Determining which moral principles should guide political action
is a vexing question in political theory. This is especially true
when faced with the "toleration paradox": believing that something
is morally wrong but also believing that it is wrong to suppress
it. In this book, Alex Tuckness argues that John Locke's potential
contribution to this debate--what Tuckness terms the "legislative
point of view"--has long been obscured by overemphasis on his
doctrine of consent. Building on a line of reasoning Locke made
explicit in his later writings on religious toleration, Tuckness
explores the idea that we should act politically only on those
moral principles that a reasonable legislator would endorse;
someone, that is, who would avoid enacting measures that could be
self-defeating when applied by fallible human beings.
Tuckness argues that the legislative point of view has
implications that go far beyond the question of religious
toleration. Locke suggests an approach to political justification
that is a provocative alternative to the utilitarian,
contractualist, and perfectionist approaches dominating
contemporary liberalism. The legislative point of view is relevant
to our thinking about many types of disputed principles, Tuckness
writes. He examines claims of moral wrong, invocations of the
public good, and contested political roles with emphasis on the
roles of legislators and judges. This book is must reading not only
for students and scholars of Locke but all those interested in
liberalism, toleration, and constitutional theory.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!