The Dilemma of Contemporary Political Liberalism and its Overcome

I argue that political liberals fail to work out
a unanimous political principle because they avoid
the problem of reasonable disagreement, whether by
way of original position in J. Rawls
or principle of neutrality in C. Larmore, and B.
Ackerman. Political liberals are confronted with a
complicated dilemma when forced to address the
problem of diversity, namely, the dilemma of
excluding or including conceptions of the good that
falsify the original position of neutrality.
In order to address the challenge of reasonable
pluralism, and to overcome the liberal dilemma, I
propose an engaged model for the mutual
understanding of differences as the basis of
reaching political consensus. This model consists of
a procedural presentation of differences in order to
achieve mutual understanding and a rationale for a
common political project. It expands a deliberative
public sphere and opens new possibilities for the
comparative study of political, religious, moral,
and philosophical doctrines that enhance a prospect
of toleration, political consensus and political
justice in pluralistic democratic societies.

Autorentext

SHIEH, JENN-CHYUN (Mark Shieh). Ph.D.: Graduated from the Division of Religious and Theological Studies at Boston University. Majors in Political Philosophy and Comparative Study of Religion. Former Director of Life Education Center at Tajen University. Currently Teaching at National Chung Cheng University and Tajen University in Taiwan.

Klappentext

I argue that political liberals fail to work out a unanimous political principle because they avoid the problem of reasonable disagreement, whether by way of"original position" in J. Rawls or "principle of neutrality" in C. Larmore, and B. Ackerman. Political liberals are confronted with a complicated dilemma when forced to address the problem of diversity, namely, the dilemma of excluding or including conceptions of the good that falsify the original position of neutrality. In order to address the challenge of reasonable pluralism, and to overcome the liberal dilemma, I propose an "engaged model for the mutualunderstanding of differences" as the basis of reaching political consensus. This model consists of a procedural presentation of differences in order to achieve mutual understanding and a rationale for a common political project. It expands a deliberative public sphere and opens new possibilities for the comparative study of political, religious, moral, and philosophical doctrines that enhance a prospect of toleration, political consensus and political justice in pluralistic democratic societies.