THE DEBATE ABOUT POLITICAL LIBERALISM: TWO OPINIONS

Authors

  • Tomás S. Vives Antón
  • Manuel Jiménez Redondo

Keywords:

Common sense of justice, Veil of ignorance, Impartiality, Envy, Social cooperation, Basic liberties, Liberalism, Libertarianism, Communitarism, Equality, Equalitarism, Primary goods

Abstract

John Rawls’ kantian conception of Justice «political, not metaphisica» is here reexamined by T.S Vives and M. Jiménez Redondo, concluding both in a coincident partial appraisal of their view on liberalism. The sole meaningful difference between these two authors concerns justification. For professor Vives, assesing the problem from a wittgensteinian approach, when something is valued as fair/just by the common sense of pluralistic democracies it cannot be matter of a subsequent justification. However Prof. Jiménez Redondo states that from the fact of pluralism should follow a categorical justification (in kantian terms). But it’s not clear if that difference between the two professors is merely conceptual or only emphatical

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Published

2020-06-22

How to Cite

Vives Antón, T. S., & Jiménez Redondo, M. (2020). THE DEBATE ABOUT POLITICAL LIBERALISM: TWO OPINIONS. Teoría & Derecho. Revista De Pensamiento jurídico, (18), 174–215. Retrieved from https://ojs.tirant.com/index.php/teoria-y-derecho/article/view/486