David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
International Journal of Philosophical Studies 6 (1):17 – 36 (1998)
Value-pluralism is commonly held to support liberal political morality. This is argued by John Rawls and his school and, more instructively, by Isaiah Berlin and Joseph Raz. Against this common view it is argued that a strong version of value-pluralism and liberalism are incompatible doctrines. Some varieties of ethical pluralism are distinguished, and the claim of value-incommensurability made by strong pluralism is elucidated. The argument that liberal political morality consists of principles of right that are unaffected by the truth of strong pluralism is examined and rejected. Strong pluralism is understood as the view that some goods and bads are rationally incommensurable. It is argued that if strong value-pluralism is true, then liberal political morality cannot be defended. Neither negative liberty nor individual autonomy can have general priority if it is true that the central goods specified by liberal political morality are incommensurables. This difficulty is not avoided by liberal theories that do not demand the maximization of a single value such as liberty. If strong pluralism is true, then liberal institutions are not a standard of legitimacy by reference to which all regimes are to be assessed. They are merely one variety of modus vivendi . Liberal institutions have no universal legitimacy. Yet liberal cultures are partly constituted by a belief in the universal authority of the principles which inform their practices and institutions. This belief strong pluralism subverts. Value-pluralism and liberalism are rival doctrines. The political implication of strong pluralism is not liberalism but modus vivendi . Sometimes modus vivendi is best fostered by liberal institutions. Sometimes it is best fostered by non-liberal institutions. Where the latter is true, liberals and pluralists part company
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
John Horton (2006). John Gray and the Political Theory of Modus Vivendi. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 9 (2):155-169.
Peter Jones (2006). Toleration, Value‐Pluralism, and the Fact of Pluralism. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 9 (2):189-210.
George Crowder (2006). Gray and the Politics of Pluralism. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 9 (2):171-188.
Similar books and articles
Douglas Edwards (2011). Simplifying Alethic Pluralism. Southern Journal of Philosophy 49 (1):28-48.
Robert B. Talisse (2011). Value Pluralism and Liberal Politics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (1):87-100.
Carmen Pavel (2004). William A. Galston, Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice:Liberal Pluralism: The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice. Ethics 114 (3):615-618.
Enzo Rossi (2010). Modus Vivendi, Consensus, and (Realist) Liberal Legitimacy. Public Reason 2 (2):21-39.
Robert B. Talisse (2003). Rawls on Pluralism and Stability. Critical Review 15 (1-2):173-194.
George Crowder (2007). Two Concepts of Liberal Pluralism. Political Theory 35 (2):121 - 146.
Craig L. Carr (2010). Liberalism and Pluralism: The Politics of E Pluribus Unum. Palgrave Macmillan.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads75 ( #41,788 of 1,725,584 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #349,437 of 1,725,584 )
How can I increase my downloads?