Public Reason Research Articles

Public reason and constitutional adjudication in India

Taking India as my vantage point, I analyse Professor Wojciech Sadurski’s latest book, Constitutional Public Reason. The book comes at an interesting time for India. Comparative constitutional law scholarship has shifted focus from the Indian Supreme Court’s Public Interest Litigation movement to take a closer look at the Court’s deferential approaches to adjudicating fundamental rights. Simultaneously, the question of which standard of review to apply continues to be a contentious issue in constitutional cases before the Supreme Court. Even though India gets limited coverage in Sadurki’s new book, the book can be helpful in critiquing the deferential jurisprudence of the Indian Supreme Court and in exploring possible solutions. This review demonstrates the applicability of Sadurski’s insights by focusing on two strands of the book’s core argument: motive-based judicial review and standards of scrutiny in the context of the right to equality.

Legislative measures and legislators’ motives

This review of Wojciech Sadurski’s Constitutional Public Reason explores the relationship between the legislative measures voted on by legislators and their motivations for so voting. The relationship between such measures and motivations is examined by reference to GEM Anscombe’s famous example of a man at a pump to illustrate the different descriptions that may be given for a human action. Where the relevant action requires the participation of more than one person, only that aspect of each person’s plan of action that is shared with the others can be ascribed to them jointly, suggesting that the purpose of legislation does not encompass every motivation of the diverse legislators that voted for it.

Constitutional Public Reason revisited: the author’s response

Constitutional Public Reason revisited: the author’s response

THE FOURTH ENERGY TRANSITION: CURRENT STATUS AND OUTLOOK, RUSSIA'S STRATEGY IN THE GEOPOLITICAL STRUGGLE

The article is devoted to the analysis of the public and tacit reasons for the fourth energy transition. An assessment of the phenomenon of the fourth energy transition is given as an objective stage in the development of global energy, and through the prism of economic competition and geopolitical confrontation between the EU, USA, Russia, China, and fossil fuel exporting countries. The history of interaction between the USSR (RF) and European countries in the energy sector is outlined. The politically motivated background behind the causes of the energy crisis and the accelerated pace of energy transition is revealed. The problem of the risks of the energy transition in the modern geopolitical and socio-economic situation is touched upon. The main provisions of the energy development strategy of the Russian Federation in the conditions of the fourth energy transition are presented.

Political liberalism, public reason and the Goldilocks problem: On Michelman’s Constitutional Essentials

Michelman's Constitutional Essentials raises important questions about the idea of political liberalism and related idea of public reason. This essay offers a sympathetic commentary while also exploring the importance of the idea of reciprocity for both Rawls and Michelman.

Political legitimacy in Rawls’ early and late political liberalism – Two diverging interpretations

This article assesses Frank I. Michelman’s constitution-centered and proceduralist interpretation of Rawls’ conception of political legitimacy and argues that it merits attention because it highlights the institutional aspects of Rawls’ understanding of political legitimacy for constitutional democracies. However, the article also questions Michelman’s interpretation of Rawls’ ‘liberal principle of legitimacy’ (LPL) and the later ‘idea of political legitimacy based on the criterion of reciprocity’ (ILBR). As Michelman rightly points out, for the exercise of political power to be legitimate in a constitutional democracy, it must be in accordance with a constitution that is itself legitimate or reasonably acceptable to free and equal citizens. Yet, the article argues that Rawls’ two legitimacy formulations are attempts to make an additional point: Namely that when democratic citizens exercise political power in ‘the fundamental political issues’, or in issues that shape the basic justice of society or the essentials of the constitution itself, they must respect the ideal of public reason – or ensure themselves and other citizens that their exercise of political power is in accordance with the underlying basic political-moral ideas of persons and society that make the constitution itself acceptable to them. The LPL and the ILBR are conceptions of political legitimacy, not in the sense of setting up a criterion for when a specific law is legitimate, but in the sense of outlining civic or “office-specific” constraints that citizens and public officials must put on their reasoning and exercise of political power in the fundamental political issues for the practice of a constitutional democracy to be legitimate, or well-ordered, reasonably just, and stable for the right reasons – in the long run. The article also discusses why Rawls saw the need to reformulate the LPL, and how the later ILBR assigns a new significance to citizens’ actual use of public reason and their intersubjective deliberation.

Learning from diversity: Public reason and the benefits of pluralism

The New Diversity Theory (NDT) represents a novel approach to public reason liberalism, providing an alternative to the traditional, Rawlsian public reason paradigm. One of the NDT's distinctive features is its emphasis on the potential advantages of a diverse society, with a particularly strong focus on the epistemic benefits of diversity. In this paper, I call into question whether societal diversity has the epistemic benefits that New Diversity theorists claim. I highlight a number of pernicious epistemic phenomena that tend to arise in diverse contexts, ultimately arguing that the only feasible way around these epistemic pitfalls is through widespread convergence on certain intellectual virtues. If these virtues are indeed necessary, then the benefits highlighted by the NDT should only be expected in societies that reflect certain kinds of diversity. More precisely, only the kinds of diversity that can still persist despite homogenization along the lines of certain intellectual virtues are compatible with the NDT's claims. Building upon this insight, I then highlight features of the NDT that require further development in order for it to serve as a compelling alternative to its Rawlsian counterpart.

