Rawls insisted that we have capacity to find reflective equilibrium from the two moral powers(the sense of justice and the conception of the good). From this, we can derive the public domain that is a space for agreement without conflict which is followed by our own comprehensive doctrines. So, we can govern ourself by public reason that exist only one in our society. Nevertheless, there are many political conflicts that is emerged by metaphysical doctrines. Especially, we have to face the tension between liberalistic ideal and the fact of democracy. For example, democratic procedure can elect legitimately candidates who refuse to address that he or she is supporting sexual equality. Many democratic theorists pointed out that Rawls failed to catch ‘the political things’ properly. I think that the problem is caused by pure procedural justice. We cannot achieve our political goal with obeying all of procedure of our political community. Because our political fact is not the fact of reasonable pluralism, but the fact of struggle of values that cannot reconcile each other. Then, is Rawls`s theory false at all? We can revise Rawls`s theory and revised theory is much more parallel with our political fact. I propose that we should think Rawls`s theory of justice as an ideal shape of our political society, like Plato`s ideal state. We should consider about quasi pure procedural justice instead of pure procedural justice. From the view of quasi pure procedural justice, we can reconcile the gap between our ideal and our fact. However, pure procedural justice is enough to be just itself, but quasi pure procedural is not. So we need to legitimate quasi pure procedural justice. The problem of quasi pure procedural justice is that the alternatives that can be selected by our public reason may be plural. We don`t have any principle to select and exclude a alternative or some alternatives that were derived by our public reason. What can justify our political decision? I suggest that political knowledge can justify our political decision. Political knowledge is main source of political authority, with political legitimacy. Political knowledge is composed by two aspects, the one is about what the fundamental human value itself is, the other is how we can achieve those values. The latter is more problematic because the former can derived without practical consideration. The latter need to the concept of ‘prudence’ which may be called political wisdom or practical reason. Politicians can have an authority when they can show what we should pursue and achieve and how can we do that. Without political knowledge, politicians can have political legitimacy, however, it is very unstable because politicians cannot persuade their fellows why they should obey to politician`s command. It can cause civil disobedience, of course. Therefore, if the one who want to be a great statesman, he or she should have political knowledge. I offer education for training our politicians with political knowledge. We can achieve our politicians with political authority that cam make them more reliable. Its the most realistic form is the education for the members of political parties. It is less expensive and more efficient when compared to civic education. If my argument is successful, I argued that the human`s fundamental value like human rights, sexual equality should not be given up easily when democracy and liberalism are conflict to each other in contexts of socioeconomics. I think that our fundamental values should be treated more prudentially than traditional way that is choosed by liberals. For it, I think that my proposal may be considered as a possible alternative.
참고문헌 (Reference)
활용도 분석
View
Usage
Share
|
