THE DEBATE ABOUT POLITICAL LIBERALISM: TWO OPINIONS

Abstract

John Rawls’ kantian conception of Justice «political, not metaphisica» is here reexamined by T.S Vives and M. Jiménez Redondo, concluding both in a coincident partial appraisal of their view on liberalism. The sole meaningful difference between these two authors concerns justification. For professor Vives, assesing the problem from a wittgensteinian approach, when something is valued as fair/just by the common sense of pluralistic democracies it cannot be matter of a subsequent justification. However Prof. Jiménez Redondo states that from the fact of pluralism should follow a categorical justification (in kantian terms). But it’s not clear if that difference between the two professors is merely conceptual or only emphatical