scholarly journals The Value-Pluralism and Liberalism Problem Revisited

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beata Polanowska - Sygulska

This article tackles one of the most burning issues discussed by adherents of the dynamically developing movement in ethics which bears on political and legal philosophy, that is value-pluralism. In particular, the article is devoted to an investigation into the highly controversial issue of the relationship between pluralism and liberalism, based upon the three crucial, divergent approaches represented by Isaiah Berlin and his two main opponents, John Gray and George Crowder. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the two concepts in question are neither mutually exclusive nor logically connected, but actually overlapping, which signifies the existence of a loose, de facto connection between them. Such a final thesis proves to be consistent with the position of Isaiah Berlin, and contrary to the final statements endorsed by his critics, John Gray and George Crowder.


2000 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 255-268 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Galston

My intention in this essay is to open up a question I cannot fully resolve: the relationship between democracy and value pluralism. By “value pluralism” I mean the view propounded so memorably by the late Isaiah Berlin and developed in various ways by thinkers including Stuart Hampshire, Steven Lukes, Thomas Nagel, Martha Nussbaum, Michael Stocker, Bernard Williams, Charles Taylor, John Kekes, and John Gray, among others. I shall define and discuss this view in some detail in Section III. For now, suffice it to say that value pluralism is the view that what we (rightly) value in our lives turns out to be multiple, heterogeneous, not reducible to a common measure, and not hierarchically ordered with a single dominant value or set of values binding on all persons in all circumstances. I use the phrase “value pluralism” rather than “moral pluralism” to indicate that this view encompasses nonmoral as well as moral goods.



2013 ◽  
Vol 75 (1) ◽  
pp. 69-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Zakaras

AbstractThe essay explores the relationship between value pluralism, as Isaiah Berlin understood it, and liberalism. It consists of two main parts. In the first part, I argue that value pluralism does not entail liberalism, and I criticize two philosophers—William Galston and George Crowder—who believe that it does. In the second, I reconstruct and defend Isaiah Berlin's own understanding of this relationship, drawing on an essay that is often neglected by Berlin's interpreters: “John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life.” Berlin thought that the relationship between value pluralism and liberalism was largely psychological. He believed that those who embraced value pluralism would be more likely to affirm liberal institutions, because they would be more likely to exhibit certain virtues—notably empathy, imagination, and openness to other ways of life—that typically motivate tolerance.



2010 ◽  
Vol 72 (4) ◽  
pp. 599-625 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ella Myers

AbstractThe relationship between pluralism and liberalism has been at the center of recent considerations of Isaiah Berlin's thought. In particular, liberal theorists have asked whether the value pluralism Berlin endorses actually undermines his liberalism. A common interpretive approach resolves this problem by presenting Berlin's pluralism as “limited” rather than “radical,” and therefore capable of serving as a moral foundation authorizing liberalism. I challenge this re-construction of Berlin's work, arguing that such readings are premised on a conception of judgment Berlin does not share. While many of his readers believe that a judgment on behalf of liberalism requires the identification of a transcontextual ground, Berlin invites us to see human judgment as a meaningful practice that occurs in the absence of absolutes yet does not simply mirror local norms. Berlin's defense of liberalism models this kind of judgment—a judgment that is neither mandated, nor ruled out, by pluralism.



Author(s):  
Seyla Benhabib

This chapter analyzes Isaiah Berlin's work, stating that the relationship of liberalism to Berlin's value pluralism remains fraught, as does the question whether value pluralism can avoid relativism. Notably, Judith Shklar and Berlin admired each other and shared a skeptical temperament as well as a dedication to the study of the history of ideas as the indispensable method of pursuing political philosophy in their time. Neither shared Hannah Arendt's conviction that the legacy of failed revolutions could only be countered by the activist civic republicanism of self-governing communities. The chapter also contextualizes the varying views of Berlin's work and persona through the prism of Max Weber's doctrine of value pluralism.



