This truism does little to comfort the parent whose anxieties this time of year do not easily weather tests of reason.
In order for some proposed principle or rule, X, to meet the test of public reason, do the reasons or arguments that justify X need to be shared by all members of the constituency of justification, or can X meet the test of public reason by being justified to different people by appeal to different arguments?
Participants were selected randomly among persons who were referred to health care settings for blood testing, regardless of reason for testing, and regardless of CCHFV risk factors.
By contrast, convergence accounts of public reason's structure allow for the possibility that a principle or rule may meet the test of public reason even in the absence of any shared or public reasons.
Under these conditions, the convergence account holds that X meets the test of public reason because Albert and Betty each have a sufficient justification for X, even though the reasons supporting their convergent justifications are not shared.
The ability of science and evidence to transcend tribal loyalties – meeting John Rawls's test of public reason – make them vital elements of rational discourse in a modern society.
One possible view would require strong consensus in order for X to meet the test of public reason.
If members of the constituency do not share the same justification for X, then X would not pass the test of public reason.
It seems to assume, for example, that refusals to aid others, and other non-coercive choices, need not meet the test of public reason.
For example, many accounts of public reason include a sincerity principle that directs individuals to only support those principles or rules they sincerely believe meet the test of public reason (Gaus 1996, 139 140; Rawls 1996, 241 242; Schwartzman 2011).
