Incidencia de la filosofía en la democracia

Luis Muñoz Oliveira

doi:10.29105/aitias6.12-140

Authors

Luis Muñoz Oliveira unam https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6226-6571

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29105/aitias6.12-140

Keywords:

Philosophical Incidence, Deliberative Democracy, Reasonableness, Civic Education, Democratic Ethos

Abstract

This article advances a deliberately modest claim about the incidence of philosophy in democratic life: philosophy does not guarantee democratic outcomes, but it plays a decisive role in shaping the formative conditions that make deliberative democracy possible. Drawing on Amartya Sen’s conception of democracy as government by discussion and on John Rawls’s notion of public reason, the article argues that democratic legitimacy presupposes a civic ethos sustained by political virtues, particularly reasonableness. Reasonableness is examined both as a mode of public reasoning and as a civic virtue involving recognition of one’s own fallibility, acceptance of reasonable disagreement, and commitment to public justification through shareable reasons (Scanlon, Sen, Rawls). On this basis, the article reviews educational practices—especially philosophical inquiry in schools—and empirical studies showing their contribution to the development of deliberative dispositions and civic participation, thereby understanding philosophical education as a form of social incidence.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Boontinand, Vachararutai, y Joshua Forstenzer. “Educating about, through and for Human Rights and Democracy in Uncertain Times: The Promise of the Pedagogy of the Community of Philosophical Inquiry.” Educational Philosophy and Theory 57, no. 7 (2025): 688–701. https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2024.2444414 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2024.2444414

Burgh, Gilbert. “The Need for Philosophy in Promoting Democracy: A Case for Philosophy in the Curriculum.” Journal of Philosophy in Schools 5, no. 1 (2018): 38–58. https://jps.bham.ac.uk/articles/74/files/submission/proof/74-1-145-1-10-20200214.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.21913/JPS.v5i1.1483

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. Informe sobre los Derechos Fundamentales — 2025: Síntesis y Dictámenes de la FRA. Oficina de Publicaciones de la Unión Europea, 2025.

Garcés Velástegui, Pablo. “Humanizing Development: Taking Stock of Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach.” Problemas del Desarrollo. Revista Latinoamericana de Economía 51, no. 203 (2020). DOI: https://doi.org/10.22201/iiec.20078951e.2020.203.69586

Lazar, Sian. “Citizenship Quality: A New Agenda for Development?.” Journal of Civil Society 8, no.4 (2012): 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2012.738898 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17448689.2012.738898

Nussbaum, Martha, Sin fines de lucro. Katz Editores, 2010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvndv60c

Rawls, John. El liberalismo político. Editorial Crítica, 2004.

Rawls, John. Teoría de la justicia. Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2006.

Scanlon, T.M. What We Owe to Each Other. The Belknap Press, 1998.

Sen, Amartya. Desarrollo y Libertad. Editorial Planeta, 2000.

Sen, Amartya. La idea de la justicia. Taurus, 2010.

Sibley, W.M. “The rational versus the reasonable.” The Philosophical Review 62, no. 4 (1953): 554-560. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2182461

Small, Helen. The value of The Humanities. Oxford University Press, 2013. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199683864.001.0001

Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press, 2010.

Valgarðsson, Viktor, Will Jennings, Gerry Stoker, Hannah Bunting, Daniel Devine, Lawrence McKay, y Andrew Klassen. “A Crisis of Political Trust? Global Trends in Institutional Trust from 1958 to 2019.” British Journal of Political Science 55 (2025): e15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123424000498. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123424000498

Villoro, Luis. Los retos de la sociedad por venir. Fondo de Cultura Económica, 2007.