How Is Public Justification Possible

In 1995,the American Journal of philosophy has invited Habermas to make the first comment on Rawls' s political liberalism,and Rawls has responded at the same time and included it in "political liberalism",which has been revised in 1996.So there is a historical interaction between Habermas and Rawls in the history of practical philosophy.About this interaction,Habermas called it "within the bounds of a familial dispute".He and Rawls are Kantian.Although in the 2011,the American academic circles reacted again and carefully selected a collection of papers,which named "Habermas and Rawls: Deputing the Political";but in fact,this commemorative academic activity is still difficult to express the important academics of "the Habermas – Rawls debate" to the history of political philosophy.It can be said that,both at the same family,it is basically not enough,;at least to date,we have not seen a book or a doctoral thesis that surrounds the event at the bottom of the plane,linking them together.Therefore,the debate between Habermas and Rawls is still worth studying.There is a certain sense of "fill the gap".And,most importantly as the subject of "connecting",we can ask us further: how is a normative political conception possible in this multiple times?This article is based on the three basic documents of their debate and tries to enter the core statements of their respective writings to answer the fundamental problems.For this reason,we first start from Rawls' s political turn,and distinguish his dualism between "the political conception" and "the comprehensive doctrines" as the basis for this article.The intention of Rawls' s political liberalism is to construct the conception of political justice and become the foundation of " common ground " of a stable and unified good order society,which he cares about.It lies between " original position " and "overlapping consensus".In this way,political justice can be neutral and prioritize “ the comprehensive doctrines”.However,Habermas believes that Rawls' s "public justification" process,is not possible,because it is short of a "moral perspective" of an unbiased third,so that his political justice can not be fair,and is difficult to win "overlapping consensus".It is more difficult to provide a common basis for this pluralistic society.This article hopes that Habermas will let the "moral perspective or viewpoint " rectify the deficiency of " common ground ",and try to have the aid of "the disputing between the foundation and the perspective" to respond it,which can bring us the meaning of methodological consciousness,and thus let us can better describe or express our political concerns.Finally,we return to Kant's practice rationality tradition,and let them to accept Kant's test together.This test can tell us that in order to achieve political autonomy or political maturity,it is necessary to recourse to the process of "the Public Use of Reason" and to carry out the Enlightenment of self,which includes justification and dialogue,learning and criticism.