Abstract

There are two primary indices for measuring the plausibility of a moral theory. The first is theoretical, the second practical. From a theoretical point of view moral theory is assessed by examining the adequacy of its principles. Every moral theory must offer principled guidance on how to resolve moral conflicts and must offer some justification for these principles. If moral reasoning is to be non-arbitrary in the outcomes it produces, then some constraint or 'test' for moral validity is needed. From a practical point of view moral theory is assessed by examining its relevance and adaptability to real social contexts. If the conception of moral reasoning defended at a theoretical level cannot offer practical solutions to the moral conflicts that emerge in complex, diverse, and pluralist societies, then the theory's contributions to moral problems are necessarily deficient. Put in other words, to be adequate moral theory must be compatible with the modern world. The primary goal of this dissertation is to develop and defend an interpersonal theory of moral obligation that is satisfactory from each of these standpoints. The position that I defend claims that agreement about norms is possible in a way that is respectful of all persons' legitimate interests provided each participant in moral discourse is willing to negotiate moral conflicts in an open, impartial, and reciprocal manner