Overlapping Consensus
John Rawls’ model case of an overlapping consensus demonstrates the way in which different contents of reasonable comprehensive doctrines can be relevant in different persons’ affirmation of a political conception. On the one hand, he argues citizens themselves decide how their doctrines relate to the political conception while on the other he imposes certain expectations, not only concerning the political and non-political values but also in the very way people relate to their own comprehensive views.
These aspects call in to question the acceptability of political liberalism to comprehensive doctrines that do not give a special place to values like autonomy and rationality. The model case also sees persons’ comprehensive
…show more content…
“Suppose three children- Anne, Bob and Carla- quarrel over a flute. Anne says it’s hers because she is the only one who can play it. Bob says he is the poorest and this would at least give him something to play with. Carla says it’s hers because she built the whole thing but no sooner had she finished building than the two tried taking it away from her.” Sen’s approach to justice is a capability based one wherein it is not just the access to primary goods but the extent of capabilities that each individual has to convert these primary goods into lives that they value living and that would determine freedom and ultimately uphold justice. If two individuals have access to the same set of primary goods it does not ensure that they would enjoy the same amount of liberty for reasons like physical limitations and reasons that impose restrictions on capabilities. So even with similar access to primary goods there would be difference in the extent of capabilities to convert it into freedom. There would be no consensus as to what is to be considered as a valued way of life and thus equality of freedom cannot be guaranteed by equal distribution of primary goods. People value different things as good and also have different capabilities to reach the ends that they value. Variations could be related to age, sex or genetic endowments and these …show more content…
Walzer’s main point of contention with this theory is that all the ideas or principles of justice have to be arrived at from pre-conceived notions of rationality. The social sphere of man greatly contributes towards developing this side of him. Rawls’ stripped-down individual is completely removed from this set-up and hence his decisions will not be relevant in a real social context as his ideas of what is good are formulated as a result of what the society around him creates and holds to be good and it is not the result of individual rationality and