RE:re: rawls vs. habermas

["seneca savoie" <wintermute@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

  as far as rawls seperation of the realm of the political from the
comprehensive, i would first note that habermas holds a similar distinction
between "questions of justice", and "questions of the good life". both of the
men view the proper role of authority NOT dictating the good life, but instead
providing a stable democratic forum whithin autonomy can be realized. in this
case we can see that rawls concern stems from an idea that(both he and habermas
agree) is inherent in the idea of democracy: that of a conception of citizens as

free and equal. both hold that this ideal of equality, which justifies democracy

in the first place, also generates a number of other things, most notably a
system of rights and the neccesary external(economic and social) conditions upon

which a system of free exchange of ideas depend. the problem that most authors
had before these came along is that they considered one of the forms of autonomy

as being derivative of the other(i.e. either the system of democracy being seen
as merely the best way to protect the liberties, or the other way around). the
attempt to intergrate the two, as j.s. mill and hegel both tried to do, could
not be completed until the idea of rights could be seen as drawing from the
concept of free and equal people cooperating itself.  the difference here is
that the level at which they choose to intergrate the two conceptions is
different(but it need not be). rawls start at the deep level with the absract
conception of the person, while habermas operates above at the level of the
public sphere and the discourse situation itself. however it becomes obvios that

the two spheres can be brought into line. the one question i would raise is ,
while i know that any question can be brought in the ideal discourse, does there

exist any recognized standard of judgement. i would think not, due to avoiding
any standard of the "good life" in the situation. however, i think a standard
based upon the implicit assumptions of the situation itself would actually serve

the purpose of a standard and manage to keep the nonuniversal considerations
from leading away form the ideal situation(by making sure that the "strong
preferences of the majority, if they are merely that, hold no weight to begin
with"  i would also like to know if there are any civic
republicans/communitarains on this list, and what their opinions are on the
justifaction for the democratic system of a whole(i.e. what ideas underlie it)
also, for an expostion of the idea of equality as it relates to democracy, i
would reccomend "A Matter of Principle" by ronald dworkin

especially chapter 8(what is liberalism?)
9(why liberals should care about equality)
17(do we have a right to pornography?)





------------------------------------------------------------
FREE - yourname@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - Just visit http://www.philosophers.net