Forst on Reciprocity of Reasons: a Critique

According to Rainer Forst, (i) moral and political claims must meet a requirement of reciprocal and general acceptability (RGA) while (ii) we are under a duty in engaged discursive practice to justify such claims to others, or be able to do so, on grounds that meet RGA. The paper critically engages this view. I argue that Forst builds a key component of RGA, i.e., reciprocity of reasons, on an idea of the reasonable that undermines both (i) and (ii): if RGA builds on this idea, RGA is viciously regressive and a duty of justification to meet RGA fails to be agent transparent. This negative result opens the door for alternative conceptions of reciprocity and generality. I then suggest that a more promising conception of reciprocity and generality needs to build on an idea of the reasonable that helps to reconcile the emancipatory or protective aspirations of reciprocal and general justification with its egalitarian commitments. But this requires to downgrade RGA in the order of justification and to determine on prior, substantive grounds what level of discursive influence in reciprocal and general justification relevant agents ought to have

Transnational justice and democracy

The title I have chosen seems to signal a tension, even a contradiction, in a number of respects. Democracy appears to be a form of political organisation and government in which, through general and public participatory procedures, a sufficiently legitimate political will is formed which acquires the force of law. Justice, by contrast, appears to be a value external to this context which is not so much linked to procedures of “input” or “throughput” legitimation but is understood instead as an output- or outcome-oriented concept. At times, justice is even understood as an otherworldly idea which, when transported into the Platonic cave, merely causes trouble and ends up as an undemocratic elite project. In methodological terms, too, this difference is sometimes signalled in terms of a contrast between a form of “worldly” political thought and “abstract” and otherworldly philosophical reflection on justice. In my view, we are bound to talk past the issues to be discussed under the heading “transnational justice and democracy” unless we first root out false dichotomies such as the ones mentioned. My thesis will be that justice must be “secularised” or “grounded” both with regard to how we understand it and to its application to relations beyond the state

Der Grund der Kritik : zum Begriff der Menschenwürde in sozialen Rechtfertigungsordnungen

Ernst Bloch pointed out in a particularly emphatic way that the concept of human dignity featured centrally in historical struggles against different forms of unjustified rule, i.e. domination – to which one must add that it continues to do so to the present day. The “upright gait,” putting an end to humiliation and insult: this is the most powerful demand, in both political and rhetorical terms, that a “human rights-based” claim expresses. It marks the emergence of a radical, context-transcending reference point immanent to social conflicts which raises fundamental questions concerning the customary opposition between immanent and transcendent criticism. For within the idiom of demanding respect for human dignity, a right is invoked “here and now,” in a particular, context-specific form, which at its core is owed to every human being as a person. Thus Bloch is in one respect correct when he asserts that human rights are not a natural “birthright” but must be achieved through struggle; but in another respect this struggle can develop its social power only if it has a firm and in a certain sense “absolute” normative anchor. Properly understood, it becomes apparent that these social conflicts always affect “two worlds”: the social reality, on the one hand, which is criticized in part or radically in the light of an ideal normative dimension, on the other. For those who engage in this criticism there is no doubt that the normative dimension is no less real than the reality to which they refuse to resign themselves. Those who critically transcend reality always also live elsewhere

Die Ambivalenz der Toleranz : vom schwierigen Balanceakt zwischen Gleichheit und Differenz

Immer wieder sieht man sich – einer Zeitreise gleich – heutzutage rückversetzt in die trüben Zeiten religiöser Konfrontationen, denkt man an die Diskussionen über Pläne zum Bau von Moscheen, die Regensburger Rede des Papstes, Karikaturen in dänischen Zeitungen oder Kopftücher von Lehrerinnen. Und so ist es ganz folgerichtig, dass der ehrwürdige Begriff der Toleranz allerorten bemüht wird, um konfliktentschärfend zu wirken. Gleichwohl fällt auf, dass häufig jede der streitenden Parteien ihn für sich reklamiert. Was also heißt »Toleranz« genau

