Cosmetic liberalism, or narrowing the boundaries of the reasonable

Anne Barnhill and Matteo Bonotti’s Healthy Eating Policy and Political Philosophy and Josh Milburn’s Food, Justice, and Animals both adopt a public reason approach to food ethics. This approach is plausible, especially because it acknowledges reasonable pluralism among conceptions of the good regarding food, and thus expresses respect for people as free and equal. However, both books also employ what I call a ‘cosmetic’ approach to the relevant conceptions of the good, revising them in order to make them suitable for public reasoning. This means that the legitimacy of the food policies proposed in the books rests on a coercive revision of reasonable conceptions of the good, which is inconsistent with respect for reasonable pluralism.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
Published
2025-05-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2025.2499366
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
38.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Cosmetic liberalism, or narrowing the boundaries of the reasonable

Gianfranco Pellegrino
1 citations
Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
38.00
article

Cosmetic liberalism, or narrowing the boundaries of the reasonable

Gianfranco Pellegrino
article en
1 citations

Abstract

Anne Barnhill and Matteo Bonotti’s Healthy Eating Policy and Political Philosophy and Josh Milburn’s Food, Justice, and Animals both adopt a public reason approach to food ethics. This approach is plausible, especially because it acknowledges reasonable pluralism among conceptions of the good regarding food, and thus expresses respect for people as free and equal. However, both books also employ what I call a ‘cosmetic’ approach to the relevant conceptions of the good, revising them in order to make them suitable for public reasoning. This means that the legitimacy of the food policies proposed in the books rests on a coercive revision of reasonable conceptions of the good, which is inconsistent with respect for reasonable pluralism.

Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy
Libera Università Internazionale degli Studi Sociali Guido Carli (IT)
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Historical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
38.00
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.