Re-enchanting the World: Pope Francis’s Critique of the “Technocratic Paradigm” in Laudato Si’ and Laudate Deum

The first part of this article offers a systemic comparison of Pope Francis’s “integral ecology” with the “technocratic paradigm.” The second part is devoted to an internal critique of the paradigm: (i) the primacy accorded instrumental causality in a “disenchanted world,” (ii) the technical reduction of prudence, and (iii) the consequent fragmentation of ethical systems. The critique supports key aspects of Francis’s ecological ethics: the option for the poor, intergenerational responsibility, and recognition of the intrinsic value of nonhuman nature. The third part shows how such an internal critique underwrites the uses of religious rhetoric in public reasoning: the re-enchantment of the world.

Autonomy, Community, and the Justification of Public Reason

Autonomy, Community, and the Justification of Public Reason

Moral Uncertainty and Public Justification

Moral uncertainty and disagreement pervade our lives. Yet we still need to make decisions and act, both individually and politically. So, what should we do? Moral uncertainty theorists provide a theory of what individuals should do when they are uncertain about morality. Public reason liberals provide a theory of how societies should deal with reasonable disagreements about morality. They defend the public justification principle: state action is permissible only if it can be justified to all reasonable people. In this article, we bring these two approaches together. Specifically, we investigate whether considerations of moral uncertainty support public reason liberalism: given moral uncertainty, should we favor public justification? We argue that while moral uncertainty theory cannot vindicate an exceptionless public justification principle, it supports adopting public justification as a pro tanto principle – albeit one that can be overridden when the moral stakes are high. It also provides new answers to some intramural debates among public reason liberals and new responses to some common objections.

Helmet Detection

Currently, there is a prevailing issue concerning the practice of riding motorcycles without helmets. Despite legislation mandating helmet usage for public safety reasons, there remains a significant number of individuals who disregard this requirement, leading to an alarming increase in accidents and fatalities. To mitigate this problem, we propose a method for the automated detection of helmetless motorcyclists through surveillance systems. Our approach utilizes the YOLO deep learning framework for detecting individuals without helmets, while a SM algorithm is employed recognition. This process involves several stages, including vehicle classification, pre-processing, and number plate identification, using images or videos captured by surveillance cameras. Implementing such a system is crucial for enhancing road safety and preventing accidents. By automatically identifying helmetless riders and extracting their vehicle numbers, law enforcement agencies can efficiently apprehend violators. This data can then be utilized to impose fines on repeat offenders, thereby reinforcing compliance with helmet regulations and reducing the occurrence of preventable accidents

Li Zehou’s Ideas on Chinese Modernity Revisited

Li Zehou’s Ideas on Chinese Modernity Revisited

Verification Agencies on TikTok: The Case of MediaWise and Politifact

This research aims to analyse the work of two international information verification agencies on TikTok—MediaWise and Politifact—according to their evolution, approach, content, and format. To this end, a quantitative approach has been used with an inductive content analysis with nominal variables, which offers specific nuances adapted to the unit of analysis. In a first phase, an empirical analysis was carried out, focusing on the measurement and quantification of the number of publications and interactions of the audience, from the time Fthey started operating on this platform until 31 December 2023. The total number of posts extracted was N > 704, which generated N > 4,166,387 user responses. In a second phase, an in-depth content analysis of all the posts published by these two agencies in four months (October and November 2021 and October and November 2023) was carried out, allowing us to analyse their evolution, but also to compare the two agencies in terms of approach, themes, and style. The most important findings show that both agencies adapt the style and narratives to this social network through the use of dynamic resources, a casual and informal tone, and elements of humour. In addition, both contribute to public reason through different strategies: MediaWise focuses on media literacy and Politifact on verification, using resources, effects and content in line with that purpose. Finally, we observe a downward evolution in terms of reach and impact on the audience, as well as a lower dynamism in 2023 than in 2021, which opens the door to future lines of explanatory research that delve deeper into possible causes.

