used in its criticism of Rawls's ‘justice as fairness’. The essay then offers two arguments to show that the charge of secular fundamentalism cannot be sustained due to a deep misunderstanding of the derivation and use of the notion of reasonableness as well as the context, scope, and aims of Rawls's political liberalism in particular and the project of political liberalisms more generally.
CamposP. F.1994. ‘Secular Fundamentalism’, Columbia Law Review94(6): 1814–27.
6.
CohenJ.1994. ‘Pluralism's Proceduralism’, Chicago-Kent Law Review69: 589–618.
7.
ConkleD. O.1995–1996. ‘Secular Fundamentalism, Religious Fundamentalism, and the Search for Truth in Contemporary America’, Journal of Law and Religion12(2): 337–70.
8.
DawkinsR.2006. The God Delusion.New York: Bantam Books.
9.
de WijzeS.2002 ‘The Political Limits of Reasonableness’, Imprints6(2): 171–86.
10.
de WijzeS.2000. ‘Reasonableness, Pluralism and Democracy: A Pragmatic Approach’, in CalderG.GarrettE.ShannonJ. (eds), Liberalism and Social Justice: International Perspectives.Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
11.
DrebenB.2003. ‘On Rawls and Political Liberalism’, in FreemanS. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
DunnJ.1993. Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
FishS.1997. ‘Mission Impossible: Settling the Just Bounds between Church and State’, Columbia Law Review97(8): 2255–333.
14.
FreemanS.1990. ‘Reason and Agreement in Social Contract Views’, Philosophy & Public Affairs19: 122–57.
15.
GauthierD.1986. Morals by Agreement.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16.
LadenA.2003. ‘The House that Jack Built: Thirty Years of Reading Rawls’, Ethics113(2): 367–90.
17.
LarmoreC.1987. Patterns of Moral Complexity.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
LarmoreC.1990. ‘Political Liberalism’, Political Theory18: 339–60.
19.
MarsdenG. M.1980. Fundamentalism and American Culture: The Shaping of Twentieth-Century Evangelicalism: 1870–1925.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
MoonJ. D.1993. Constructing Community: Moral Pluralism and Tragic Conflicts.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
21.
MouffeC.2005. ‘The Limits of John Rawls's Pluralism’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics4(2): 221–31.
22.
OwenJ. J.2001. Religion and the Demise of Rational Liberalism: The Foundational Crisis of the Separation of Church and State.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
23.
QuongJ.2004. ‘The Scope of Public Reason’, Political Studies52(2): 233–50.
24.
RawlsJ.1971. A Theory of Justice.Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
25.
RawlsJ.1993. Political Liberalism.New York: Columbia University Press.
26.
RawlsJ.1995. ‘Reply to Habermas’, The Journal of Philosophy XCII: 132–80.
27.
RawlsJ.1999. Collected Papers, ed. FreemanS.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28.
RawlsJ.2001. Justice and Fairness: A Restatement, ed. KellyE.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
RazJ.1990. ‘Facing Diversity: The Case of Epistemic Abstinence’, Philosophy & Public Affairs19: 3–46.
30.
RoordaJ.1997. ‘Fallibilism, Ambivalence, and Belief, The Journal of Philosophy XCIV: 126–55.
31.
SchefflerS.1994. ‘The Appeal of Political Liberalism’, Ethics105: 4–22.
32.
SchwartzmanM.2004. ‘The Completeness of Public Reason’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 3(2): 191–220.
33.
SibleyW. M.1953. ‘The Rational versus the Reasonable’, Philosophical Review62: 554–60.
