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

My aim in this article is to propose a novel argument in support of the deliberative ideal of reciprocity in justification —which was initially introduced by John Rawls’s political liberalism—. This argument attempts to demonstrate that although we accept the hypothesis that a group of citizens has an appropriate public justification to believe that certain comprehensive doctrine is true or right, there are fundamental moral reasons to reject the claim that the State can be justified to act on the basis of those beliefs when constitutional essentials or matters of basic justice are at stake.

isegoría

Liberalismo político y reciprocidad: Justificación epistémica de &lt;i&gt;creencias versus&lt;/i&gt; justificación moral de &lt;i&gt;acciones&lt;/i&gt;