A Neo-Piagetian View of Political Reasoning

1990 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 573-574
Author(s):  
Kathleen M. McGraw
Keyword(s):  
Political Reasoning

On Translating Religious Reasons: Rawls, Habermas, and the Quest for a Neutral Public Sphere

2016 ◽  
Vol 78 (1) ◽  
pp. 91-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonia Sikka
Keyword(s):  
Public Sphere ◽  
Critical Analysis ◽  
Religious Discourse ◽  
Religious Language ◽  
Full Inclusion ◽  
Sharp Distinction ◽  
Political Reasoning ◽  
Religious Reasons

AbstractThrough a critical analysis of the positions of Rawls and Habermas, the article argues against the proviso that religious language be “translated” into an allegedly neutral vocabulary as a condition for full inclusion within public political reasoning. Defending and expanding the analysis of Maeve Cooke, it maintains that both Habermas and Rawls mischaracterize the nature of religious reasons in relation to reasons alleged to be “freestanding,” “secular,” or “postmetaphysical.” Reflection on the origins of religious discourse and the component thought to be retained when such discourse is “translated” demonstrates the untenability of a sharp distinction between “rational” and “religious” discourse on matters pertaining to morality. The article nonetheless affirms the need for common acceptance of the justificatory language of coercive political policies, but contends that this language is best conceived as a historically evolving wide (not universal) agreement, and as a confluence of various types of agreement.

Why Thomas Reid Matters to the Epistemology of the Social Sciences

2019 ◽  
Vol 70 (279) ◽  
pp. 282-301
Author(s):  
Laurent Jaffro ◽  
Vinícius França Freitas
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Social Action ◽  
First Principles ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Human Action ◽  
Human Knowledge ◽  
The Social ◽  
Political Reasoning ◽  
The Status ◽  
The Mind

Abstract Little attention has been paid to the fact that Thomas Reid's epistemology applies to ‘political reasoning’ as well as to various operations of the mind. Reid was interested in identifying the ‘first principles’ of political science as he did with other domains of human knowledge. This raises the question of the extent to which the study of human action falls within the competence of ‘common sense’. Our aim is to reconstruct and assess Reid's epistemology of the sciences of social action and to determine how it connects with the fundamental tenets of his general epistemology. In the first part, we portray Reid as a methodological individualist and focus on the status of the first principles of political reasoning. The second part examines Reid's views on the explanatory power of the principles of human action. Finally, we draw a parallel between Reid's epistemology and the methodology of Weberian sociology.

scholarly journals What is ideology?

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Levi Martin
Keyword(s):  
Political Psychology ◽  
Political Ideology ◽  
Political Field ◽  
Political Reasoning

Political ideology has been a confusing topic for social analysts, and those who attempted to eschew judgmental reductions of others’ conceptions and develop a non-polemical political psychology found ideology behaving in ways that defeated their theories of political reasoning.  I argue that political ideology can best be understood as actors’ theorization of their own position, and available strategies, in a political field.

Noncognitivist Trumpism: Partisanship and Political Reasoning

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 642-663
Author(s):  
Henry S. Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Political Reasoning

Social Network Disagreement and Reasoned Candidate Preferences

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 132-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pierce D. Ekstrom ◽  
Brianna A. Smith ◽  
Allison L. Williams ◽  
Hannah Kim
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Network ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Party Identification ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Political Tolerance ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Political Reasoning ◽  
Points Of View ◽  
Political Decision Making

This study investigates the effects of social network disagreement on candidate preferences. Although much research has explored the effects of disagreement on political tolerance and disengagement, less work has examined the relation between disagreement and political reasoning. We predicted that because disagreement reveals conflicting points of view and motivates people to consider these views, it should promote more effortful reasoning—and thus increased reliance on policy preferences and decreased reliance on party identification when choosing between candidates. Using panel data from the 2008 and 2012 U.S. Presidential elections, we find that respondents in high-disagreement networks tend to shift their candidate preferences to align with their policy preferences regardless of their party identification. In low-disagreement networks, respondents tended to follow party over policy. In sum, the determinants of candidate preferences differ depending on individuals’ social networks. In some cases, disagreement may promote more normatively desirable political decision-making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document