Determining the Common Good: A (Re-)Constructive Critique of the Proceduralist Paradigm

In recent years, philosophers, political scientists and sociologists have witnessed a renaissance of the concept of the common good in political discourse: political agents such as parties, civic networks and courts increasingly refer to this concept to justify their actions. This development gives...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Christian Blum
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN FR IT
Publicado:	Rosenberg & Sellier 2016
Materias:	common good democracy proceduralism Aesthetics BH1-301 Ethics BJ1-1725
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/4f071ee40808418f95b316385c5146ee
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:4f071ee40808418f95b316385c5146ee
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:4f071ee40808418f95b316385c5146ee2021-12-02T09:51:20ZDetermining the Common Good: A (Re-)Constructive Critique of the Proceduralist Paradigm10.13128/Phe_Mi-196162280-78532239-4028https://doaj.org/article/4f071ee40808418f95b316385c5146ee2016-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://oaj.fupress.net/index.php/pam/article/view/7098https://doaj.org/toc/2280-7853https://doaj.org/toc/2239-4028 In recent years, philosophers, political scientists and sociologists have witnessed a renaissance of the concept of the common good in political discourse: political agents such as parties, civic networks and courts increasingly refer to this concept to justify their actions. This development gives rise to the question whether normative political theory can provide a sensible definition of the common good which is compatible with pluralistic democratic society and which allows the identification of a specific range of well justified policies. The most influential account in this field is the theory of proceduralism which holds that the common good consists, by necessity, in the output of a political system whose procedures grant each citizen an equal say in collective decision-making. This account derives its initial plausibility from acknowledging citizens as agents who autonomously shape the welfare of their community on the basis of their subjective interests. However, it falls short of explaining how democratic decision-making good could possibly authorize actions that are detrimental to the common good. This problem is solved by a modification of the proceduralist paradigm that complements procedural criteria with objective and substantive standards that serve as limiting values for admissible policy outputs. Christian BlumRosenberg & Sellierarticlecommon gooddemocracyproceduralismAestheticsBH1-301EthicsBJ1-1725ENFRITPhenomenology and Mind, Iss 3 (2016)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN FR IT
topic	common good democracy proceduralism Aesthetics BH1-301 Ethics BJ1-1725
spellingShingle	common good democracy proceduralism Aesthetics BH1-301 Ethics BJ1-1725 Christian Blum Determining the Common Good: A (Re-)Constructive Critique of the Proceduralist Paradigm
description	In recent years, philosophers, political scientists and sociologists have witnessed a renaissance of the concept of the common good in political discourse: political agents such as parties, civic networks and courts increasingly refer to this concept to justify their actions. This development gives rise to the question whether normative political theory can provide a sensible definition of the common good which is compatible with pluralistic democratic society and which allows the identification of a specific range of well justified policies. The most influential account in this field is the theory of proceduralism which holds that the common good consists, by necessity, in the output of a political system whose procedures grant each citizen an equal say in collective decision-making. This account derives its initial plausibility from acknowledging citizens as agents who autonomously shape the welfare of their community on the basis of their subjective interests. However, it falls short of explaining how democratic decision-making good could possibly authorize actions that are detrimental to the common good. This problem is solved by a modification of the proceduralist paradigm that complements procedural criteria with objective and substantive standards that serve as limiting values for admissible policy outputs.
format	article
author	Christian Blum
author_facet	Christian Blum
author_sort	Christian Blum
title	Determining the Common Good: A (Re-)Constructive Critique of the Proceduralist Paradigm
title_short	Determining the Common Good: A (Re-)Constructive Critique of the Proceduralist Paradigm
title_full	Determining the Common Good: A (Re-)Constructive Critique of the Proceduralist Paradigm
title_fullStr	Determining the Common Good: A (Re-)Constructive Critique of the Proceduralist Paradigm
title_full_unstemmed	Determining the Common Good: A (Re-)Constructive Critique of the Proceduralist Paradigm
title_sort	determining the common good: a (re-)constructive critique of the proceduralist paradigm
publisher	Rosenberg & Sellier
publishDate	2016
url	https://doaj.org/article/4f071ee40808418f95b316385c5146ee
work_keys_str_mv	AT christianblum determiningthecommongoodareconstructivecritiqueoftheproceduralistparadigm
_version_	1718398002486312960

Determining the Common Good: A (Re-)Constructive Critique of the Proceduralist Paradigm

Ejemplares similares