English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Our aim in this paper is to analyze Waldron’s critique of Rawls, made in the book “Law and Disagreement”. We want to know if, implicit in the critique, lies the idea that Rawls was making a bad idealization. To do this, we need first clarify what is an “ideal theory” (as opposed to a non-ideal theory) and what are good or bad idealizations. We’ll develop these distinctions in the first section of the text. Waldron attacks Rawls’s alleged inability to seriously address the problem of disagreements on political principles. Exposing and analyzing the many aspects of this critique will occupy us on the remaining sections of the text. At the end of the analysis, we’ll argue that, although Waldron’s attacks were strong, we nonetheless have no reason to conclude that implicit on them rests the idea that Rawls was making bad idealizations.

O caminho para o consenso – análise da crítica de Waldron a Rawls sobre desacordos políticos