Professional Documents
Culture Documents
John Skorupski
This article offers a critique of John Rawlss great work, Political Liberalism, from a
non-Rawlsian liberal standpoint. It argues that Rawlsian political liberalism is in-
fluenced as much by a comprehensive view I call radical-democracy as by com-
prehensive liberal views. This can be seen in Rawlss account of some of political
liberalisms fundamental ideasnotably the idea of society as a fair system of co-
operation, the liberal principle of legitimacy, and the idea of public reason. I fur-
ther argue that Rawlss impressive attempt to unify liberal and democratic tradi-
tions philosophically obscures the prudent liberal attitude to democracy, which
remains sound.
173
1. I put the hyphen in radical-democracy to emphasize that the term refers to a com-
prehensive ethical conception in Rawlss sense, rather than the actual practice of one per-
son, one vote. It may indeed diverge from this actual practice.
2. John Rawls, Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy, ed. Samuel Freeman (Cam-
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press). I discuss the lectures on Mill in John Skorupski, John
Rawls on Mills Principle of Liberty, in Debates in Nineteenth-Century European Philosophy, ed.
Kristin Gjesdal (London: Routledge, 2016), 197208.
3. This is also true of some of his expositors, e.g., Amy Gutmann, Rawls on the Relation-
ship between Liberalism and Democracy, in The Cambridge Companion to Rawls, ed. Samuel
Freeman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 16899.
4. Rawls, History of Political Philosophy, xvii.
5. For an account of this development and of the role this particular conflict of ethical
ideas played in the French Revolution, see Jonathan Israel, Revolutionary Ideas: An Intellec-
tual History of the French Revolution from the Rights of Man to Robespierre (Princeton, NJ: Prince-
ton University Press, 2015).
6. For an account of the period leading up to the Terror and the views of those involved,
see ibid., as well as (among many others) Bronislaw Baczko, The Social Contract of the
French: Sieys and Rousseau, Journal of Modern History 60 (1988): S98S125; Norman
Hampson, Prelude to Terror (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1988); Marisa Linton, Choosing Terror
(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
7. Benjamin Constant, The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with That of the Mod-
erns, in Political Writings, ed. Biancamaria Fontana (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1988), 30928. Speech of 1819, first published 1820.
How then does Rawlsian political liberalism stand in relation to the his-
toric traditions sketched in the previous section? The immediate answer,
no doubt, is that it sends them to the domain of comprehensive concep-
tions. Rawls envisages political liberalism as a freestanding political con-
ception. It does not, that is to say, depend on a specific comprehensive con-
ception of its own, be that impartial individualism or radical-democracy,
but envisages political liberalism as the locus of an overlapping consensus
of reasonable comprehensive positions. A variety of liberalisms, it allows,
can constitute this stable locus, of which Rawlss own argument for justice
as fairness is but one.
The idea of reasonableness therefore plays a fundamental role in Po-
litical Liberalism. The very distinction between comprehensive and polit-
ical conceptions of liberalism appeals to it, inasmuch as Rawls thinks of
political-liberal conceptions as conceptions on which reasonable compre-
hensive views can agree. But why does Rawls introduce this distinction in
the first place?
His main reason is not to provide a justification for justice as fair-
ness, but to show how justice as fairness can provide a stable framework
8. John Rawls, Political Liberalism, expanded ed. (New York: Columbia University Press,
2005), 14044; John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer-
sity Press, 2001), pt. 5. See also T. M. Scanlon, Rawls on Justification, in Freeman, Cambridge
Companion to Rawls, 13967; Stephen Mulhall and Adam Swift, Rawls and Communitarian-
ism, in Freeman, Cambridge Companion to Rawls, 46087.
9. The contrast goes back to W. M. Sibley, The Rational versus the Reasonable, Philo-
sophical Review 62 (1953): 55460. See Rawls, Justice as Fairness, 7 n. 6, and his reference there
to T. M. Scanlons contractualism. See also, e.g., John Rawls, The Law of Peoples, with The Idea
of Public Reason Revisited (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 177. Here Rawls
characterizes reasonable people both more narrowly and more substantively in two ways:
First, they stand ready to offer fair terms of social cooperation between equals, and they abide
by these terms if others do so also, even should it be to their disadvantage not to; second rea-
sonable persons recognize and accept the consequences of the burdens of judgment. This
passage places specific emphasis on willingness to offer fair terms of social cooperation.
