Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to focus on the relationship between the political sphere and the philosophical one by examining the second debate between Rawls and Habermas. Whether the political conceptions in democratic regimes can be justified from the philosophical standpoint of impartiality or from the standpoint of citizens whose shared public values are reasonable depends on what kind of method the observers adopt.
Clarifying the notion of the citizen, the person, and the observer as they occur in Rawls, I indicate that the concept of “impartiality” Habermas considers valid requires the citizens adopt the observer's perspective. Hence I conclude Habermas' method is too rigoristic.
