Valentina Gentile
Valentina Gentile is Assistant Professor in Political Philosophy at LUISS University. From 2016 to 2019 she was Guest Professor at Antwerp University, holding a Chair in “Interreligious Dialogue and the Ethics of Peace”. She specializes in normative political philosophy, liberal theory and, especially, the work of John Rawls. Her research focuses on moral stability, pluralism and the principles of reciprocity, toleration, equality and social justice.
less
InterestsView All (15)
Uploads
Journal Articles
Full reference:
Gentile V. (2017), ‘De Politiek van ‘Interreligieuze dialoog’ Religieuze rechtvaardigingen en ‘rechtvaardige’ verzoening’, in Streven, 84(6): 505-516.
(Environmental ethics). "
Books
In this anthology, established scholars of Rawls and the philosophy of religion reexamine and rearticulate the central tenets of Rawls’s theory, to show that they in fact offer sophisticated resources for accommodating and responding to religions in liberal political life. The chapters reassert the subtlety, openness, and flexibility of his sense of liberal “respect” and “consensus,” revealing their inclusive implications for religious citizens. They also explore the means he proposes for accommodating non-liberal religions in liberal politics, developing his conception of “public reason” into a novel account of the possibilities for rational engagement between liberal and religious ideas. And they reevaluate Rawls’s liberalism from the “transcendent” perspectives of religions themselves, critically considering its normative and political value as well as its own “religious” character. Rawls and Religion therefore makes a unique and important contribution to contemporary debates over liberalism and its response to the proliferation of religions in contemporary political life.
Many liberals fear religion’s “return” to modern democracies will lead to a breakdown in political consensus, the prioritization of doctrine over reason, and the affirmation of illiberal hierarchies over equality. Though it has been widely—and wrongly—cast as antireligious, John Rawls’s political theory offers a sophisticated response to these concerns, arguing a pluralistic society can reach a consensus through a shared conception of political authority and a “mutual respect” that exists independently of contrasting moralities.
In this anthology, established scholars of Rawls and the philosophy of religion reexamine and rearticulate the central tenets of Rawls’s theory, reasserting his subtle, open, and flexible conceptions of “respect” and “consensus” and undermining claims his work sought to exclude religion from political life. These contributors explore the neglected resources Rawls offers for accommodating and responding to the nonliberal religions now present in liberal political life, extending his understanding of public deliberation to a novel account of the possibilities for rational engagement between liberal and religious ideas. They examine his treatment of religions from the perspectives of religions themselves, critically considering its normative and political value as well as its own “religious” character. Rawls and Religion therefore makes a unique, substantial contribution to contemporary debates over liberalism and its response to the proliferation of religions in contemporary political life.
Full reference:
Gentile V. (2017), ‘De Politiek van ‘Interreligieuze dialoog’ Religieuze rechtvaardigingen en ‘rechtvaardige’ verzoening’, in Streven, 84(6): 505-516.
(Environmental ethics). "
In this anthology, established scholars of Rawls and the philosophy of religion reexamine and rearticulate the central tenets of Rawls’s theory, to show that they in fact offer sophisticated resources for accommodating and responding to religions in liberal political life. The chapters reassert the subtlety, openness, and flexibility of his sense of liberal “respect” and “consensus,” revealing their inclusive implications for religious citizens. They also explore the means he proposes for accommodating non-liberal religions in liberal politics, developing his conception of “public reason” into a novel account of the possibilities for rational engagement between liberal and religious ideas. And they reevaluate Rawls’s liberalism from the “transcendent” perspectives of religions themselves, critically considering its normative and political value as well as its own “religious” character. Rawls and Religion therefore makes a unique and important contribution to contemporary debates over liberalism and its response to the proliferation of religions in contemporary political life.
Many liberals fear religion’s “return” to modern democracies will lead to a breakdown in political consensus, the prioritization of doctrine over reason, and the affirmation of illiberal hierarchies over equality. Though it has been widely—and wrongly—cast as antireligious, John Rawls’s political theory offers a sophisticated response to these concerns, arguing a pluralistic society can reach a consensus through a shared conception of political authority and a “mutual respect” that exists independently of contrasting moralities.
In this anthology, established scholars of Rawls and the philosophy of religion reexamine and rearticulate the central tenets of Rawls’s theory, reasserting his subtle, open, and flexible conceptions of “respect” and “consensus” and undermining claims his work sought to exclude religion from political life. These contributors explore the neglected resources Rawls offers for accommodating and responding to the nonliberal religions now present in liberal political life, extending his understanding of public deliberation to a novel account of the possibilities for rational engagement between liberal and religious ideas. They examine his treatment of religions from the perspectives of religions themselves, critically considering its normative and political value as well as its own “religious” character. Rawls and Religion therefore makes a unique, substantial contribution to contemporary debates over liberalism and its response to the proliferation of religions in contemporary political life.
The war in BiH was the most deadly conflict in Europe since the Second World War. Today, the path toward a viable and pluralistic democracy in this country seems to be still difficult. Here, the relevance of civil society crucially depends on its capacity to represent the sphere where individuals are able to recognize and deal with transitional issues by appealing to the Bosnian “culture of civility” and developing a sense of justice based on a shared understanding of the idea of human dignity.
This paper is concerned with the criticisms raised by two influential Indian scholars, namely Partha Chatterjee and Neera Chandhoke. In particular, it is focused on their critiques of Rawls’ model of political tolerance. Can the model of “reasonable pluralism” be useful in divided societies like India? I will show that the arguments raised by Chandhoke and Chatterjee cannot grasp key issues involved in this model. Although these two scholars present two distinct strategies of criticism (cultural relativism versus universalism of the principle of moral equality), both are likely to disregard the asymmetry between democratic legitimacy and justification, in other words both assume that liberal models of tolerance and reasonability would be acceptable and fully justified only by liberals."
This lecture proposes the idea of reconciliation related to an inclusive model of democratic deliberation as an antidote to identity politics in divided societies. The suggested approach is realistic since it takes seriously into account the challenge of cultural relativism. It is also utopian since it considers that a kind of agreement among people is possible even in these societies. This culture of civility is a noninstitutional consensus that enables individuals to become part of a community of citizens and accept to reciprocate on the basis of some basic universal values, such as protection of human dignity.