Why Rawls Wrote Political Liberalism: A Quest For Stability

John Rawls wrote *Political Liberalism* as a response to criticisms of his earlier work, *A Theory of Justice*, and to address the challenges posed by the diversity of reasonable yet conflicting doctrines in modern pluralistic societies. Recognizing that a comprehensive moral or philosophical framework could not gain unanimous agreement in a democratic society, Rawls sought to develop a political conception of justice that could be endorsed by all citizens, regardless of their differing religious, moral, or philosophical beliefs. *Political Liberalism* thus aims to provide a stable and fair framework for cooperation among free and equal citizens by grounding justice in the idea of an overlapping consensus, where individuals with diverse worldviews can agree on basic principles of justice for the sake of social cohesion and mutual respect. This shift reflects Rawls’s commitment to creating a more inclusive and pragmatic theory of justice that accommodates the realities of pluralism while upholding the core values of fairness, equality, and liberty.

Explore related products

Political Liberalism (Columbia Classics in Philosophy)

$23.06 $26.95

Rawls's Political Liberalism (Columbia Themes in Philosophy)

$33.99 $34

Political Liberalism by Rawls, Professor John (1993) Hardcover

$30.95

Extending Political Liberalism: A Selection from Rawls's Political Liberalism, edited by Thom Brooks and Martha C. Nussbaum (To the Point)

$1.99

Rawls, Political Liberalism and Reasonable Faith

$27.86 $45

Liberalism: A Very Short Introduction (Very Short Introductions)

$3.99 $4.79

Responding to Criticisms: Addressing critiques of A Theory of Justice on stability and consensus

John Rawls's *A Theory of Justice* (1971) faced significant critiques regarding its ability to achieve stability and consensus in pluralistic societies. These criticisms prompted Rawls to develop *Political Liberalism* (1993) as a revision and extension of his earlier work. One central critique was that *A Theory of Justice*’s comprehensive moral doctrine, grounded in a particular conception of justice as fairness, could not command unanimous agreement in a society marked by deep religious, philosophical, and moral diversity. Critics argued that such a comprehensive theory would struggle to achieve stability because it relied on shared moral commitments that many citizens might reject. Rawls responded by shifting from a comprehensive to a *political* conception of justice, one that is neutral among reasonable and conflicting doctrines and aims to secure overlapping consensus rather than unanimity.

In *Political Liberalism*, Rawls addresses the stability critique by arguing that a political conception of justice is better suited to pluralistic societies. He introduces the idea of an *overlapping consensus*, where citizens, despite holding different comprehensive doctrines, can agree on the principles of justice for political purposes. This consensus is not based on shared moral or religious beliefs but on a shared commitment to fundamental political values, such as fairness, reciprocity, and the rule of law. By grounding justice in a political, rather than comprehensive, framework, Rawls aims to ensure that the principles of justice are stable and acceptable to all reasonable citizens, even in the face of deep diversity.

Another critique of *A Theory of Justice* was its reliance on the original position and the veil of ignorance as a thought experiment to derive principles of justice. Critics questioned whether this device could generate sufficient consensus in the real world, where citizens are deeply embedded in their own perspectives and interests. In *Political Liberalism*, Rawls acknowledges this challenge and emphasizes the role of public reason in sustaining stability and consensus. Public reason requires that citizens justify political decisions using reasons that all can accept, regardless of their comprehensive doctrines. This ensures that political institutions and policies are legitimate and stable, as they are grounded in shared, publicly accessible principles rather than contentious moral or religious claims.

Rawls also addresses the critique that *A Theory of Justice*’s focus on ideal theory neglects the practical challenges of achieving stability in non-ideal conditions. In *Political Liberalism*, he introduces the concept of a *well-ordered society* as a realistic ideal, where citizens are broadly committed to justice as fairness, even if they disagree on deeper moral questions. This ideal is not utopian but serves as a regulative standard for real-world societies. Rawls further develops the idea of *reasonable pluralism*, recognizing that persistent disagreement is inevitable but that citizens can still cooperate and maintain stability by adhering to the principles of justice through public reason.

