The concept of political judgment and its relation to pluralism in the thought of Hannah Arendt and Martha Nussbaum

In Western political philosophy, the concept of "judgment" is considered as a "right", Which is related to civil status. In Kant's view, civil status basically is means Argument and competition between "judging the people" and "rulers" with each other. Citizens through this right and autonomously, Apply some kind of desirable judgment in civil life. At the same time, the concept of Judgment had another fate: it sought to find an answer to this question of whether "our perceptions of things" should be subject to fixed patterns and pre-established standards, or each citizen makes his or her own judgment? Hannah Arendt and Martha Nussbaum are among the philosophers who have begun a philosophical and political confrontation with the concept of judgment. Influenced by the Aristotelian concept of "phronesis" and its function in specific and changing circumstances, these two thinkers try to offer a pluralistic conception of political judgment, which seeks to establish a good and Eudaemonist life based on a political / normative reading. In this article, in a comparative study, we have tried to evaluate the relationship between judgment and pluralism in the thought of those two philosophers. On the other hand, we express the commonalities and differences between these two philosophers in the field of political judgment.