 previous article in this issue | next article in this issue  |
Preview first page |
Document Details : Title: Intelligibility, Anarchy, and Healthy Eating Author(s): SCHULTZ-BERGIN, Marcus , VALLIER, Kevin Journal: Ethical Perspectives Volume: 31 Issue: 1 Date: 2024 Pages: 45-56 DOI: 10.2143/EP.31.1.3293470 Abstract : Barnhill and Bonotti argue that we should reject the intelligibility criterion of public reason because it would fail to justify any healthy eating policies. Their argument is a species of a wider objection to the intelligibility criterion, which we have called the ‘anarchy objection’. According to this objection, if our set of justificatory reasons is too great, then someone will always have defeater reasons for every, or nearly every, policy. The result is anarchy: the use of government power is always unjustified. The intelligibility criterion permits a larger set of reasons than all other competitors, including Barnhill and Bonotti’s preferred ‘accessibility criterion’. Whilst admitting that intelligibility sets a high bar for the justification of coercion, we argue that it is the best criterion for a public reason view. Thus, if use of the criterion fails to vindicate healthy eating policies, so much the worse for such policies. But we also argue that the anarchy objection fails and so it could be possible to justify healthy eating policies using the intelligibility criterion. Finally, we develop an alternative way of applying public reason views to policy analysis. By emphasizing the high bar for justification, we argue that it is preferable to focus on identifying existing unjustified policies that create barriers to healthy eating. This includes the subsidization of corn and sugar. This ‘reform by repeal’ approach can promote healthy eating while also reducing unjustified coercion. |
|
