Cavell and Rawls on the Conversation of Justice: Moral versus Political Perfectionism
Paul Patton
Abstract
Open-access reader
Paul Patton
Abstract
Open-access reader
A primary concern of Stanley Cavell’s Carus Lectures is to respond to the question posed in the first sentence of the Introduction: “Is Moral Perfectionism inherently elitist?” By elitist, he means undemocratic. While there are senses in which he would not want to deny that Moral Perfectionism is elitist, and while he admits that there are perfectionisms that do not require democracy, neither of these are Cavell’s concern. Rather, he wants to showcase his preferred version of perfectionism, variously named Moral, Emersonian and Nietzschean perfectionism.
OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.
A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.
Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.
A primary concern of Stanley Cavell’s Carus Lectures is to respond to the question posed in the first sentence of the Introduction: “Is Moral Perfectionism inherently elitist?” By elitist, he means undemocratic. While there are senses in which he would not want to deny that Moral Perfectionism is elitist, and while he admits that there are perfectionisms that do not require democracy, neither of these are Cavell’s concern. Rather, he wants to showcase his preferred version of perfectionism, variously named Moral, Emersonian and Nietzschean perfectionism.
Key concepts: Perfectionism (psychology), Democracy, Politics, Economic Justice, Conversation, Psychology, Sentence, Philosophy