The Habermas-Rawls Debate

Simone Chambers, University of California, Irvine:
This book is not only a careful reconstruction of the intellectual exchange between Habermas and Rawls, arguably the two most important figures of contemporary political philosophy. It is also a deep reflection on the philosophical foundations of liberal democracy in a postmetaphysical age. A champion of neither but a scrupulous scholar of both Habermas and Rawls, Finlayson’s analysis of this important debate is exhaustive and to my mind spot on.

Amy Allen, Liberal Arts Professor of Philosophy and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, Penn State University:
Finlayson provides an exhaustive, rigorous, and crystal-clear reconstruction and analysis of the Habermas-Rawls debate that highlights its philosophical stakes and ongoing relevance. A must read for anyone interested in the work of these two giants of contemporary moral and political philosophy.

Peter E. Gordon, Amabel B. James Professor of History and Faculty Affiliate in Philosophy, Harvard University:
In a series of reviews and comments that spanned the Atlantic Ocean, the debate between Jürgen Habermas and John Rawls represents one of those rare moments of dialogue between Continental and Anglo-American political thought. It marks a pivotal chapter in the history of modern philosophy, not because it reached any definitive resolution, but chiefly because it served as the occasion for mutual criticism and raised challenging questions for both political liberalism and critical theory alike. With uncommon clarity and without the least hint of partisanship, James Gordon Finlayson has written a superb and illuminating exposition of this philosophical encounter.

Axel Honneth, Jack C. Weinstein Professor of the Humanities, Columbia University:
Just at the moment when the Habermas-Rawls debate seemed to evanesce from the sight of the intellectual public, this brilliant book proves this first impression to be false: Gordon Finlayson succeeds in demonstrating with stupendous lucidity and admirable acuteness how topical the questions are that the two philosophers had discussed in their exchange on how best to conceive of the democratic principle of social equality. My guess is that it will be impossible in the near future to tackle normative questions within political philosophy without consulting this book.