Public Justification

Vallier, Kevin

doi:10.1093/oso/9780190632830.003.0004

Cited by 15 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…solution far beyond what Locke himself envisioned, outlining political arrangements that allow those who disagree about a wider range of moral, religious and philosophical issues to live together on mutually acceptable terms without conflict or oppression (Rawls 1999). This is not the place to go into the details of such views, each of which faces its own difficulties (Vallier 2018). For our purposes, the essential point is that even if Locke is right that moral disagreement is what leads to a need for government, we must nevertheless avoid Hobbes's error of assuming that a government empowered to enforce agreement is the only solution.…”

Section: The Proper Remedymentioning

confidence: 97%

Punishment and disagreement in the state of nature

Barrett

2019

Economics and Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hobbes believed that the state of nature would be a war of all against all. Locke denied this, but acknowledged that in the absence of government, peace is insecure. In this paper, I analyse both accounts of the state of nature through the lens of classical and experimental game theory, drawing especially on evidence concerning the effects of punishment in public goods games. My analysis suggests that we need government not to keep wicked or relentlessly self-interested individuals in line, but rather to maintain peace among those who disagree about morality.

show abstract

Section: The Proper Remedymentioning

confidence: 97%

Punishment and disagreement in the state of nature

Barrett

2019

Economics and Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 Lafont opposes such an aspirational approach in a later section of the book. This section begins by addressing Valier's 'Public Justification Principle (PJP): A coercive law (L) is justified in a public P if and only if each member i of P has sufficient reason(s) R i to endorse L.' (Lafont 2019: 180;Valier 2018). Lafont points out that this principle 'makes the ideal so overdemanding as to fail to be actionguiding' (180), just as does a strong interpretation of the democratic ideal of self-government.…”

Section: B a Plurally-sourced Aspirational And Spectrumoriented Apmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Citizen-Centered Theory

Mansbridge

2020

Journal of Deliberative Democracy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because our collective needs for state coercion will steadily increase with greater human interdependence, we must take far more seriously the need to justify that coercion to the coerced. Cristina Lafont moves to the forefront of democratic theory the goal that citizens should 'own and identify with the institutions, laws and policies' that coerce them-an important move, particularly today, when many feel, often correctly, that they have not been 'heard' in producing the laws that coerce them. Lafont's approach might be furthered, I argue, by a theory of legitimacy that a) explicitly endorses plural sources of democratic legitimacy, b) acknowledges the aspirational quality of the many democratic ideals that make up this legitimacy, and c) recognizes consequently that democratic legitimacy is always partial.

show abstract

“…Some political concepts, such as ecological, economic, and social sustainability, are central declamatory statements both in practical policy-making and in academic policy studies today, and they are also closely related to concepts of legitimacy and democracy. However, the roots of the mindset as such can be traced back at least to the Enlightenment, with its ideas of public participation and reasoning through public discussion; the great social contract theorists -Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and Kantall held that for a political order to be legitimate it had to be agreed upon by or justified for each person publicly (Vallier 2018). The meaning of abstract political concepts are defined and redefined to a large extent through public discussion, which often precedes the specification of these concepts as generally accepted social values; and further, mainstreaming and institutionalizing them into legislation.…”

Section: Case Of Finland and Importance Of Forestsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Legitimacy of forest policy – concept analysis and empirical applications in Finland

Rantala¹

2020

Diss. For.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study analyzes the political legitimacy of forest and forest-related nature conservation policies in Finland. Legitimacy is defined here that the forest and nature conservation regimes and related political institutions are perceived as rightful among the people. The major contribution of this study is the comprehensive conceptual framework of legitimacy based on several theories, mainly from political science. The framework analyzes the objects of support, patterns of legitimacy, performance evaluations, and how these relate to one another. In this study, the objects of support refer to forest-related political institutions; these include regulations and public incentives, as well as decisionmaking processes, political programs, and administrative procedures. The framework is intended to be especially useful in the empirical analyses of pluralistic public political discussion and uses a methodology developed for this purpose. The study also analyses the social values of organized political actors. The empirical part of this study explores a data set from Finnish print media discourse, based on letters to editors in three newspapers and in one journal, along with comments given during the preparation of Finland's National Forest Programme 2010. Another empirical data set consists of qualitative semi-structured interviews and the writings of the organized interest groups. Many different groups of citizens were found to participate in public discussion on forests. Quite a large number of individuals shared the overall publicity, despite the fact that there were some very active writers. Nature conservation organizations, researchers, and politicians were well represented. However, the participation of governmental officials from both the forest and environmental sectors can be characterized as insufficient, considering their importance in the implementation of policies. The study of letters to editors found that groups of common social values served as patterns of legitimacy in the performance evaluations of forest policies. These include welfare and wellbeing derived from forests; values related to nature conservation; democratic values; distributive justice; good governance; core regime principles; and fair markets. Of all performance evaluations, 52% were negative while 26% were positive and 22 % were mixed. The welfare of citizens and the nation, export incomes and employment were the most common justifications used in the legitimacy evaluations while economic growth was a topic that divided opinions. Principles related to values of nature and sustainable development were almost as common in the data. A common argument related to the wellbeing of future generations combined the ideas of benefits and nature values with the idea of distributive justice. Democratic values, especially the public participation of the involved groups of people and public deliberation were common sources of legitimacy. Most political actors supported the ideal of conciliatory decision-making, while smaller group preferred strictn...

show abstract

Public Justification

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Punishment and disagreement in the state of nature

Punishment and disagreement in the state of nature

A Citizen-Centered Theory

Legitimacy of forest policy – concept analysis and empirical applications in Finland

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About