Are Healthy Eating Policies Consistent with Public Reason?

Matteo Bonotti, Anne Barnhill

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

States are increasingly implementing policies aimed at changing people’s dietary habits, such as fat taxes, food bans, and nudges. In this article, we ask whether healthy eating policies are consistent with public reason, the view that state laws and policies should be justified on the basis of reasons that all citizens can accept at some level of idealisation despite their different conceptions of the good. What we intend to explore is an ‘if. . ., then. . .’ line of thought: if one is committed to public reason, then may one consistently endorse healthy eating policies? First, we illustrate multiple ways in which contemporary societies are characterised by a reasonable pluralism concerning conceptions of health and values attached to eating practices. Second, we critically assess the implications of three main conceptions of the structure of
public reason, i.e. ‘shareability’, ‘intelligibility’ and ‘accessibility’, for the public justifiability of healthy eating policies. We conclude that healthy eating policies are only consistent with public reason under the ‘accessibility’ conception, i.e. if they are based on reasons grounded in shared epistemic and moral evaluative standards, as long as such reasons reflect a reasonable balance of political values and do not overly prioritise or neglect any of these values.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)506-522
Number of pages17
JournalJournal of Applied Philosophy
Volume36
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019

Cite this

@article{57daa2285b4d471b8166e4680aa75fa2,
title = "Are Healthy Eating Policies Consistent with Public Reason?",
abstract = "States are increasingly implementing policies aimed at changing people’s dietary habits, such as fat taxes, food bans, and nudges. In this article, we ask whether healthy eating policies are consistent with public reason, the view that state laws and policies should be justified on the basis of reasons that all citizens can accept at some level of idealisation despite their different conceptions of the good. What we intend to explore is an ‘if. . ., then. . .’ line of thought: if one is committed to public reason, then may one consistently endorse healthy eating policies? First, we illustrate multiple ways in which contemporary societies are characterised by a reasonable pluralism concerning conceptions of health and values attached to eating practices. Second, we critically assess the implications of three main conceptions of the structure ofpublic reason, i.e. ‘shareability’, ‘intelligibility’ and ‘accessibility’, for the public justifiability of healthy eating policies. We conclude that healthy eating policies are only consistent with public reason under the ‘accessibility’ conception, i.e. if they are based on reasons grounded in shared epistemic and moral evaluative standards, as long as such reasons reflect a reasonable balance of political values and do not overly prioritise or neglect any of these values.",
author = "Matteo Bonotti and Anne Barnhill",
year = "2019",
doi = "10.1111/japp.12318",
language = "English",
volume = "36",
pages = "506--522",
journal = "Journal of Applied Philosophy",
issn = "0264-3758",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "3",

}

Are Healthy Eating Policies Consistent with Public Reason? / Bonotti, Matteo; Barnhill, Anne.

In: Journal of Applied Philosophy, Vol. 36, No. 3, 2019, p. 506-522.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are Healthy Eating Policies Consistent with Public Reason?

AU - Bonotti, Matteo

AU - Barnhill, Anne

PY - 2019

Y1 - 2019

N2 - States are increasingly implementing policies aimed at changing people’s dietary habits, such as fat taxes, food bans, and nudges. In this article, we ask whether healthy eating policies are consistent with public reason, the view that state laws and policies should be justified on the basis of reasons that all citizens can accept at some level of idealisation despite their different conceptions of the good. What we intend to explore is an ‘if. . ., then. . .’ line of thought: if one is committed to public reason, then may one consistently endorse healthy eating policies? First, we illustrate multiple ways in which contemporary societies are characterised by a reasonable pluralism concerning conceptions of health and values attached to eating practices. Second, we critically assess the implications of three main conceptions of the structure ofpublic reason, i.e. ‘shareability’, ‘intelligibility’ and ‘accessibility’, for the public justifiability of healthy eating policies. We conclude that healthy eating policies are only consistent with public reason under the ‘accessibility’ conception, i.e. if they are based on reasons grounded in shared epistemic and moral evaluative standards, as long as such reasons reflect a reasonable balance of political values and do not overly prioritise or neglect any of these values.

AB - States are increasingly implementing policies aimed at changing people’s dietary habits, such as fat taxes, food bans, and nudges. In this article, we ask whether healthy eating policies are consistent with public reason, the view that state laws and policies should be justified on the basis of reasons that all citizens can accept at some level of idealisation despite their different conceptions of the good. What we intend to explore is an ‘if. . ., then. . .’ line of thought: if one is committed to public reason, then may one consistently endorse healthy eating policies? First, we illustrate multiple ways in which contemporary societies are characterised by a reasonable pluralism concerning conceptions of health and values attached to eating practices. Second, we critically assess the implications of three main conceptions of the structure ofpublic reason, i.e. ‘shareability’, ‘intelligibility’ and ‘accessibility’, for the public justifiability of healthy eating policies. We conclude that healthy eating policies are only consistent with public reason under the ‘accessibility’ conception, i.e. if they are based on reasons grounded in shared epistemic and moral evaluative standards, as long as such reasons reflect a reasonable balance of political values and do not overly prioritise or neglect any of these values.

U2 - 10.1111/japp.12318

DO - 10.1111/japp.12318

M3 - Article

VL - 36

SP - 506

EP - 522

JO - Journal of Applied Philosophy

JF - Journal of Applied Philosophy

SN - 0264-3758

IS - 3

ER -