But while the notion of reasonable fair-mindedness should certainly include that, it should
include fairness in noncooperative contexts as well. It is quite possible to recognize the im-
portance to ethical theory of the general idea of reasonable fair-mindedness, without accept-
ing that the only context in which it applies is that of social cooperation. I discuss the signif-
icance of this point in the next section.
10. The burdens of judgment are described by Rawls, e.g., in Political Liberalism, II.2.
11. Ibid., xxvi; see also Rawls, Justice as Fairness, 5, 83, 176.
13. Sec. 79 of A Theory of Justice (rev. ed.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), titled
The Idea of Social Union, is a particularly rich and inspiring account of this ideal, in
which Rawls relates it to ideals of old liberalism that one finds, for example, in Humboldt
(whom Rawls cites). Note also that while Rawls says that a well-ordered society (in his sense)
would be a social union of social unions, he does not say that this is what societies actually
are. Nor, I believe, could an old liberal accept that the ideal of a social union could apply to
a society as a whole, as against some important aspects of it. All aspects of social life, coop-
erative and noncooperative, are important from the old liberal point of view, inasmuch as
they all conduce to human flourishing. However, there is no space to pursue this quite
complex issue here.
14. See again Rawls, Theory of Justice, sec. 79.
15. Rawls, Political Liberalism, 22829; Rawls, Justice as Fairness, 4748, 162.
16. One could still ask what the basis would be for including, in freestanding political
liberalism, the social minimum as a constitutional essential, given that constitutional essen-
tials must reflect a consensus of reasonable comprehensive positions. Rawlss idea of fair
equality of opportunity has some plausibility as a liberal constitutional essential, so a pos-
sible approach is to argue on from that to the requirement of a social minimum in order to
assure it.
Let us now turn to Rawlss doctrine of public reason. Here again we shall
see how much more persuasive it looks when viewed through a radical-
democratic lens.
The basis of the principle is that political discussion should work
through the exchange of reasons that are publicly acceptable to all:
Citizens must be able to . . . present to one another publicly acceptable
reasons for their political views in cases raising fundamental political
questions. This means that our reasons should fall under the political val-
ues expressed by a political conception of justice. If free and equal per-
sons are to cooperate politically on a basis of mutual respect, we must jus-
tify our use of our corporate and coercive political power, where those
essential matters are at stake, in the light of public reason.17 As Rawls in-
dicates in many passages,18 the doctrine of public reason is a restriction
that applies to the content of political discourse in the public political
forum (as against the background political culture).19 It demarcates
what reasons for our political commitments we are allowed to state, and
what reasons we are not allowed to state, in such discourse. The restric-
tions apply to discussion of questions regarding the constitutional essen-
tials and basic questions of distributive justice. Rawls allows that where
legislative policy debates do not raise these questions the restrictions im-
posed by public reason do not apply to them, or if they do, at least not in
the same way or so stringently.20
I am not convinced that the distinctions Rawls intimates between
restricted and unrestricted forums and topics of political debate can be
made without artificiality. But we can waive this problem, because the rel-
evant question for us is what the basis for this doctrine is in the first place.
There were two linked considerations in Rawlss mind. One derives
the doctrine of public reason from his liberal principle of legitimacy in
the exercise of power. The other presents it as a duty of civility.
Consider first, then, the principle of legitimacy. One of Rawlss for-
mulations is as follows: Our exercise of political power is fully proper
only when it is exercised in accordance with a constitution the essentials
Perhaps, then, rather than trying to derive public reason from the so-
called liberal principle of legitimacy, we should instead see it as a moral
duty of civility. The trouble is that it seems far beyond anything that could
be required simply as a matter of civility.
As a specific example, imagine that assisted suicide is illegal in our
polity. And lets say that there is a debate in the legislative assembly about
decriminalizing it under certain restricted conditions. A is in favor on lib-
eral grounds, such as the principle that people should be free to join in
an action which has no harmful effect on others. B is against, for several
reasons. One is a slippery slope argument about how legalizing assisted
suicide might lead to legalisation of nonvoluntary euthanasia. Another
is that ruthless people would be encouraged to put pressure on elderly
relatives to make them give up their lives. Then a thirdand lets suppose
that this is the reason to which B is most fervently committedis that our
lives do not belong to us but to God, and that it is for God to decide when
we die.
