 |
| Replies |
 (Return) |
| Foundations |
| Dee
Speaking
|
 You're all moving too quickly. Pluralism is no magic solution to the problems we have seen. Yes, there are historically many different views of justice. Many canons of justice have been proposed. But that doesn't mean that you can simply
mix the different canons together and get the best theory.It isn't at all clear that anyone can construct a coherent pluralistic theory. I personally doubt that it can be done. The pluralism you're suggesting sounds more like a philosophical stew to me. It's superficially attractive to people who live in a democratic country like ours because it seems to offer 'something for everyone.' A little bit of individual rights here, a little bit of the common good there, taking care of basic needs some place else. Just a stew, that's all. We don’t know that the combination of canons can be worked out with any consistency. First of all, I strongly suspect that if we look at the foundations of each element (libertarian rights or entitlements, for example) we will find that they rest on mutually incompatible foundations. Secondly, how are we to construct principled guidelines for the inevitable tradeoffs and conflicts? What happens when individual rights and the common good conflict? What principle provides the solution and why should we accept that principle? Trust me, you've got a long way to go here. I'm not buying. |
| Ariadne's Home | Contact Ariadne at: | Justice Home |
| Justice Bibliography |  |
Justice Contents |
|
||