Abstract
This essay attempts to navigate what I take to be the central paradox in discussions of global justice: how does one acknowledge the distinctness of other political cultures while at the same time making a claim that guarantees universal human rights? Using Paul Ricœur's asymmetric model of self and other I develop an interpretative conception of justice on the basis of the later work of John Rawls. My argument shows that Rawls's move to reasonability and public reason requires an interpretive as opposed to a purely constructivist framework. This subordination of reason to reasonability, which takes place between A Theory of Justice and Political Liberalism, makes it possible to take account of “the other” in terms of a judgement about what is reasonable. Ricceur's development of a theory of identity that preserves the asymmetry between self and other, coupled with Rawls's notion of reasonability, provide us with the resources for understanding politics in a global framework. I conclude by relating this position to Kant's reflections on the cosmopolitan order.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