Os limites da tolerância

Este artigo apresenta os elementos constitutivos do conceito de tolerância e discute duas concepções diferentes do termo, como permissão e como respeito moral, que expressam modos diversos de demarcar os limites da tolerância. A tolerância é apresentada como um conceito que, para ganhar algum conteúdo, depende normativamente de um direito à justificação baseado na idéia de um uso público da razão segundo o qual as práticas e as instituições político-jurídicas que determinam a vida social dos cidadãos devem ser justificáveis à luz de normas que eles não podem recíproca e genericamente rejeitar.The article presents the constitutive elements of the concept of toleration and discusses two different conceptions of toleration, as permission and as moral respect, which express different ways of demarcating the limits of the toleration. Toleration is presented as a concept that to gain a certain contend and substance is a normatively dependent concept, one that is in need of a right to justification based on the ideia of a public use of reason according to every practices and legal-political institutions that determine the social life of the citizens must to be justifiable by norms that they can not reciprocally and generically reject

Justice, Democracy and the Right to Justification

This book is available as open access through the Bloomsbury Open Access programme and is available on www.bloomsburycollections.com. Over the past 15 years, Rainer Forst has developed a fundamental research programme within the tradition of Frankfurt School Critical Theory. The core of this programme is a moral account of the basic right of justification that humans owe to one another as rational beings. This account is put to work by Forst in articulating - both historically and philosophically - the contexts and form of justice and of toleration. The result is a powerful theoretical framework within which to address issues such as transnational justice and multicultural toleration. In this volume, Forst sets out his ideas in an extended essay, which is responded to be influential interlocutors including: Andrea Sangiovanni, Amy Allen, Kevin Olson, Anthony Laden, Eva Erman and Simon Caney. The volume concludes with Forst's response to his interlocutors

Toleration, Power and Reason: Continuing a Dialogue with a Political Realist Friend

In this essay, I continue a dialogue with Glen Newey about the normative and political possibility of a conception of toleration that aims at a higher-order justification of its grounds and limits. I argue for such a conception, Glen remained skeptical about it

Justice, Democracy and the Right to Justification

This book is available as open access through the Bloomsbury Open Access programme and is available on www.bloomsburycollections.com. Over the past 15 years, Rainer Forst has developed a fundamental research programme within the tradition of Frankfurt School Critical Theory. The core of this programme is a moral account of the basic right of justification that humans owe to one another as rational beings. This account is put to work by Forst in articulating - both historically and philosophically - the contexts and form of justice and of toleration. The result is a powerful theoretical framework within which to address issues such as transnational justice and multicultural toleration. In this volume, Forst sets out his ideas in an extended essay, which is responded to be influential interlocutors including: Andrea Sangiovanni, Amy Allen, Kevin Olson, Anthony Laden, Eva Erman and Simon Caney. The volume concludes with Forst's response to his interlocutors

Zum Begriff eines Rechtfertigungsnarrativs

Den Menschen als vernunftbegabtes Wesen, als animal rationale, zu begreifen heißt, ihn als rechtfertigendes Wesen anzusehen. Die Vernunft ist die Fähigkeit, sich anhand rechtfertigender Gründe in der Welt zu orientieren. Denn „ratio, raison, reason bedeutet“, wie Tugendhat hervorhebt, „ebenso sehr ‚Grund‘ wie ‚Vernunft‘. Das Vermögen der Vernunft ist die Fähigkeit, für seine Meinungen und für seine Handlungen Rede und Antwort stehen zu können; lat. rationem reddere, griech. logon didonai.“ Dieses Rede-und-Antwort-Stehen ist eine soziale Praxis kulturell und historisch situierter Wesen, die einerseits frei sind, ihre Gründe zu wählen und zu prüfen, andererseits aber daran gebunden, welche Gründe ihnen zur Verfügung stehen und welche als gut oder rechtfertigend gelten. Der Raum der Gründe ist ein Raum der Rechtfertigungen, die nicht nur Einzelhandlungen, sondern auch komplexe Handlungsordnungen, also soziale Verhältnisse und politische Institutionen, legitimieren. Menschen sind aber auch erzählende Wesen. Der Raum der Gründe, in dem sie sich orientieren, ist kein nackter Raum einzelner Sätze oder gar Normen, sondern bevölkert von Narrativen