Introduction to Political Philosophy

Political Liberalism

As you read the material for the next class, keep the questions below in mind. To answer these questions you will have to reflect critically on what you have read and possibly re-read important passages. Keep in mind that there are two basic kinds of information that you need to look for in the readings.

  1. What are the main points or conclusions that an author accepts with respect to a particular issue?
  2. What are the reasons or important considerations that lead the author to accept that conclusion?

For our purposes, it is information of the latter sort (2) that will be our primary concern since our most basic task is to evaluate the reasons that are offered to support accepting one possible conclusion about an issue, rather than another. Although I strongly suggest that you write out brief answers to these questions, you do not have to turn in written responses. You do, however, need to be prepared to speak intelligently to these issues in the next class meeting.

Reading:

  • John Rawls, Political Liberalism, pp. 3-15, 29-35, 144-158 (handout).
  • Michael Sandel, Public Philosophy, “Political Liberalism”, pp. 223-239 (handout).

Questions:

  1. What is the primary question of political liberalism that Rawls proposes to address?
  2. What are the three characteristics of a “political conception of justice”? What are “comprehensive” moral conceptions and how are they related to a political conception? What does it mean for a conception to be “freestanding”?
  3. In what three respects are persons regarded as free in Rawls’ framework?
  4. How does Rawls respond to the objections that the overlapping consensus making up a political conception of justice (a) is a modus vivendi, (b) embodies a neutrality between comprehensive doctrines that is indifferent or skeptical of these doctrines, and (c) is itself a comprehensive doctrine?
  5. According to Sandel, why (a) is it unreasonable to “bracket” one’s comprehensive doctrines and (b) does the fact of reasonable pluralism have implications for questions of justice?

 

I love Apache! So should you!