Save

Consensus, Convergence, Restraint, and Religion

In: Journal of Moral Philosophy
View More View Less
Download Citation Get Permissions

Access options

Get access to the full article by using one of the access options below.

Institutional Login

Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials

Login via Institution

Purchase

Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€29.95$34.95

This essay critically assesses the central claim of Kevin Vallier’s Liberal Politics and Public Faith: that public religious faith and public reason liberalism can be reconciled, because the values underlying public reason liberalism should lead us to endorse the ‘convergence view,’ rather than the mainstream consensus view. The convergence view is friendlier to religious faith, because it jettisons the consensus view’s much-criticised ‘duty of restraint’. I present several challenges to Vallier’s claim. First, if Vallier is right to reject the duty of restraint then consensus theorists can also do so, and on the same grounds. Second, the independent force of the objections to the duty of restraint is unclear. Third, Vallier has not successfully identified desiderata that unite all public reason liberals and favour convergence over consensus. Finally, even if convergence is in some ways friendlier to religious faith, this does not show that it will be attractive to religious citizens.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 447 79 1
Full Text Views 205 13 0
PDF Views & Downloads 95 30 0