Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T04:29:09.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Fact of Unreasonable Pluralism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2019

AARON ANCELL Open the ORCID record for AARON ANCELL [Opens in a new window]
AARON ANCELL*
Affiliation:
HARVARD [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Proponents of political liberalism standardly assume that the citizens of an ideal liberal society would be overwhelmingly reasonable. I argue that this assumption violates political liberalism's own constraints of realism—constraints that are necessary to frame the central problem that political liberalism aims to solve, that is, the problem of reasonable pluralism. To be consistent with these constraints, political liberalism must recognize that, as with reasonable pluralism, widespread support for unreasonable moral and political views is an inevitable feature of any liberal society. I call this the fact of unreasonable pluralism. This fact threatens Rawlsian political liberalism's account of stability because an overlapping consensus cannot stably order a society pervaded by unreasonable views. My argument also raises questions about the coherence of Rawls's conception of ideal theory.

Keywords

ideal theorypolitical liberalismJohn Rawlsreasonable pluralismstabilityunreasonableness
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the American Philosophical Association , Volume 5 , Issue 4 , Winter 2019 , pp. 410 - 428
Copyright
Copyright © American Philosophical Association 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

For helpful comments, criticisms, and discussions I thank Mike Ashfield, Allen Buchanan, Samuel Bagg, Ewan Kingston, David McCabe, Wayne Norman, Philip Shadd, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Heather Wallace, and David Wong. I also thank audiences at conferences hosted by the North Carolina Philosophical Society, the Canadian Philosophical Association, and the American Philosophical Association Central Division for several incisive questions. Finally, I thank two anonymous referees for this journal for their many constructive comments and criticisms, and the editorial staff for all their work in bringing this article to print.

