Week 5:

Moral Disagreement and

Political Liberalism

by Stafaniya Zhaliazouskaya
Fall 2023, CEU, Vienna
• How can one conduct politics in a way that
respects and tolerates diversity in moral and
religious beliefs? Are there limits on what can
or should be tolerated?

• Can the state justifiably insist that certain

educational objectives are met, even if they
conflict with one’s deeply held religious views?
Political Liberalism
• Arrangement framework between moral equals among which political power is exercised
• Attempt to solve moral disagreement, to render moral equality of individuals with a stable
political order / anti-Aristotile
• Traditional liberalism: “right”, “good” + concept “who are people”(free, autonomous etc).
Political liberalism doesn’t give any concepts but for the public reason to justify the
deployment of power. (maintaining roles for cooperation/order, orientation, reconciliation,
utopia)
• Such condition creates plurality of minds that don’t necessarily agree with the central idea
of “moral equality”/ Comprehensive liberalism / Fundamentalists’ stance
• Need to justify the deployment of power -> such philosophical concept cannot be
introduced. Rawls: “<…>Something higher than truth”, “<…>not correct, but non-
rejectable from any reasonable pov”.
 Scope and Focus:
Political -justice and structure in liberal
Liberalism democratic society
-fair decision-making and the
protection of individual rights,
autonomy in the political sphere -
non-interference into the private
-just distribution of goods and the
legitimate exercise of political
power
Comprehensive - “some comprehensive doctrines
Liberalism are fully/partially true”
-justice from deep belief should
ground political structure
-guides not only political life but
also personal and cultural
aspects
Neutrality vs. Perfectionism:
“A just and stable liberal democracy
should remain neutral on
comprehensive moral, religious, and
philosophical doctrines, allowing
citizens to pursue their own
conceptions of the good life within
certain reasonable bounds”
-setting aside everything but the
public reason in policy-making
“Liberal values should not merely
guide the political framework but
also promote certain moral values
and conceptions of the good life”
“Policy is not a part of life, my life is
the policy”
-may seek to shape cultural norms
and values in line with liberal
principles
Role of Public Reason:
-importance of public reason as
the need for citizens to justify
their political positions using
shared, publicly accessible
reasons
-measure to foster dialogue and
decision-making in a pluralistic
society
-certain comprehensive values
and moral principles are integral
to the proper functioning of a
“just society”
-public reason may not be
paramount criteria for decision-
making
Developing capacity for social argument

o Original Position (if no universal position, then fair

conditions for all – best option)+ “Veil of ignorance” (no
bias, no identity for judgement)
o Limits of Inquiry (‘fairness’ as only political conception,
fairness = justice? => ideal/non-ideal theories);
o Fair system of social cooperation (publicly recognized
rules + fair mutual terms + rational advantage/own ‘good’)
o Basic Structure – appropriate unity, how institutions fit in
in a society(+duties+rules) /seen as main subject for
political&social justice
o Well-Ordered Society – accepting one agreed concept of
political justice, basic structure is “known, believed in,
satisfactory” for all /common pov allowing for adjusting
claims of citizens
 Public Civil Education Debate
Can exposure to diversity interfere with religious freedom?

CL: “Attributes of the groups

PL: “How can tolerance be
taught if not exposing children to
diversity and asking them to
forbear from asserting the truth
of their own particular convictions
at least for political matters?”
need to be publicly affirmed and
recognized not to oppress
Any individuas”
Fundamentalists: “Diverse
viewpoints in a tolerant and
objective mode threaten
the survival of our culture.”
“Political Liberalism =
cousin of totalitarianism!”
 Ruling: Yoder v. Wisconsin
claims supported (1972)/Amish case

Ruling: Mozert v. Hawkins (1987)/

claims ill-founded “Born again” case
 • Basic Law the parents had the
right to educate their children
according to their own

Konrad v. philosophical and religious

convictions

Germany (2006) • not exclusive as the State’s

constitutional obligation to provide
education was on an equal footing
Ruling:
• could still educate their children
claims ill-founded before and after school as well as
at weekends / send their children
to a confessional school

• school’s obligation of religious

neutrality would prevent the
applicants’ children from any
indoctrination against their will and
from superstition