The basic problem with pluralism is that there is no such thing. Take "gay marriage" for example. We now have one perfectly distinct definition of marriage and its rights and obligation. If we had "gay marriage" we'd have another definition, different but equally distinct in all respects. Why is one particular definition more plural than another?
There can be a plurality of views on various issues, and people often work out ways of dealing with each other and living together when their views differ. Nonetheless, whatever they arrive at will be some definite arrangement that corresponds to a particular view of things. Some will like it and some won't. Some will think they can live with it and others will think otherwise. "Pluralism" suggests that somewhere and somehow there's a guaranteed way for people with differing views to live together freely and productively without changing their views. That's obviously not so.
The basic problem with
The basic problem with pluralism is that there is no such thing. Take "gay marriage" for example. We now have one perfectly distinct definition of marriage and its rights and obligation. If we had "gay marriage" we'd have another definition, different but equally distinct in all respects. Why is one particular definition more plural than another?
There can be a plurality of views on various issues, and people often work out ways of dealing with each other and living together when their views differ. Nonetheless, whatever they arrive at will be some definite arrangement that corresponds to a particular view of things. Some will like it and some won't. Some will think they can live with it and others will think otherwise. "Pluralism" suggests that somewhere and somehow there's a guaranteed way for people with differing views to live together freely and productively without changing their views. That's obviously not so.