Public reason, non-public reasons, and the accessibility requirement

Abstract

In Liberalism without Perfection, Jonathan Quong develops what is perhaps the most comprehensive defense of the consensus model of public reasona model which incorporates both a public-reasons-only requirement and an accessibility requirement framed in terms of shared evaluative standards. While the consensus model arguably predominates amongst public reason liberals, it is criticized by convergence theorists who reject both the public-reasons-only requirement and the accessibility requirement. In this paper, I argue that while we have good reason to reject Quong's call for a public-reasons-only requirement, all public reason liberals should endorse at least some shared evaluative standards and, hence, an accessibility requirement.

To Hedge or Not to Hedge: Scientific Claims and Public Justification

“…In our view, public justification should be held to a standard of accessibility on which a reason is public if and only if it is justified according to common evaluative standards (Badano and Bonotti 2020;Tyndal 2019;Wong 2022). 6 Badano and Bonotti (2020) show that accessibility is an attractive middle ground between intelligibility and shareability.…”