Prominent observers complain that public discourse in America is
shallow and unedifying. This debased condition is often attributed
to, among other things, the resurgence of religion in public life.
Steven Smith argues that this diagnosis has the matter backwards:
it is not primarily religion but rather the strictures of secular
rationalism that have drained our modern discourse of force and
authenticity.
Thus, Rawlsian public reason filters appeals to religion or
other comprehensive doctrines out of public deliberation. But these
restrictions have the effect of excluding our deepest normative
commitments, virtually assuring that the discourse will be shallow.
Furthermore, because we cannot defend our normative positions
without resorting to convictions that secular discourse deems
inadmissible, we are frequently forced to smuggle in those
convictions under the guise of benign notions such as freedom or
equality.
Smith suggests that this sort of smuggling is pervasive in
modern secular discourse. He shows this by considering a series of
controversial, contemporary issues, including the Supreme Court s
assisted-suicide decisions, the harm principle, separation of
church and state, and freedom of conscience. He concludes by
suggesting that it is possible and desirable to free public
discourse of the constraints associated with secularism and public
reason.
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!