Habermas and Rawls

Routledge Studies in Contemporary Philosophy

by James Gordon Finlayson (editor), Fabian Freyenhagen (Editor)

Habermas and Rawls are two heavyweights of social and political philosophy, and they are undoubtedly the two most written about (and widely read) authors in this field. However, there has not been much informed and interesting work on the points of intersection between their projects, partly because their work comes from different traditions roughly the European tradition of social and political theory and the Anglo-American analytic tradition of political philosophy. In this volume, contributors re-examine the Habermas-Rawls dispute with an eye toward the ways in which the dispute can cast light on current controversies about political philosophy more broadly. Moreover, the volume will cover a number of other salient issues on which Habermas and Rawls have interesting and divergent views, such as the political role of religion and international justice.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics

328 pages, Paperback

First published October 10, 2010

Reviews

[Philippe Malzieu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Habermas against Rawls? Locke against Kant? Two designs opposite?. I must recognize that I am partial. I like Rawls. I was immediately seduced by the theory of justice. After the ideological drifts in France, I found healthy this return to the social contract.Two differences oppose them. Rawls is liberal, he is opposed to utilitarian. HIs theory is thus based on the contract. The citizens agree to subject themselves to the justice which is external for them. On the other hand, justice guarantees freedom. For Habermas, freedom is the fruit of a "self-regulation démocratic" citizens forming the political will. The difference fondamenale is that, according to Rawls, his theory takes account only of the policy whereas the Habermas'one is understanding.
For me, it is what makes the weakness of Habermas'one. In the current world, the collective will of the citizen does not appear as the guarantor of justice to me. Handling, Internet, populism can influence défavirablement.
Rawls 1 Habermas O
But with final, the reference to Kant is constant. In particular both refer to the Kantian principle of Publicity or "public use of reason". What strikes it is the quality of the exchanges,dazzling intelligence and courtesy.
That changes from debates into France which take quickly an idéological dimensions. At last, there is no loser.
Rawls 1 Habermas 1
Intelligence wins.