Author Archives: Kevin Vallier

Religious Exemptions Conference

Hi folks. I thought I’d throw up a reminder for anyone interested that Bowling Green State University is hosting a conference, “The Scope of Religious Exemptions,” on April 17th and 18th. Our keynote speakers are Robert Audi (Notre Dame) and Andy Koppelman (Northwestern). Michael Perry (Emory) and Perry Dane (Rutgers) are presenting their work as well, along with Jocelyn Macclure, Lucas Swaine, Chad Flanders, Lori Watson, Christie Hartley, Simon May(!), Kyle Swan, Mark Navin, Naama Ofrath. Here‘s a link to our conference webpage. If you’re available, you can register for the conference there. We’d love to have you!

read more...

Posted in Conferences | Leave a comment

Religion, Public Reason and Thinking of the Children: Comments on Chapter 7

I am genuinely, truly honored by Harry Brighouse’s comments on the last chapter of my book. Brighouse is one of philosophy’s great theorists of education, and I learned a lot from his remarks. Brighouse’s core worry is that my chapter on religion and public education really has very little to say about the interests of children. And isn’t that an odd oversight on my part?

If I were in the business of offering a general account of the justification of educational institutions, then that would be a severe problem. But given the issues I’m focused on, I think things are more complicated. For starters, within public reason, when we speak of the public justification of laws, it is hard to know how to fit children into that scheme in any direct way. What are children’s’ reasons? And how do we publicly justify law to them?

read more...

Posted in Books, Discussion, Politics, Reading Group | Leave a comment

On Legislative Restraint and Religious Accommodation: Replies on Chapter 6

Apologies for the delay in posting my reply to Chad’s really rich comments on Chapter 6 of my book. I decided to delay until after Thanksgiving, as I thought people might be more likely to read the post. But Chad’s arguments were also sufficiently challenging that it took me awhile to figure out how to respond, and I’m not entirely happy with my responses at the moment.

I’ll address Chad’s concerns about judicial restraint, legislative restraint, my general approach to religious accommodation and my take on key accommodation-related court cases in that order.

I. On Judicial Restraint

read more...

Posted in Discussion, Politics, Posts, Reading Group | 5 Comments

Idealization, Judicial Reasoning and Reasonableness: Replies on Chapter 5

Thanks very much to Lori to an extensive summary of Chapter 5 and probing comments. I hope that my replies continue to advance the discussion. I think there are some things I could clear up about the role of idealization in Rawls and my own work, some interesting issues surrounding judicial reasoning (that I talk about in much more detail in Chapter 6) and the role of reasonableness in my account of public justification.

I. Idealization – Rawls and Me

Lori’s first worry is that I shouldn’t construe Rawls as a radical idealization theorist, at least not in his later work. I grant that by Political Liberalism, Rawls is open to multiple ways of formulating a theory of justice, or a conception of justice, but I wasn’t aware he was open to multiple models of idealization. I thought the idea was that all reasonable political conceptions have an original position, but select different principles, but I didn’t think varying the degree of idealization was part of that. But then again, Rawls doesn’t say.

read more...

Posted in Politics, Reading Group | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

CFP: The Scope of Religious Exemptions (New Abstract Deadline: December 1st)

We are extending the deadline for submitting abstracts for BGSU’s conference on the scope of religious exemptions until December 1st, 2014.

CALL FOR ABSTRACTS

The Bowling Green Workshop in Applied Ethics and Public Policy

The Scope of Religious Exemptions

April 17th-18th, 2015 

The Bowling Green Workshop in Applied Ethics and Public Policy will take place in Bowling Green, Ohio, April 17th-18th, 2015. The keynote speakers are Robert Audi (University of Notre Dame) and Andrew Koppelman (Northwestern University).

Those interested in presenting a paper are invited to submit a 2-3 page abstract (double-spaced) by December 1st, 2014. We welcome submissions in all areas in applied ethics and philosophical issues relevant to this year’s conference theme: the scope of religious exemptions. We are especially focused on papers that address normative questions about religious exemptions, including the moral-philosophical justifications for religious exemptions and how often and to whom religious exemptions should be granted. We will consider multiple approaches to the topic, not merely in political philosophy and political theory, but normative ethics, metaethics and applied ethics.

read more...

Posted in Calls for Papers, Conferences | Leave a comment

Sincerity, Individuation and Classical Liberal Public Reason: Comments on Chapter 4

Let me begin by thanking Blain for an excellent recap of Chapter 4 of the book, which is arguably the centerpiece chapter. He raises five important concerns, but I’m going to set two aside. First, Blain raises the question of my Rawls exegesis. I suspect that is something better dealt with in a journal format or conference proceeding. It is interesting and important, but my main arguments do not depend on it. I will say, briefly, that yes, the process of generating convergence justifications can encourage revision of pieces of certain comprehensive doctrines. The second issue I set aside concerns my indirect model of public justification and the idea that restraint (of a certain sort) applies to legislators but not to citizens. That is one of the two main questions at issue in Chapter 6, so I’d like to push discussion to that post. But briefly, a lot of the case for the indirect model is based on the fact that citizens complying with restraint is neither necessary nor sufficient to promote publicly justified outcomes given all the other stages between a popular vote and the passage of legislation. 

read more...

Posted in Reading Group | Tagged , | 9 Comments