Reply to Five Critics of Why Tolerate Religion?

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Brian Leiter
• 刊名：Criminal Law and Philosophy
• 出版年：2016
• 出版时间：September 2016
• 年：2016
• 卷：10
• 期：3
• 页码：547-558
• 全文大小：365 KB
• 刊物主题：Theories of Law, Philosophy of Law, Legal History; Philosophy of Law; Criminal Law; Ethics; Philosophy;
• 出版者：Springer Netherlands
• ISSN：1871-9805
• 卷排序：10

文摘

This is my contribution to a symposium on my book Why Tolerate Religion? (Princeton, 2013), in which I respond to essays by François Boucher (Montreal) and Cécile Laborde (University College London), Frederick Schauer (Virginia), Corey Brettschneider (Brown), and Peter Jones (Newcastle). I clarify and revise my view of the sense in which some religious beliefs are “insulated from reasons and evidence” in response to the criticisms of Boucher and Laborde (2015), but take issue with other aspects of their critique. I defend most of my original argument against utilitarian and egalitarian objections from, respectively, Schauer and Brettschneider. I also discuss and defend the “No Exemptions” approach to conscientious objection to neutral laws of general applicability against a variety of objections, arguing, in particular, that my view is probably not very different from that of Jones.KeywordsReligionTolerationExemptionsJohn Stuart MillJohn Rawls