IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/pophec/v15y2016i1p20-41.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does political community require public reason? On Lister’s defence of political liberalism

Author

Listed:
  • Paul Billingham

    (University of Oxford, UK)

Abstract

Andrew Lister’s Public Reason and Political Community is an important new contribution to the debate over political liberalism. In this article, I critically evaluate some of the central arguments of the book in order to assess the current state of public reason liberalism. I pursue two main objections to Lister’s work. First, Lister’s justification for public reason, which appeals to the value of civic friendship, fails to show why public reason liberalism should be preferred to an alternative democratic theory that does not include public reason restrictions. Second, there are several important ambiguities and tensions within Lister’s view that he does not adequately resolve. His approach to them often takes public reason liberalism in directions that many of its advocates will reject. More work thus remains to be done by public reason liberals both to show why public reason restrictions are necessary and to resolve these tensions in a more satisfactory way.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul Billingham, 2016. "Does political community require public reason? On Lister’s defence of political liberalism," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 15(1), pages 20-41, February.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:15:y:2016:i:1:p:20-41
    DOI: 10.1177/1470594X15573460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1470594X15573460
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/1470594X15573460?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:pophec:v:15:y:2016:i:1:p:20-41. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.