Is Public Reason stable here? A Reflection through the experience of “Same-Sex Marriage “debates in Taiwan

Abstract

Public reason is a well-known concept, which requires participants in debates to provide non-comprehensive doctrine to guarantee stability. However, in Taiwan’s discussion of “Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage”, some debaters overemphasized this concept and then criticized the other side who provided non-public reasons. It did not gain the stability that Rawls really concerns about and ultimately caused trouble for the movement: the defeat of the 2018 referendum. Through the experience of public discussion in Taiwan, I will reflect on the potential weakness of this idea in this essay and point out the reasons for the failure of public reason. To present its weakness, I will introduce the core idea of stability in section II and explain how it relates to the idea of public reason in Rawls's theory. Section III would provide a Rawlsian critique by introducing the difference between internal reasons (with motives) and external reasons (without motives). The problem of public reason, in my opinion, is that it cannot motivate people, especially those who believe in religious doctrine. After an overview of the account's problems, I will provide a brief analysis and point out that exclusion and polarization through public causes can also threaten stability. The last part is the conclusion.