Finally, Rawls responds to criticisms that *A Theory of Justice* fails to account for the role of culture and tradition in shaping political consensus. In *Political Liberalism*, he emphasizes the importance of a shared public culture that supports the principles of justice. This public culture is not monolithic but allows for diversity within a framework of mutual respect and reciprocity. By integrating cultural and traditional elements into the political conception of justice, Rawls aims to create a more robust foundation for stability and consensus, one that respects the pluralism of modern democratic societies while ensuring the legitimacy and endurance of political institutions.

In summary, Rawls’s *Political Liberalism* is a direct response to critiques of *A Theory of Justice* regarding stability and consensus. By shifting to a political conception of justice, emphasizing overlapping consensus, public reason, and the role of a shared public culture, Rawls aims to create a more inclusive and stable framework for justice in diverse societies. This revision reflects his commitment to addressing practical challenges while maintaining the core insights of his earlier work.

Diversity of Doctrines: Accommodating pluralism in modern democratic societies

John Rawls' seminal work, *Political Liberalism*, was written in part to address the challenge of accommodating the diversity of doctrines within modern democratic societies. Rawls recognized that in pluralistic societies, citizens hold a wide range of conflicting religious, philosophical, and moral beliefs, which he termed "comprehensive doctrines." These doctrines often shape individuals' understandings of justice, the good life, and the role of the state. The central question Rawls sought to answer was: *How can a just and stable society function when its members hold such deep and irreconcilable differences?*

Rawls argued that traditional theories of justice, which rely on a shared comprehensive doctrine, are ill-suited to modern democracies. For instance, utilitarianism or perfectionist theories assume a common moral framework that does not exist in pluralistic societies. Instead, Rawls proposed political liberalism, a framework that operates within the realm of the "political," rather than the "comprehensive." Political liberalism seeks to establish a public justification for political institutions and laws that is accessible to all citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs. This approach requires that political decisions be based on reasons that all members of society can reasonably accept, even if they disagree on deeper philosophical or religious grounds.

A key mechanism for accommodating the diversity of doctrines is the concept of the overlapping consensus. Rawls suggested that while citizens may disagree on the fundamental grounds of justice, they can still agree on specific principles of justice that regulate their political institutions. This consensus is "overlapping" because it is reached for different reasons by different groups. For example, both religious and secular citizens might support a principle of equal political participation, even if their justifications for doing so are rooted in distinct comprehensive doctrines. This allows for a stable and just society without requiring citizens to abandon their core beliefs.

Rawls also emphasized the importance of public reason, which requires that political arguments in the public sphere be framed in terms that all citizens can understand and accept, regardless of their comprehensive doctrines. This does not mean that religious or philosophical arguments are excluded from public discourse, but rather that they must be translated into a shared language of reason when advocating for political policies. Public reason ensures that no citizen feels coerced into accepting a law or policy based on reasons that conflict with their fundamental beliefs.

Finally, Rawls' political liberalism acknowledges the role of tolerance and mutual respect in maintaining a pluralistic society. By recognizing the inevitability and legitimacy of diverse doctrines, political liberalism fosters a culture of civility and openness. It encourages citizens to engage with one another as free and equal members of society, even when they disagree profoundly. This approach not only accommodates pluralism but also strengthens the democratic fabric by ensuring that political institutions are inclusive and responsive to the diversity of its citizens.

In summary, Rawls' *Political Liberalism* offers a framework for accommodating the diversity of doctrines in modern democratic societies by focusing on political, rather than comprehensive, agreement. Through the concepts of overlapping consensus, public reason, and mutual respect, Rawls provides a roadmap for creating just and stable societies that honor the pluralism inherent in contemporary democracies. His work remains a cornerstone for understanding how diverse beliefs can coexist within a shared political framework.

Overlap Consensus: Creating a shared moral framework despite differing beliefs

John Rawls' concept of Overlap Consensus is a cornerstone of his theory of Political Liberalism, addressing the challenge of creating a stable and just society amidst deep moral and religious pluralism. Rawls recognized that modern democratic societies are characterized by diverse and often conflicting comprehensive doctrines—religious, philosophical, and moral beliefs that shape individuals' worldviews. These doctrines, while important to individuals, cannot serve as the basis for public reason in a pluralistic society, as they are inherently divisive. The Overlap Consensus emerges as a solution, offering a shared moral framework that can be affirmed by all citizens, regardless of their differing comprehensive beliefs.