Occurrence of antimicrobial residues in broiler chickens from selected farms and markets in Kano Metropolis, Nigeria

The indiscriminate use of antibiotics in animal meant for human and animal’s consumption lead to occurrence of antibiotic residues which threaten the health of both animals and humans. The aim of the study was to detect the presence of antimicrobial residues in broiler chicken in Kano state, Nigeria. Samples of fresh breast muscle, thigh muscle, liver and kidney were collected from 100 birds and examined using microbial inhibition test and ELISA test to determine the occurrence of antimicrobial residues and Enrofloxacin residues. A questionnaire was also administered to 33 workers and managers of the selected bird’s farms to assess their knowledge on the use of antibiotics and presence of antimicrobial residues. The result of the study revealed that 43% of the studied birds tested positive to antibiotic residue. Kidney samples recorded the highest (43%) residue present while thigh muscles (35%) recorded the least. The result indicated that among the birds detected with positive antibiotic residues, 36.4% were also positive for Enrofloxacin residue. All the respondents were using one or more antibiotic for treatment, prophylaxis or both and to a lesser extent as growth promoters. Majority (55.5%) of the respondents were not aware of the presence of residues in poultry. Most of the respondents (63.7%) have knowledge of withdrawal period but all of them were not observing withdrawal practice before disposing their birds. Doxycycline antibiotic was found to be the most indiscriminately use antibiotic, while erythromycin and chloramphenicol are the least. The study advocates the need for awareness campaigns for the farmers on the correct way of administering the antibiotics with special emphasis on withdrawal periods as well as continuous monitoring of the residues for public health reasons.

Should Liberal Communities Respect Bad Believers? On Empirical Disagreement over Climate Change and Public Reason

Abstract Public reason liberalism strives to accommodate as broad an array of viewpoints as possible. Some people are selective science skeptics, meaning that they disagree with parts of mainstream science. Of special interest for this paper are climate deniers, who disagree with the mainstream consensus views of climate science. This creates a problem for public reason: on the one hand, public reason wants to avoid basing rules and policies on controversial principles, values, and so on. On the other hand, there are citizens whom we cannot outright call irrational who are skeptical about central tenets of climate science. This seems to imply that public reason cannot base policies on the robust findings of climate science because these findings are controversial among the citizenry. But we have strong reasons to base our policies vis-à-vis climate change on the robust findings of climate science. How should we proceed?

Assessing Public Reason Approaches to Conscientious Objection in Healthcare.

Sometimes healthcare professionals conscientiously refuse to treat patients despite the patient requesting legal, medically indicated treatments within the professionals' remit. Recently, there has been a proliferation of views using the concept of public reason to specify which conscientious refusals of treatment should be accommodated. Four such views are critically assessed, namely, those of Robert Card, Massimo Reichlin, David Scott, and Doug McConnell. This paper argues that McConnell's view has advantages over the other approaches because it combines the requirement that healthcare professionals publicly justify the grounds of their conscientious refusals of treatment with the requirement that those grounds align with minimally decent healthcare. This relatively restrictive approach accommodates conscientious refusals from minimally decent healthcare professionals while still protecting good healthcare, the independence of the healthcare professions, and the fiduciary relationships.

The Two Faces of Political Parties: How They Can Both Promote and Hinder Rawls’ Public Reason

This article explores the impact of political parties on a Rawlsian model of public reason. Political parties possess the potential to play a vital role in promoting public reason by connecting the background culture and the public political forum, identifying and systematizing the diverse array of opinions within a pluralist society. They can translate comprehensive doctrines into shared public values, advance electoral programs that articulate a reasonable political conception of justice and construct the deliberative arena necessary for public reason. However, it is crucial to recognize that political parties can also undermine public reason. They may prioritize sectarian interests over shared ones, appeal to non-liberal or perfectionist values, perpetuate misinformation, succumb to the influence of monetary donations, or adopt a closed-minded and rigid ideological stance. Achieving the ideal of public reason necessitates political parties striking a delicate balance between advancing their own agendas and respecting a practice of public justification.

Public reason, democracy, and the ideal two-tier social choice model of politics

Public reason, democracy, and the ideal two-tier social choice model of politics

Must the Subaltern Speak Publicly? Public Reason Liberalism and the Ethics of Fighting Severe Injustice

Must the Subaltern Speak Publicly? Public Reason Liberalism and the Ethics of Fighting Severe Injustice

Recovering the Democratic Value of Public Discourse

The decline of democracy in the US entails the surge of authoritarianism, ascendency of demagoguery, dispersal of the democratic majority, and weakening of public reason. Dissent, envisioned as a rhetorical practice of democratic deliberation, resists authoritarianism by advancing democratic values. Accordingly, this paper examines democracy as a minority voice, explores the deliberative capacity of dissent, and identifies the rhetorical properties of deliberation. The paper argues that dissent, in its fugitive aspect, is dispersed across an array of modest sites, guided by a deliberative ideal partially realised, and framed by democratic values. Dissent functions in this capacity as an itinerant, recurring source of democratic renewal on occasions of political crisis. It is an adaptation to structural constraints that provides a nurturing aspiration to prompt political agency, establish realistic expectations, and sustain vigilance. While the immediacy of the authoritarian threat and corresponding questions about the role of democratic communication are addressed in terms of the 2024 general election in the US, the democratic challenge in the US is indicative of the abiding immediacy of the authoritarian threat to other democracies and suggestive of deliberative adaptations for restoring the vitality of democratic communication and culture. Complacency in democratic theory and practice is counter-indicated.