From dialogue rights to property rights: Reply to Shearmur

Abstract

Jeremy Shearmur's consequentialist argument for universality in the distribution of individual “negative”; liberties claims that what is gained as a consequence of extending such liberties to the last hitherto excluded group is likely to outweigh what is lost by doing so. In trying to make such a claim convincing, does it help to notice that whoever is denied negative liberties is thereby impeded from contributing to social dialogue about the arts and ethics of human well‐being? Perhaps, but only on two conditions: First, we understand individual identities as intersubjectively constituted. Second, we pursue universality in the distribution of social requisites of dialogic competence beyond negative liberties.