Author(s):  
Monica Mookherjee

Recalling J. S. Mill’s consciousness of the different goals of human life, the modern debate about pluralism has gathered momentum in liberal philosophy largely as a consequence of the intellectual historian and political theorist Isaiah Berlin. In his seminal essay, “Two Concepts of Liberty,” Berlin prompted thought about the potential overlap between the plurality of human values and the liberal tradition. In the years following, a vigorous debate with numerous strands has arisen around a synthesis of these concepts, in the form of the theory of “liberal pluralism.” A key area of controversy is whether the acceptance of pluralism supports a “perfectionist” theory of the state; or whether, by contrast, it generates a neutral liberalism that abstains from difficult questions about the highest good. A related question is whether the concepts of liberal pluralism fit together at all. Some of Berlin’s interpreters such as John Gray suggest that value pluralism does not privilege liberalism, and that the relationship between these ideas is historically contingent. Liberal pluralists such as George Crowder disagree. From their perspective, liberals defend first-order political values such as fairness or personal autonomy, to protect the various conceptions of the good life citizens personally endorse. Moreover, the most recent decades have seen a burgeoning examination by analytical political theorists of the implications of liberal pluralism for state neutrality and the protection of minority cultural or religious rights. While the equally vast literature on toleration, political liberalism, and the politics of recognition is not considered in depth in this article, unless it explicitly invokes the theory of liberal pluralism, key works that apply liberal pluralism to minority cultural, religious, and ethnic identities are represented in the later sections. Therefore, this article overall reflects different dimensions of debate on a complex and much debated contemporary theory. Following the overview of Foundational Works, and background readings on the relationship between liberalism and the politics of difference and identity, the next substantive section covers critical studies of Berlin’s liberal pluralism. This is then followed by a section addressing the conceptual relationship between value pluralism and liberalism generally, before moving on to consider more specific works addressing the relation between liberal pluralism and the concept of neutrality. The final sections consider critical literature applying liberal pluralism to conditions of ethnic, subnational, cultural, and religious diversity. This is crucial, because the defense of liberal pluralist theories is clearly designed to be applied to such real-world situations of diversity.



2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. 818-840
Author(s):  
George Crowder

AbstractHow far can monotheism be reconciled with the pluralism characteristic of modern societies? In this article, I focus on the “value pluralism” of Isaiah Berlin, which I suggest captures a deeper level of plurality than Rawls's more familiar version of pluralism. However, some critics have objected that Berlinian pluralism is too controversial an idea in which to ground liberalism because it is profoundly at odds with the monotheism professed by so many citizens of a modern society. I argue that monotheists can be value pluralists as long as they do not insist that their faith is superior to all others. This pluralist position is exemplified by elements of the interfaith movement, according to which many religions are recognized as having roughly equal value. I also argue that a value-pluralist approach to religious accommodation, if it can be achieved, may be more stable than the uneasy combination of disapproval and restraint involved in the more orthodox solution to conflict among religions, toleration.



2021 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-84
Author(s):  
Ira Chadha-Sridhar

Judicial verdicts matter. Apart from deciding the fate of litigants, common law verdicts hold precedential value. They create and alter legal cultures. Considering their importance, it is crucial to ask: what do judicial verdicts turn on? Each verdict is certainly influenced by the case facts, evidence and argumentation presented before the court. However, verdicts are also importantly shaped by how we think about language.1 Questions about language—about the relationship between words and meaning—are central to legal philosophy.



2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 631-640 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Satie

It is thought in the theory and philosophy of law, aimed at discussing the conditions of possibility of rapprochement between the art form and legal form. The text investigates, dialectically, the implications for the legal philosophy of the impossibility of such approximation, and the problems in a conservative approximation. It follows that: 1) would be a loss for a reason and therefore to legal philosophy, not to communicate between art and law; 2) the relationship between legal and aesthetic standards should be guided by the critical, especially in terms of Adorno's thought. It is by overcoming the dichotomy between possibility and impossibility, opening on the idea of constellation of methodological categorical fields of law and aesthetics in their current forms, paving the way for understanding the legal form as a tragic way.



2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (73) ◽  
pp. 57-73
Author(s):  
Alexandre Travessoni Gomes Trivisonno ◽  
Júlio Aguiar De Oliveira

This essay offers an investigation on the debated question of Radbruch’s supposed turn from positivism to non-positivism after World War II. It also intends to check whether this turn can be attributed to different balancing proposals among the main elements of Radbruch’s legal philosophy. To do that, three main questions must be answered: (i) whether Radbruch was a positivist before the war; (ii) what was his position after the war; and (iii) what was the relationship between the turn in his thought and the weight he gives to the two main dimensions (or principles) of his philosophy, namely “material correctness” (or “justice”) and “legal certainty”.



2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 383
Author(s):  
David Hereza Modrego
Keyword(s):  

Reseña de:Isaiah Berlin, Las ideas políticas en la era romántica. Surgimiento e influencia en el pensamiento moderno [traducción de Víctor Altamirano, a partir de la segunda edición inglesa de 2014], Fondo de Cultura Económica, México, 2014. Isaiah Berlin, Las raíces del romanticismo [traducción de Silvina Marí a partir de la segunda edición inglesa con el nuevo prólogo de John Gray (traducido por Miguel Marqués) publicada en 2013], Taurus, Madrid, 2015. 



Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document