References

Abramowitz, Alan I. (2010) The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. (2016) Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badano, Gabriele, and Nuti, Alasia. (2018) ‘Under Pressure: Political Liberalism, the Rise of Unreasonableness, and the Complexity of Containment’. Journal of Political Philosophy, 26, 145–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagg, Samuel. (2018) ‘Can Deliberation Neutralise Power?’ European Journal of Political Theory, 17, 257–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batson, C. Daniel. (2016) What's Wrong with Morality? A Social-Psychological Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bellamy, Richard. (1999) Liberalism and Pluralism: Towards a Politics of Compromise. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Buchanan, Allen. (2002) ‘Social Moral Epistemology’. Social Philosophy and Policy, 19, 126–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Čavojová, Vladimíra, Šrol, Jakub, and Adamus, Magdalena. (2018) ‘My Point Is Valid, Yours Is Not: Myside Bias in Reasoning about Abortion’. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30, 656–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, Citrin, Jack, and Conley, Patricia. (2001) ‘When Self-Interest Matters’. Political Psychology, 22, 541–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clayton, Matthew, and Stevens, David. (2014) ‘When God Commands Disobedience: Political Liberalism and Unreasonable Religions’. Res Publica, 20, 65–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. A. (2008) Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey L. (2003) ‘Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ditto, Peter H., Pizarro, David A., and Tannenbaum, David. (2009) ‘Motivated Moral Reasoning’. In Bartels, Daniel M., Bauman, Christopher W., Skitka, Linda J., and Medin, Douglas L. (eds.), Moral Judgment and Decision Making. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, vol. 50 (London: Academic Press), 307–38.Google Scholar
Farrelly, Colin. (2007) ‘Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation’. Political Studies, 55, 844–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, Leon, Riecken, Henry W., and Schachter, Stanley. (1956) When Prophecy Fails: A Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frantz, Cynthia McPherson. (2006) ‘I AM Being Fair: The Bias Blind Spot as a Stumbling Block to Seeing Both Sides’. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28, 157–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freeman, Samuel. (2004) ‘Public Reason and Political Justifications’. Fordham Law Review, 72, 2021–72.Google Scholar
Freeman, Samuel. (2007) Rawls. Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaus, Gerald F. (1999) ‘Reasonable Pluralism and the Domain of the Political: How the Weaknesses of John Rawls's Political Liberalism Can be Overcome by a Justificatory Liberalism’. Inquiry, 42, 259–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, Martin. (1999) Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horton, John, Westphal, Manon, and Willems, Ulrich, eds. (2019) The Political Theory of Modus Vivendi. Cham: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, Sears, David O., and Levy, Jack. (2013) ‘Introduction: Theoretical Foundations of Political Psychology’. In Huddy, Leonie, Sears, David O., and Levy, Jack (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. (2013) ‘Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection’. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–24.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M., Peters, Ellen, Dawson, Erica Cantrell, and Slovic, Paul. (2017) ‘Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government’. Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan M., Peters, Ellen, Wittlin, Maggie, Slovic, Paul, Ouellette, Lisa Larrimore, Braman, Donald, and Mandel, Gregory. (2012) ‘The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks’. Nature Climate Change, 2, 732–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, Erin, and McPherson, Lionel. (2001) ‘On Tolerating the Unreasonable’. Journal of Political Philosophy, 9, 38–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kinder, Donald R., and Kam, Cindy D.. (2009) Us against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornblith, Hilary. (1999) ‘Distrusting Reason’. Midwest Studies in Philosophy, 23, 181–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. (1990) ‘The Case for Motivated Reasoning’. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurzban, Robert, Tooby, John, and Cosmides, Leda. (2001) ‘Can Race Be Erased? Coalitional and Social Categorization’. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 15387–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larmore, Charles. (1994) ‘Pluralism and Reasonable Disagreement’. Social Philosophy and Policy, 11, 61–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larmore, Charles. (1999) ‘The Moral Basis of Political Liberalism’. Journal of Philosophy, 96, 599–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larmore, Charles. (2015) ‘Political Liberalism: Its Motivations and Goals’. In Sobel, David, Vallentyne, Peter, and Wall, Steven (eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, vol. 1 (New York: Oxford University Press), 63–88.Google Scholar
Lavine, Howard G., Johnston, Christopher D., and Steenbergen, Marco R.. (2012) The Ambivalent Partisan: How Critical Loyalty Promotes Democracy. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles S.. (2013) The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, Charles G., Ross, Lee, and Lepper, Mark R.. (1979) ‘Biased Assimilation and Attitude Polarization: The Effects of Prior Theories on Subsequently Considered Evidence’. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098–2109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madison, James. (1961) ‘Federalist No.10’. In Rossiter, Clinton (ed.), The Federalist Papers (New York: New American Library), 77–84.Google Scholar
McCabe, David. (2010) Modus Vivendi Liberalism: Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo, and Sperber, Dan. (2017) The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Charles W. (2005) ‘“Ideal Theory” as Ideology’. Hypatia, 20, 165–84.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, Martha. (2011) ‘Perfectionist Liberalism and Political Liberalism’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 39, 3–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Center, Pew Research. (2017) ‘The Partisan Divide on Political Values Grows Wider’. https://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/the-partisan-divide-on-political-values-grows-even-wider/.Google Scholar
Pronin, Emily, Lin, Daniel Y., and Ross, Lee. (2002) ‘The Bias Blind Spot: Perceptions of Bias in Self Versus Others’. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 369–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quong, Jonathan. (2011) Liberalism without Perfection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (1999a) A Theory of Justice. Revised ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (1999b) The Law of Peoples. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (1999c) ‘The Domain of the Political and Overlapping Consensus’. In Freeman, Samuel (ed.), John Rawls: Collected Papers (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press), 473–96.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (2001) Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. (2005) Political Liberalism. Expanded ed. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Raz, J. (1998) ‘Disagreement in Politics’. American Journal of Jurisprudence, 43, 25–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richerson, Peter J., and Boyd, Robert. (2001) ‘The Evolution of Subjective Commitment to Groups: A Tribal Instincts Hypothesis’. In Nesse, Randolph M. (ed.), Evolution and the Capacity for Commitment (New York: Russell Sage Foundation), 186–220.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. (2006) ‘What Do We Want from a Theory of Justice?’ Journal of Philosophy, 103, 215–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmons, A. John. (2010) ‘Ideal and Nonideal Theory’. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 38, 5–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, Matthew L., Henne, Paul, Yang., Brenda W., and De Brigard, Felipe. (2019) ‘Resistance to Position Change, Motivated Reasoning, and Polarization’. Political Behavior. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09526-z.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stemplowska, Zofia, and Swift, Adam. (2014) ‘Rawls on Ideal and Nonideal Theory’. In Mandle, Jon and Reidy, David A. (eds.), A Companion to Rawls (Malden: Wiley-Blackwell), 112–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taber, Charles S., and Lodge, Milton. (2006) ‘Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs’. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, Henri, Billig, M. G., Bundy, R. P., and Flament, Claude. (1971) ‘Social Categorization and Intergroup Behavior’. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesler, Michael. (2012) ‘The Spillover of Racialization into Health Care: How President Obama Polarized Public Opinion by Racial Attitudes and Race’. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 690–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Vught, Mark, and Park, Justin H.. (2009) ‘The Tribal Instincts Hypothesis: Evolution and the Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations’. In Stürmer, Stefan and Snyder, Mark (eds.), The Psychology of Prosocial Behavior: Group Processes, Intergroup Relations, and Helping (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell), 13–32.Google Scholar