Methodological Rawlsianism, Critical Theory and Animal Political Theory
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3989/isegoria.2023.69.05Keywords:
Animals, Reflective equilibrium, Public justification, «liberalismo árabe», Methodological Rawlsianism, Critical theoryAbstract
The aim of this paper is to offer a systematic explanation of why animal political theory, developed within the framework of methodological Rawlsianism, has difficulties meeting the standards of public justification. More specifically, I argue that the problem lies in the fact that our political culture makes it difficult for citizens to adopt a coherent perspective to reflect on the terms through which relations between species must be conducted. To face this difficulty, I propose that a methodological turn must be introduced, giving greater importance to social theory, which implies a step from liberalism to critical theory.
Downloads
References
Abbey, R. 2007, "Rawlsian Resources for Animal Ethics", Ethics and the Environment, 12: 1-22. https://doi.org/10.2979/ETE.2007.12.1.1
Daniels, N. 1996, Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice, New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624988
DePaul, M. 1986, "Reflective Equilibrium and Foundationalism", American Philosophical Quarterly, 23: 59-69.
Donaldson, S. y Kymlicka, W. 2011, Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flanders, C. 2014. "Public Reason and Animal Rights". En Political Animals and Animal Politics, ed. Marcel Wissenburg, and David Schlosberg. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-68308-6_4
Fraser, N. y Jaeggi, R. 2018, Capitalism: A Conversation in Critical Theory, Cambridge: Polity.
Garner, R. 2013, A Theory of Justice for Animals: Animal Rights in a Nonideal World, Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199936311.001.0001
Klosko, G. 2004, Democratic Procedures and Liberal Consensus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199270200.001.0001
Ng, Y-K. 1995, "Towards welfare biology: Evolutionary economics of animal consciousness and suffering", Biology and Philosophy, 10: 255-285. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00852469
Nielsen, K. 1991. "Rawls and the Socratic Ideal", Analyse & Kritik, 13: 67:93. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-1991-0105
Norman, W. 1998, "Inevitable and Unacceptable? Methodological Rawlsianism in Anglo-American Political Philosophy", Political Studies, 46: 276-294. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00140
Pepper, A. 2017, "Political Liberalism, Human Cultures, and Nonhuman Lives". En L. Cordeiro Rodrigues y L. Mitchell (Eds.), Animals, Race, and Multiculturalism. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66568-9_3
Quong, J. 2011, Liberalism without Perfection. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199594870.001.0001
Rawls, J. 1974, "The Independence of Moral Theory", Proceedings and Addresses of the American Philosophical Association, 48: 5-22. https://doi.org/10.2307/3129858
Rawls, J. 1993, Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.
Riquelme, P. en prensa, "Constructivismo, contractualismo y teoría política animal". Ideas y valores, 73.
Rorty, R. 1991, "The priority of democracy to philosophy", en Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth: Philosophical Papers, Volume 1, New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173643
Rowlands, M. 1997, "Contractarianism and animal rights", Journal of Applied Philosophy, 14: 235-247. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5930.00060
Scheffler, S. 2016, "The Practice of Equality", en C. Fourie, F. Schuppert, and I. Wallimann-Helmer (eds.). Social Equality, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Singer, P. 1974, "Sidgwick and Reflective Equilibrium", The Monist, 58: 490-517. https://doi.org/10.5840/monist197458330
Zuolo, F. 2020, Animals, Political Liberalism and Public Reason. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49509-1
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
© CSIC. Manuscripts published in both the printed and online versions of this Journal are the property of Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, and quoting this source is a requirement for any partial or full reproduction.All contents of this electronic edition, except where otherwise noted, are distributed under a “Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International” (CC BY 4.0) License. You may read here the basic information and the legal text of the license. The indication of the CC BY 4.0 License must be expressly stated in this way when necessary.
Self-archiving in repositories, personal webpages or similar, of any version other than the published by the Editor, is not allowed.
