ABSTRACT
This chapter discusses the role of moral disagreement regarding arguments for democracy and deliberation. Proponents of Public Reason often argue that we should exercise restraint in public political deliberations and only invoke and act on reasons for decisions that all agree to be reasons. This chapter discusses this principle of restraint. It explains how there are problems with such a strong principle of restraint. And that weaker principles that do not require all to only cite such reasons, or that allow us to cite other reasons as well as that all agree to be reasons, face fewer problems. But the stronger principles of restraint may be necessary for the stable implementation of Rawlsian Public Reason discussed in Chapter 9. This chapter also discusses the role of moral disagreement in arguments for the view that only democratic states are legitimate. It shows how considerations surrounding moral disagreement do not succeed in showing only democratic states are legitimate.
