Appiah on Cass Suntein

ということで、今読んでいるKwame Anthony Appiah Cosmopolitanism*3からサンスティンに言及している部分をメモしてみる;

Cass Suntein, the American legal scholar, has written eloquently that our understanding of Constitutional law is a set of what he calls “incompletely theorized agreements.” People mostly agree that it would be wrong for the Congress to pass laws prohibiting the building of mosques, for example, without agreeing exactly as to why. Many of us would, no doubt, mention the First Amendment (even though we don't agree about what values it embodies). But others would ground their judgment not in any particular law but in a conception, say, of democracy or in the equal citizenship of Muslims, neither of which is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. There is no agreed-upon answer—and the point is there doesn't need to be. We can live together without agreeing on what the values are that make it good to live together; we can agree about what to do in most cases, without agreeing about why it is right. (p.71, Italics are mine.)

Cass R. Suntein 1995 “Incompletely Theorized Agreements” Harvard Law Review 108, pp.1733-1772
Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers

Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers