2014Conversations The Journal of Cavellian StudiesOpen access

Cavell and Rawls on the Conversation of Justice: Moral versus Political Perfectionism

Paul Patton

Open full text 5 citations

Abstract

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.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

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.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 5 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

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

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Cavell and Rawls on the Conversation of Justice: Moral versus Political Perfectionism — Research Paper | ScholarLens