IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v47y1999i4p627-642.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contractarianism, Liberal Neutrality, and Epistemology

Author

Listed:
  • Simon Clarke

Abstract

This paper examines three arguments that attempt to justify liberal neutrality. Firstly the type of neutrality between conceptions of the good that is sought by the arguments is explained. Then the contractarian procedure that is one of the premises of each of the arguments is presented. The remaining sections then examine the arguments, which are Thomas Nagel's appeal to epistemic restraint, Brian Barry's appeal to the uncertainty thesis, and John Rawls's appeal to the burdens of judgement. The arguments attempt to show how the contractarian procedure results in liberal neutrality. They do so by trying to show how no conception of the good can be acceptable to everyone due to the epistemological status of conceptions of the good. It is concluded that none of the arguments succeeds.

Suggested Citation

  • Simon Clarke, 1999. "Contractarianism, Liberal Neutrality, and Epistemology," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 47(4), pages 627-642, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:47:y:1999:i:4:p:627-642
    DOI: 10.1111/1467-9248.00221
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00221
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/1467-9248.00221?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:47:y:1999:i:4:p:627-642. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.