Putting forward the first two reasons is, I take it, allowable by public
reason; putting forward the third is not. Or at least it is not if we take the
religious argument to be unacceptable to common human reason. B
might, of course, disagree that it is unacceptable to common human rea-
son: he thinks he can explain his position and its theological background
quite clearly, in a way that is accessible to human reason even if not every-
one will agree with it. There must, after all, be a difference between a rea-
son that is acceptableaccessible, comprehensibleto human reason
and a reason that is acceptable in the sense of sound and sufficient; all B
has to argue is that his position is acceptable in the first sense.
26. Guizots view of representative government was just this: its authority depended
on whether it was in accord with reason, not on whether it was in accord with the mythical
will of the people. Rational competence was the basis of political right; government by
competent representatives, conducted in a setting of full publicity and freedom of speech,
was the form of government most likely to achieve accordance with reason. See Franois
Guizot, History of the Origins of Representative Government in Europe (Indianapolis: Liberty
Fund, 2002), introduction and notes by Aurelian Craiutu, esp. lecture 10, which is a criti-
cism of Rousseau, and lecture 15.
27. Rawls, Law of Peoples, 152; see also Rawls, Justice as Fairness, 90.
28. Jrgen Habermas, Religion in the Public Sphere, European Journal of Philosophy
14 (2006): 125, 10.
29. See Rawls, Justice as Fairness, 90.
30. In using the word accept here and below I am sidestepping important questions.
Do we mean understand? Or in some sense recognize as a reputable reason (though not
necessarily endorse)? Or something else?
31. As a reminder, I am not ascribing radical-democratic constructivism to Rawlss po-
litical liberalism. Rawls eschews metaphysical debate between what he calls rational intu-
itionism and a comprehensive, as against a political, constructivism. (See Rawls, Polit-
ical Constructivism, in Political Liberalism.) My point is that the constraints introduced by
public reason are more intelligible from a Rousseauist, or radical-democratic, standpoint
than from a rational intuitionist standpoint like Guizots (see note 26). Obviously the latter
could accept the simple good sense of finding what agreements with political opponents
one is able tobut this principle of coalition building does not morph into a principle
of public reason.
32. Rawls, Political Liberalism, 134ff.; Rawls, Justice as Fairness, 189ff. (This is a mislead-
ing formulation, because the answer is not a philosophical deduction to a synthetic a priori
truth, but instead propounds an ambitious empirical hypothesis about the kind of citizen a
society of political liberalism would tend to produce.)
33. Rawls, Political Liberalism, 141.
34. Rawls sometimes acknowledges the problem: Of course a society may also contain
unreasonable and irrational, and even mad, comprehensive doctrines. In their case the
problem is to contain them so that they do not undermine the unity and justice of society
(ibid., xvixvii). That is indeed part of the problem, although Rawls ignores what is arguably
a bigger part, namely, the presence of unreasonable rational people. See ibid, 152.
35. See Rawls, Justice as Fairness, secs. 5859.
36. Ibid., 194.
37. Gouges was associated with the Girondinsroughly speaking the protoliberal
partyand followed them to the guillotine in 1794.
38. See John Skorupski, The Liberal Critique of Democracy, in The East Asian Chal-
lenge for Democracy, ed. Daniel A. Bell and Chenyang Li (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 2013), 11637.
39. See, however, in dissent, Jason Brennan, Against Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Prince-
ton University Press, 2016); Tongdong Bai, A Confucian Version of Hybrid Regime: How
Does It Work, and Why Is It Superior?, in Bell and Li, East Asian Challenge for Democracy, 55
87; Ruiping Fan, Confucian Meritocracy for Contemporary China, in Bell and Li, East
Asian Challenge for Democracy, 88115.
40. See the passage I quoted from Rawls, Law of Peoples, 152.
VIII. CONCLUSION
41. Quoted in Guy H. Dodge, Benjamin Constants Philosophy of Liberalism (Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 40.
42. This was Constants teaching, and of course the teaching of many other liberals
since.
43. John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, chap. 3, para. 10, in Collected Works (London: Rout-
ledge, 1969), 10:231.
44. I am much indebted to Paul Weithman, Henry S. Richardson, and two anonymous
referees for their helpful comments.