Abstract
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 language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 506-522 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Journal of Applied Philosophy |
| Volume | 36 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2019 |
Cite this
}
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 journal › Article › Research › peer-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 -