The Overlap Consensus is not a lowest-common-denominator agreement but a robust framework grounded in the principles of justice and the idea of a political conception of justice. Rawls argues that while citizens may disagree about the "good life" or ultimate truths, they can still agree on fundamental political principles that ensure fairness, equality, and mutual respect. This consensus is achieved through the use of public reason, where citizens justify political decisions based on reasons that all can accept, rather than appealing to their own comprehensive doctrines. For example, citizens might disagree about the moral status of abortion based on their religious beliefs, but they can still agree on a legal framework that respects individual rights and democratic procedures.

Rawls wrote *Political Liberalism* to address the limitations of his earlier work, *A Theory of Justice*, which assumed a more homogeneous society with a shared moral framework. In *Political Liberalism*, he shifts focus to the freestanding nature of political liberalism, which does not rely on any particular comprehensive doctrine. The Overlap Consensus is the practical manifestation of this freestanding view, allowing citizens to affirm political principles like equality, liberty, and fairness without abandoning their personal beliefs. This approach ensures that political legitimacy is not tied to any one worldview, fostering inclusivity and stability in a diverse society.

Creating an Overlap Consensus requires a commitment to reasonableness and reciprocity. Reasonableness implies that citizens are willing to propose and abide by fair terms of cooperation, even when these terms do not fully align with their comprehensive doctrines. Reciprocity means that citizens recognize one another as free and equal, deserving of respect and consideration. These virtues enable citizens to engage in constructive dialogue and compromise, building a moral framework that transcends their differences. Rawls emphasizes that this consensus is not static but evolves through ongoing public deliberation, reflecting the dynamic nature of democratic societies.

Ultimately, the Overlap Consensus is a pragmatic and normative solution to the problem of diversity in modern democracies. It allows societies to function justly and cohesively without requiring citizens to set aside their deeply held beliefs. By focusing on shared political principles rather than contentious moral or religious truths, Rawls' concept provides a blueprint for creating a stable and inclusive public sphere. This is why Rawls wrote *Political Liberalism*—to offer a theory of justice that is both realistic and idealistic, capable of uniting citizens across their differences in pursuit of a common good.

Explore related products

The Idea of a Political Liberalism: Essays on Rawls (Studies in Social, Political, and Legal Philosophy)

$16.65 $53

Process Philosophy and Political Liberalism: Rawls, Whitehead, Hartshorne

$26 $29.95

Why Political Liberalism?: On John Rawls's Political Turn (Oxford Political Philosophy)

$39.23 $57

Rawls and Religion: The Case for Political Liberalism

$96.07

Abortion in J. Rawls’s “A Theory of Justice” and “Political Liberalism” and R. Dworkin’s “Life’s Dominion”

$14.75 $34.9

Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism

$95

Public Reason: Establishing fair terms for political justification in diverse societies

John Rawls' concept of Public Reason is a cornerstone of his theory of Political Liberalism, which he developed to address the challenges of justifying political principles in deeply diverse societies. Rawls recognized that modern democracies are characterized by a plurality of conflicting religious, philosophical, and moral doctrines, which cannot be reconciled into a single, comprehensive worldview. This diversity, he argued, poses a significant challenge to political legitimacy: how can a society establish fair and stable terms of cooperation when its members hold irreconcilable beliefs about the good life? Public Reason emerges as Rawls' solution to this dilemma, offering a framework for political justification that respects pluralism while ensuring fairness and mutual respect.

At its core, Public Reason requires that the justification of political principles and policies be grounded in reasons that all citizens, regardless of their comprehensive doctrines, can reasonably accept. Rawls distinguishes between two levels of public reason: the public political culture and the constitutional essentials and matters of basic justice. In the former, citizens engage in public discourse using reasons that are accessible and understandable to one another, even if they disagree on deeper moral or religious grounds. This ensures that political decisions are not based on sectarian or exclusionary grounds but on shared, public values. For example, a policy promoting gender equality might be justified not by appealing to a particular religious doctrine but by referencing principles of fairness, reciprocity, and equal citizenship, which are part of the public political culture.

