Diálogos en el panteón liberal de México

UANL

Diálogos en el panteón liberal de México

UANL

Opiniones sobre los discursos leidos en la Convención Liberal

UANL

Phases of thought and cristicism

UANL

Catecismo para uso del pueblo, en que se hace una ligera comparación del protestantismo con el catolicismo y se combaten las leyes que el gobierno liberal ha dado en México contra la iglesia católica

UANL

Maximiliano y la toma de Querétaro: recopilación de los artículos que, con motivo de este histórico asunto ha publicado ultimamentetanto la prensa liberal como la conservadora, conteniendo además el informe del sr. General Escobedo sobre la toma de la plaza de Querétaro en 1867

UANL

La política liberal bajo la tiranía de Rosas

UANL

Question period of the Liberal Neutrality Conference (May 1-3, 2008)

This is the audio recording of all discussion sessions of the International Conference on the Re-evaluation of Liberal Neutrality organized by CRÉUM, Montreal May 1-3 2008. (The conference announcement is at http://www.creum.umontreal.ca/spip.php?article765) // Ceci est l'enregistrement audio des périodes de discussion du colloque organisé par le CRÉUM (Montréal, 1-3 mai 2008) et portant sur une ré-évaluation de la neutralité libérale. (L'annonce du colloque est à l'adresse http://www.creum.umontreal.ca/spip.php?article765)

À propos de The Practice of Liberal Pluralism de William Galston : un dialogue avec l’auteur

Document de travail

Polygamy’s Challenge : Women, Religion And The Post-Liberal State

Dossier : Should Polygamy be Recognized in Canada ? Ethical and Legal Considerations

Liberal Neutrality : Constructivist, not foundationalist

In defending the principle of neutrality, liberals have often appealed to a more general moral principle that forbids coercing persons in the name of reasons those persons themselves cannot reasonably be expected to share. Yet liberals have struggled to articulate a non-arbitrary, non-dogmatic distinction between the reasons that persons can reasonably be expected to share and those they cannot. The reason for this, I argue, is that what it means to “share a reason” is itself obscure. In this paper I articulate two different conceptions of what it is to share a reason; I call these conceptions “foundationalist” and “constructivist.” On the foundationalist view, two people “share” a reason just in the sense that the same reason applies to each of them independently. On this view, I argue, debates about the reasons we share collapse into debates about the reasons we have, moving us no closer to an adequate defense of neutrality. On the constructivist view, by contrast, “sharing reasons” is understood as a kind of activity, and the reasons we must share are just those reasons that make this activity possible. I argue that the constructivist conception of sharing reasons yields a better defense of the principle of neutrality.

An Epistemic Argument in Support of Liberal Neutrality

My aim in the present paper is to develop a new kind of argument in support of the ideal of liberal neutrality. This argument combines some basic moral principles with a thesis about the relationship between the correct standards of justification for a belief/action and certain contextual factors. The idea is that the level of importance of what is at stake in a specific context of action determines how demanding the correct standards to justify an action based on a specific set of beliefs ought to be. In certain exceptional contexts –where the seriousness of harm in case of mistake and the level of an agent’s responsibility for the outcome of his action are specially high– a very small probability of making a mistake should be recognized as a good reason to avoid to act based on beliefs that we nonetheless affirm with a high degree of confidence and that actually justify our action in other contexts. The further steps of the argument consist in probing 1) that the fundamental state’s policies are such a case of exceptional context, 2) that perfectionist policies are the type of actions we should avoid, and 3) that policies that satisfy neutral standards of justification are not affected by the reasons which lead to reject perfectionist policies.

Are Cities Illiberal? Municipal Jurisdictions and the Scope of Liberal Neutrality

One of the main characteristics of today’s democratic societies is their pluralism. As a result, liberal political philosophers often claim that the state should remain neutral with respect to different conceptions of the good. Legal and social policies should be acceptable to everyone regardless of their culture, their religion or their comprehensive moral views. One might think that this commitment to neutrality should be especially pronounced in urban centres, with their culturally diverse populations. However, there are a large number of laws and policies adopted at the municipal level that contradict the liberal principle of neutrality. In this paper, I want to suggest that these perfectionistlaws and policies are legitimate at the urban level. Specifically, I will argue that the principle of neutrality applies only indirectly to social institutions within the broader framework of the nation-state. This is clear in the case of voluntary associations, but to a certain extent this rationale applies also to cities. In a liberal regime, private associations are allowed to hold and defend perfectionist views, focused on a particular conception of the good life. One problem is to determine the limits of this perfectionism at the urban level, since cities, unlike private associations, are publicinstitutions. My aim here is therefore to give a liberal justification to a limited form of perfectionism of municipal laws and policies.

Tocqueville et Guizot: la fondation d'un libéralisme des moeurs

Alexis de Tocqueville est un auteur canonique du libéralisme. Son inscription au sein du libéralisme s’opère fréquemment par une accentuation unilatérale de sa défense de la liberté individuelle. Certes, Tocqueville défend la liberté individuelle, elle prend une place décisive dans son œuvre où l’objectif théorique proposé révèle sa volonté d’élever l’individu à côté de la société et de l’État. Mais cette défense est constamment pensée chez Tocqueville en interrogeant ses conditions de possibilité qui sont indissociables d’une culture politique où la participation politique est une dimension essentielle. Une participation politique qui fonde des habitudes collectives, une culture civique, assurant ainsi la pérennité des institutions démocratiques libérales. En ce sens, il est évident que le libéralisme de Tocqueville est déterminé par un cadre plus large que la seule défense de la liberté individuelle. Afin qu’elle s’épanouisse pleinement et véritablement, il y a une priorité absolue d’une pratique continue de la liberté, la liberté politique qui actualise sans repos les conditions de possibilité de la liberté individuelle. Cette pratique de la liberté politique contribue à la formation des «mœurs libres», ces habitudes collectives qui organisent une culture civique particulière, mœurs indispensables au maintien des sociétés libres. Nous identifierons donc Tocqueville à un libéralisme des mœurs. Afin de saisir adéquatement la réelle portée de la pensée tocquevillienne, nous dévoilerons les influences intellectuelles fondamentales qui ont présidé à l’élaboration de La Démocratie en Amérique. De fait, nous restituerons l’espace intertextuel entre Tocqueville et François Guizot. Cet espace révèle l’influence certaine de Guizot sur Tocqueville, mais il rend également saillante son insistance sur une pratique de la liberté politique.