We can best understand the moral obligations of citizens and officials concerning public reason as set out by John Rawls when two differing standards latent in his body of work are made explicit. The weaker standard, which I call Public Representation (or PR), is exegetically supported primarily by the proviso found in his “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited”. PR allows that citizens may deliberate over serious political matters, both internally and with others, according to whatever perspective and using whatever reasons they please, so long as they believe the positions they advocate are adequately just and adequately justifiable with public reasons. I present PR as establishing a moral minimum citizens and officials bear an obligation to satisfy on pain of failing to garner an adequate degree of justice, respect, legitimacy, and stability. The more demanding standard, which I call Public Judgment (or PJ), is exegetically supported by quotes found throughout Rawls’s work, but especially in Political Liberalism, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,” and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. PJ requires that citizens deliberate over serious political matters, both internally and with others, according to a public perspective with public reasons, that they only advocate positions and offer justifications they consider most reasonable, and that they share their thought processes in public. PR is nonobligatory, but achieves significant gains according to each of the four key political values mentioned above, which gives dedicated citizens good reason to embrace it. Chapter one lays out and explores the big picture concepts framing the project; chapter two sets out Rawls’s view on public reason according to the primary texts; chapter three presents four contemporary liberal theorists’ views on public reason – Nicholas Wolterstorff, Robert Audi, David Reidy, and Micah Schwartzman; chapter four uses the lessons of chapter three to help fully unpack and compare Public Representation and Public Judgment; and chapter five considers three potential objections to my view and offers corresponding replies.

Jusqu’à son abolition en 1848, l’esclavage transatlantique a constitué un rôle fondamental dans la colonisation par la France de la Martinique. Cette étude examine la façon, dont les personnes, où les familles ont, dans le passé, été directement touché par l’esclavage perçoivent les politiques nationales relatives aux réparations. Les politiques concernant les esclaves et leurs descendants ont opéré en faveur des propriétaires d’esclaves (et leurs descendants), affirmant que l’avènement de la liberté a été une rémunération honorable et suffisante. Malgré une position politique antérieure de l’oubli, les descendants d’esclaves continuent d’agir pour la reconnaissance de l’esclavage dans l’histoire de la nation, et remettent en question la possibilité des réparations en matière de politiques publiques. Dans cette étude trois positions personnelles ont été observées : les sceptiques, les réparationistes et les indéterminés. L’étude révèle qu’une politique relative aux réparations est considérée comme acceptable si elle comprend une pleine reconnaissance et si elle est accompagnée d’une politique de compensation. Des politiques qui favorisent l’amnésie ou l’exaltation du passé sont perçues comme inacceptables. Les politiques de réparations sont envisagées comme plus acceptables dans les situations où l’intégration socioéconomique des descendants d’esclaves a été atteinte que dans les situations où elle ne l’a pas été. Comme en Martinique, le sujet des réparations gagne du terrain dans les arènes populaires, politiques et universitaires à l’échelle internationale : quels éléments sont considérés pour juger des positions politiques ? Quelles sont les opinions qui se révèlent ? / Until its abolition in 1848, transatlantic slavery constituted a fundamental role in France's colonization of Martinique. This study assesses the views regarding the possible national policies related to the slavery of people whose families have, in the past, been directly affected by slavery in Martinique. Policies regarding slaves and their descendants have operated in favor of slave owners (and their descendants), claiming that the advent of freedom was honorable and sufficient compensation. Despite instances of cultural amnesia in France, slave descendants continue to advocate for recognition of slavery in the nation’s history and they continue to question the possibility of reparations in public politics. Three qualitatively different personal positions were culled from this study’s participating slave descendants: Skeptics, Reparationists, and Undetermined. In addition to studying the factors that differentiate these groups, this study determines that a policy concerning reparations is acceptable if it includes the public recognition of historic prejudice and if it is accompanied by a policy for material compensation. Furthermore, the results indicate that policies which foster amnesia and an exaltation of a colonial past are perceived as unacceptable. In this study, reparations are considered more acceptable to slave descendants in policies where their socio-economic integration is directly addressed. As in Martinique, the subject of reparations is gaining traction in popular, political and academic arenas internationally: What factors should be examined to understand the opinions held by the descendants of slaves? What trends emerge from these ethical questions?

La première étude porte sur les conditions de l’acceptabilité des politiques de l’Etat face aux drogues: 225 sujets tout-venant ont jugé du degré d’acceptabilité dans 28 scénarios issus de la combinaison de trois facteurs: campagnes d’information, demande intérieure en drogue, action de l’État (du laissez-faire à l’interdiction). La seconde étude porte sur les conditions de la responsabilité de l’État dans le cas d’un décès lié à la consommation de substance: 234 sujets ont jugé du degré de responsabilité dans 80 scénarios issus de la combinaison de cinq facteurs: relation consommation/maladie, temps depuis lequel la nocivité est connue, généralité du risque, consommation, action de l’État (du monopole à l’interdiction des ventes). Nos études s’appuient sur une méthode issue de la théorie fonctionnelle de la cognition (Anderson, 1981). La première étude permet d’identifier trois clusters: les régulationnistes (42%), en faveur d’une réglementation totale par l’État, les radicaux (32%), pour qui aucune des politiques n’est acceptable, les prohibitionnistes (26%), en faveur d’une interdiction totale à condition que des campagnes soient menées. La politique du laissez-faire est jugée par tous comme étant la plus inacceptable. La seconde étude fait apparaître trois clusters: un plus au centre (44%), un plus à gauche (38%), un plus à droite (17%). Celui de droite a tendance à attribuer moins de responsabilité à l’État et est plus sensible aux preuves scientifiques. Un consensus montre que l’État se dégage de toute responsabilité seulement s’il interdit totalement les ventes. Dans les autres cas, l'État est perçu comme partiellement responsable quand la santé d'un consommateur se détériore. / Our first study relates to the conditions of perceived acceptability of State policies regarding drugs: 225 randomly selected subjects judged the degree of State policy acceptability in 28 scenarios derived from the combination of three factors: information campaigns, interior drug demand, State policy (from laisser-faire to prohibition). Our second study relates to the conditions of perceived State responsibility when a death linked to substance consumption occurred: 234 subjects judged the degree of State responsibility in 80 scenarios derived from the combination of five factors: relationship between consumption/disease, amount of time since the substance toxicity is known, risk generality, consumption, State action (from State monopoly to sale interdiction). Our studies rely on a method derived from the functional theory of cognition (Anderson, 1981). The first study identifies three clusters: the regulationists (42%), who favor total regulation by the State, the radicals (32%), for who none of the policies are acceptable, and the prohibitionists (26%), who favor a total interdiction with the condition of information campaigns. The policy of the laissez faire is judged by all groups as being the most inacceptable. In the second study, three clusters are separated: centrist-dominated (44%), leftist-dominated (38%) and rightist-dominated (17%). The rightists tend to attribute less responsibility to the state and are less sensitive to scientific evidences than the leftists. A consensus between groups is that the State is freed from responsibility when sales are totally forbidden. In other cases, the State is perceived as partially responsible when a consumer’s health deteriorates.