Abstract
Using Audi’s argument for secular public debate as a starting point, which argues for the exclusion of religion from individuals’ public political discourse, this paper argues that it is a fundamental obligation of all citizens in a pluralistic liberal democracy to adhere to a notion of ‘public reason’. It does not, however accept Audi and Rawls’ interpretations of the notion of public reason uncritically. Through a comparative study of both philosophers’ principles, a new interpretation of the notion is put forward which focuses on epistemic sources as the crucial criteria for deciding what counts as public reason.
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.
