Jon Mahoney

I argue that Habermas’s proposed system of rights fails to offer an adequate account of the relation between rights and moral injury. In providing a non-moral justification for rights, Habermas’s functional-normative argument excludes the moral intuition that persons are worthy of being protected from a class of injurious actions (i.e. false imprisonment, religious persecution). Habermas does offer clearly stated reasons for his proposed normative, yet non-moral foundation for a legitimate legal order, including the claim that the functional imperatives of modern legal systems cannot be reduced to morality. My positive thesis is that at least some rights are moral norms whose content and justification derive from a moral point of view informed by the idea of persons as free and equal.

This essay examines religious freedom in the context of education policy. I defend an approach that serves the aims of both religious freedom and adequate education requirements. The permissive view of religious exemptions endorsed in American law sometimes lends support to objectionable education policies. The alternative I defend opposes granting exemptions to education policy, religious or otherwise, when doing so will deprive students of an education that permits entry to higher education or to a meaningful range of opportunities in the labor market. Yet when there are policy options that accommodate concerns of religious citizens that do not result in objectionable compromises on education standards, we should favor them.

moral foundation of liberalism can be defended in one of three ways: (1) as a conception one accepts as a result of one’s affirmation of political liberalism, (2) as a conception one must affirm as a presupposition for political liberalism, or (3) as a philosophical truth about practical reason and persons. The first option makes it impossible to distinguish a moral consensus from a modus vivendi . The second renders the moral foundation of liberalism dogmatic because it affirms a moral foundation for which no justification is provided. Since there are good reasons for rejecting (1) and (2), that leaves option (3). I argue that (3) should be the preferred option for liberals who advance liberalism as a political doctrine with a moral foundation.