Abstract
Few people in contemporary democracies have what John Rawls calls fully comprehensive doctrines (FCDs). In particular, mainstream religions are not FCDs; further, most people, including educated, reflective ones, do not have FCDs. I argue that if an FCD conflicts with political liberalism, as Rawls explains it in Political Liberalism, then it is the FCD that must yield. What distinguishes fanatics from most religious people in contemporary democracies is the fact that fanatics (purport to) place all value in things of some transcendent realm. Terrorists are fanatics who, ironically, try to impose their values on the world.
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.
