Ricoeur’s Rawls: Constitutive Antecedence and Reflective Equilibrium

This article aims to stimulate dispute about the justification of Paul Ricœur’s hermeneutic reading of John Rawls. Offering a close, methodically point-for-point textual engagement, I shall propose that Ricœur’s misreading of certain hermeneutic circularities in Rawls is owed to some confusion about...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Benjamin Coy Hutchens
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: University Library System, University of Pittsburgh 2020-07-01
Series:Études Ricoeuriennes / Ricoeur Studies
Subjects:
Online Access:http://ricoeur.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/ricoeur/article/view/388
id doaj-efa87100bc2944c5b1ea30e2f880e6d1
record_format Article
spelling doaj-efa87100bc2944c5b1ea30e2f880e6d12020-11-25T03:06:48ZengUniversity Library System, University of PittsburghÉtudes Ricoeuriennes / Ricoeur Studies2156-78082020-07-0111113014310.5195/errs.2020.388242Ricoeur’s Rawls: Constitutive Antecedence and Reflective EquilibriumBenjamin Coy Hutchens0Rutgers University, NewarkThis article aims to stimulate dispute about the justification of Paul Ricœur’s hermeneutic reading of John Rawls. Offering a close, methodically point-for-point textual engagement, I shall propose that Ricœur’s misreading of certain hermeneutic circularities in Rawls is owed to some confusion about the role of the procedural nature of Rawls’ theory. Generally speaking, the problems with Ricœur’s interpretations center on the question of whether there is something “pre-understood” within the formal theoretical understanding of the procedural theory of justice and the substantive convictions and judgments that figure within the reflective equilibrium of deliberations about the terms of justice. Arguably, Ricœur has not made a satisfactory case that the difference and liberty principles are considered convictions that anticipate their discovery and establishment. Ultimately, Ricœur has not demonstrated that there is a single presuppositional form that renders Rawls’ procedure self-defeating. Instead, he has proposed to us several potential forms of damaging presupposition, each of which is based on a questionable reading of Rawls’ text.http://ricoeur.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/ricoeur/article/view/388hermeneuticsjusticereflective equilibriumconvictionsmaximin rule
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Benjamin Coy Hutchens
spellingShingle Benjamin Coy Hutchens
Ricoeur’s Rawls: Constitutive Antecedence and Reflective Equilibrium
Études Ricoeuriennes / Ricoeur Studies
hermeneutics
justice
reflective equilibrium
convictions
maximin rule
author_facet Benjamin Coy Hutchens
author_sort Benjamin Coy Hutchens
title Ricoeur’s Rawls: Constitutive Antecedence and Reflective Equilibrium
title_short Ricoeur’s Rawls: Constitutive Antecedence and Reflective Equilibrium
title_full Ricoeur’s Rawls: Constitutive Antecedence and Reflective Equilibrium
title_fullStr Ricoeur’s Rawls: Constitutive Antecedence and Reflective Equilibrium
title_full_unstemmed Ricoeur’s Rawls: Constitutive Antecedence and Reflective Equilibrium
title_sort ricoeur’s rawls: constitutive antecedence and reflective equilibrium
publisher University Library System, University of Pittsburgh
series Études Ricoeuriennes / Ricoeur Studies
issn 2156-7808
publishDate 2020-07-01
description This article aims to stimulate dispute about the justification of Paul Ricœur’s hermeneutic reading of John Rawls. Offering a close, methodically point-for-point textual engagement, I shall propose that Ricœur’s misreading of certain hermeneutic circularities in Rawls is owed to some confusion about the role of the procedural nature of Rawls’ theory. Generally speaking, the problems with Ricœur’s interpretations center on the question of whether there is something “pre-understood” within the formal theoretical understanding of the procedural theory of justice and the substantive convictions and judgments that figure within the reflective equilibrium of deliberations about the terms of justice. Arguably, Ricœur has not made a satisfactory case that the difference and liberty principles are considered convictions that anticipate their discovery and establishment. Ultimately, Ricœur has not demonstrated that there is a single presuppositional form that renders Rawls’ procedure self-defeating. Instead, he has proposed to us several potential forms of damaging presupposition, each of which is based on a questionable reading of Rawls’ text.
topic hermeneutics
justice
reflective equilibrium
convictions
maximin rule
url http://ricoeur.pitt.edu/ojs/index.php/ricoeur/article/view/388
work_keys_str_mv AT benjamincoyhutchens ricoeursrawlsconstitutiveantecedenceandreflectiveequilibrium
_version_ 1724672248425480192