Lecture
Epistemic Self-Restraint and Political Disagreement
This lecture addresses the issue of epistemic self-restraint in the face of political disagreement. Drawing on the views of John Rawls and Thomas Nagel, Javad Heydari examines the relationship between conflicts of interest, conflicts of values, and the possibility of a shared moral life.
About this video
In this video, Javad Heydari addresses one of the fundamental questions of political philosophy: how can citizens with differing and sometimes conflicting interests and values live together in a shared world based on moral principles? The discussion begins with Thomas Nagel's formulation of Rawls's central problem, explaining its three main axes: moral principles, conflicts of interest, and conflicts of values.
Heydari then shows how a significant part of John Rawls's intellectual project can be seen as a response to this very problem. From this perspective, A Theory of Justice addresses the resolution of conflicts of interest, while Political Liberalism deals with the problem of conflicting values and the possibility of agreement in a pluralistic society.
A central focus of the lecture is the concept of epistemic self-restraint; that is, how individuals, when faced with political and moral disagreements, can refrain from absolutizing their own position and preserve the possibility of rational dialogue and shared life. This program is suitable for those interested in political philosophy, justice, liberalism, public ethics, and the theories of Rawls and Nagel.
