Résumés
Abstract
In this article, consensus, defined as the consent of all citizens, is argued to be the first best for part of the liberal tradition on political legitimacy. Consensus would be the foundation of the liberal society that, when out of reach, needs to be approximated through, for instance, voting (majority rule). I build on the timid attempts in political theory at using the theorem of the second best as a tool to settle difficult decision making in applied political theory. More precisely, I defend the view that consensus would be the first best for part of the liberal tradition on political legitimacy. Furthermore, I illustrate how moral, factual, (and, incidentally, epistemological) disagreements may create second-best problems, especially in terms of stability. Finally, I spell out some reasons why such problems directly affect a liberal order, on pragmatic grounds. The final purpose is to contribute to the literatures on legitimacy and on the application of the theorem of the second best outside economics. The key idea is to stress that much more work has to be done for “importing” the theorem of the second best into political theory.
Résumé
Dans cet article, le consensus, défini comme le consentement de tous les citoyens, est présenté comme remplissant la fonction d’optimum de premier rang [first best] pour une partie de la tradition libérale quant à la légitimité politique. Le consensus fonderait la société libérale qui, lorsque hors d’atteinte, nécessiterait d’être approximer au travers, par exemple, du vote (règle majoritaire). Je m’appuie sur les timides tentatives en théorie politique d’utiliser le théorème de l’optimum de second rang [second best] comme outil pour résoudre des prises de décision difficiles en théorie politique appliquée. Plus précisément, je défends l’idée que le consensus serait l’optimum de premier rang pour une partie de la tradition libérale quant à la légitimité politique. De plus, j’illustre comment les désaccords moraux, factuels (et, incidemment, épistémologiques) peuvent créer des problèmes d’optimum de second rang, en particulier en termes de stabilité. Enfin, j’expose quelques raisons pour lesquelles de tels problèmes affectent directement un ordre libéral, d’un point de vue pragmatique. Le but final est de contribuer aux littératures sur la légitimité et sur l’application du théorème d’optimum de second rang à l’extérieur des sciences économiques. L’idée principale est de souligner qu’il reste beaucoup de travail afin d’« importer » le théorème d’optimum de second rang en théorie politique.
Parties annexes
Bibliography
- Barrows, Geoffrey, Sexton, Steven and Zilberman, David, “Agricultural Biotechnology: The Promise and Prospects of Genetically Modified Crops”, The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 28, no. 1, 2014, p. 99-119.
- Barry, Brian, “John Rawls and the Search for Stability”, Ethics, vol. 105, no. 4, 1995, p. 874-915.
- Bellamy, Richard, Liberalism and Pluralism, London and New York, Routledge, 1999.
- Carens, Joseph, “A Contextual Approach to Political Theory”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 7, no. 2, 2004, p. 117-132.
- Coram, Bruce Talbot, “Second Best Theories and the Implications for Institutional Design”, in Richard E. Goodin (ed.), The Theory of Institutional Design, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 90-102.
- Dworkin, Ronald, A Matter of Principle, New York, Oxford University Press, 1985.
- Estlund, David, “Utopophobia”, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 42, no. 2, 2014, p. 113-134.
- Etinson, Adam Daniel, “Aboriginal Oral History Evidence and Canadian Law”, The Central European Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 6, no. 1, 2008, p. 97-104.
- Gaskell, George, Stares, Sally, Allansdottir, Agnes, Allum, Nick, Castro, Paula and Jackson, Jonathan, Europeans and biotechnology in 2010: winds of change? Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2010.
- Gaus, Gerald, The Tyranny of the Ideal, Princeton and Oxford, Princeton University Press, 2016.
- Jønch-Clausen, Karin and Kappel, Klemens, “Social Epistemic Liberalism and the Problem of Deep Epistemic Disagreements”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 18, no. 2, 2015, p. 371-384.
- Kant, Immanuel, “On the Common saying: That May Be Correct in Theory, But It Is of No Use in Practice” (1793), in M. J. Gregor (ed.), Practical Philosophy, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p. 273-310.
- Kappel, Klemens. “Fact-Dependent Policy Disagreements and Political Legitimacy”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 20, no. 2, 2017, p. 313-331.
- van Kleef, Ellen, Frewer, Lynn J., Chryssochoidis, George M., Houghton, Julie R., Korzen-Bohr, Sara, Krystallis, Thanassis, Lassen, Jesper, Pfenning, Uwe and Rowe, Gene, “Perceptions of Food Risk Management Among Key Stakeholders: Results from a Cross-European Study”, Appetite, vol. 47, no. 1, 2006, p. 46-63.
- Klosko, George, “Rawls’ Argument from Political Stability”, Columbia Law Review, vol. 94, no. 6, p. 1882-1897.
- Klümper, Wilhelm and Qaim, Matim, “A Meta-Analysis of the Impacts of Genetically Modified Crops”, PLoS ONE, vol. 9, no. 11, 2014, p. 1-7.
- Kukathas, Chandran, “Contextualism Reconsidered: Some Skeptical Reflections”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol.7, no. 2, 2004, p. 215-225.
- Larmore, Charles, “Political Liberalism”, Political Theory, vol. 18, no. 3, 1990, p. 339-360.
- Lipsey, Richard G., “Reflections on the General Theory of Second Best at its Golden Jubilee”, International Tax and Public Finance, vol. 14, no. 4, 2007.
- Lipsey, Richard G., and Lancaster, Kelvin, “The General Theory of Second Best”, The Review of Economic Studies, vol. 24, no. 1, 1956-1957, p. 11-32.
- Locke, John, Two Treatises of Government and Letter Concerning Toleration, New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2003.
- MacGilvray, Eric, “Democratic Doubts: Pragmatism and the Epistemic Defense of Democracy”, The Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 22, no. 1, 2014, p. 105-123.
- Malhotra, Aseem, Noakes, Timothy, and Phinney, S., “It is time to bust the myth of physical inactivity and obesity: you cannot outrun a bad diet”, British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2015, p. 1-2.
- Margalit, Avishai, “Ideals and Second Best”, in Seymour Fox (ed.), Philosophy for Education, Jerusalem, Van Leer Jerusalem Foundation, 1983.
- Moss, David A., When All Else Fails, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 2002.
- Nicolai, Alessandro, Manzo, Alberto, Veronesi, Fabio and Rosellini, Daniele, “An Overview of the Last 10 Years of Genetically engineered crop safety research”, Critical Review in Biotechnology, vol. 34, no. 1, 2014, p. 77-88.
- Potrykus, Ingo, “Regulation Must Be Revolutionized”, Science, vol. 466, no. 7306, p. 561.
- Räikkä, Juha, “The Problem of the Second Best: Conceptual Issues”, Utilitas, vol. 12, no. 2, 2000, p. 204-218.
- Rawls, John, A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Belknap Press, 1971.
- Rawls, John, “Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory”, The Journal of Philosophy, vol. 77, no. 9, 1980, p. 515-572.
- Rawls, John, Political Liberalism, New York, Columbia University Press, 1993.
- Rebello, Joseph, “The Problem of the Second Best: Are Partial Equilibrium and Third-Best Analyses Solutions?”, Chicago, University of Chicago, 2002.
- Rodrik, Dani, “Second-Best Institutions”, American Economic Review, vol. 98, no. 2, 2008, p. 100-104.
- Sher, George, Approximate Justice, Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 1997.
- Taleb, Nassim Nicholas, The Black Swan, London, Penguin, 2008.
- Thrasher, John, and Vallier, Kevin, “The Fragility of Consensus: Public Reason, Diversity and Stability”, European Journal of Philosophy, 2013, vol. 23, no. 4, p. 933-954.
- Vallier, Kevin, “Consensus and Convergence in Public Reason”, Public Affairs Quarterly, vol. 25, no. 4, 2011, p. 261-279.
- Waldron, Jeremy, “Theoretical Foundations of Liberalism”, The Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 37, no. 147, 1987, p. 127-150.