Rawls further emphasizes that certain fundamental principles, such as those enshrined in a constitution or basic justice, must be justified exclusively through public reason. These principles form the basis of social cooperation and must be acceptable to all citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs. This requirement ensures that political institutions remain neutral with respect to competing conceptions of the good, thereby safeguarding the rights and freedoms of all individuals. For instance, the principle of religious liberty cannot be justified by appealing to the tenets of a particular religion but must be grounded in reasons that all citizens, including atheists or adherents of other faiths, can endorse.

The concept of Public Reason also introduces the idea of the burdens of judgment, which Rawls identifies as the primary source of reasonable pluralism. These burdens arise from the complexity of evidence, the limits of human understanding, and the diversity of perspectives, making it impossible for reasonable people to agree on a single comprehensive doctrine. By acknowledging these burdens, Rawls argues that political liberalism must adopt a freestanding view of political justice, one that does not presuppose any particular moral or religious framework. Public Reason thus serves as a procedural mechanism for managing disagreement, ensuring that political institutions remain fair and legitimate in the face of persistent diversity.

Finally, Rawls' notion of Public Reason has significant implications for democratic practice. It requires citizens and officials to engage in a culture of deliberation, where political discourse is conducted in a spirit of mutual respect and a commitment to finding common ground. This culture fosters civic virtue and encourages citizens to view one another as free and equal members of a shared political community. By establishing fair terms for political justification, Public Reason not only ensures the stability of diverse societies but also promotes the ideals of justice, equality, and reciprocity that lie at the heart of Rawls' political liberalism. In this way, Public Reason is not merely a theoretical construct but a practical guide for building and sustaining just democratic societies in an age of pluralism.

Freestanding View: Developing a political philosophy independent of comprehensive doctrines

John Rawls' concept of a "freestanding view" is central to his project in *Political Liberalism*, where he aims to develop a political philosophy that operates independently of any particular comprehensive moral, religious, or philosophical doctrine. This approach is a response to the pluralism of modern democratic societies, where citizens hold diverse and often conflicting worldviews. Rawls argues that a political philosophy must be capable of gaining the endorsement of all citizens, regardless of their comprehensive beliefs, to ensure stability and fairness in a democratic society.

The freestanding view is grounded in the idea that political justice should not be derived from or dependent on any specific metaphysical, religious, or moral framework. Instead, it should be based on a shared public reason that all citizens can accept, even if they disagree on deeper philosophical or religious grounds. Rawls introduces the concept of an "overlapping consensus," where different comprehensive doctrines can agree on certain political principles, not because they are derived from a common worldview, but because these principles are seen as reasonable and fair within the context of political cooperation.

To achieve this, Rawls shifts the focus from a comprehensive moral theory, as seen in his earlier work *A Theory of Justice*, to a political conception of justice. This political conception is modular and self-contained, addressing only the basic structure of society—its political institutions and the distribution of rights, liberties, and opportunities. By limiting the scope of political philosophy in this way, Rawls ensures that it does not encroach upon the domain of comprehensive doctrines, allowing individuals to maintain their personal beliefs while participating in a shared political framework.

A key mechanism for achieving this freestanding view is the use of the "original position" thought experiment, but with a crucial modification. In *Political Liberalism*, the original position is constrained by the requirement of public reason, meaning that the principles chosen must be justifiable to all citizens through shared, publicly accessible arguments. This ensures that the political conception of justice is not tied to any particular comprehensive doctrine but is instead grounded in reasonableness and reciprocity.

Rawls further emphasizes the importance of a "reasonable pluralism," acknowledging that rational individuals can disagree in good faith about fundamental questions of morality and religion. The freestanding view respects this pluralism by not privileging any one comprehensive doctrine in the political domain. Instead, it seeks to establish a fair and stable basis for political cooperation that all citizens, regardless of their deeper beliefs, can endorse. This approach is essential for maintaining the legitimacy of democratic institutions in a diverse society.

In summary, Rawls' freestanding view is a deliberate effort to create a political philosophy that is independent of comprehensive doctrines, ensuring that it can serve as a common ground for citizens with differing worldviews. By focusing on a political conception of justice, constrained by public reason and designed to accommodate reasonable pluralism, Rawls aims to provide a stable foundation for democratic societies in the face of deep moral and philosophical diversity. This approach is a cornerstone of his argument in *Political Liberalism* and reflects his commitment to fairness, reciprocity, and inclusivity in political theory.

Frequently asked questions