Abstract
If there is, as it seems, deep and pervasive disagreement about what is right and good, as well as the nature of moral judgment, how can political debate have any moral justification? How are fellow citizens to morally justify themselves and their proposals to each other in an era of moral pluralism? We have already addressed the historicist approach. According to MacIntyre, when we reason we do so from within traditions, and also those traditions are incommensurable. The plurality of moral doctrines in the modern world suggests a plurality of incompatible approaches to moral reasoning as well. The post-modernist also assumes that points of view are and will remain diverse and distinct, but while the historicist finds certainty in his/her tradition the post-modernist wishes to disrupt any supposed source of truth and objectivity, whether it is ‘traditional’ or otherwise.
Keywords
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2013 Allyn Fives
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Fives, A. (2013). Reasonableness. In: Political Reason. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137291622_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137291622_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-31601-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-29162-2
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)