BERLIN’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN VALUE PLURALISM AND MORAL AND CULTURAL RELATIVISM

Dr. Višnja Stojadinović

Dr. Miša Stojadinović, Director of the Institute

Abstract

The subject of this paper is thorough analysis of value pluralism and moral and cultural relativism, as different meta-ethical theories. The focus of the analysis is Berlin’s understanding of value pluralism, distinction between value monism and pluralism, as well as the implications of this distinction. This topic is connected with other key issues, such as the concepts of freedom and human nature, therefore it is of great importance in the field of moral and political discussions. Drawing on the analysis of Berlin’s view on value pluralism, the authors examine the most relevant critiques of this view, which interpret Berlin’s understanding as radical pluralism, subjectivism, moral and cultural relativism and postmodernism. In that respect, the main purpose of this paper is to distinguish value pluralism from the above-mentioned standpoints. The authors will attempt to demonstrate that these critiques consist of wrongly derived implications of Berlin’s understanding. In the light of the mentioned considerations, the authors conclude that the recognition of the existence of the minimal core of universal human nature and morality is what distinguishes value pluralism from subjectivism and relativism.

References

•  Berlin, Isaiah. 1980a. “Logical Translation.” In Concepts and Categories, Philosophical Essays, ed. Henry Hardy, 56–80. London: Pimlico.
• Berlin Isaiah 1980b. “The Purpose of Philosophy.” In Concepts and Categories, Philosophical Essays, ed. Henry Hardy, 1–11. London: Pimlico.
• Berlin, Isaiah. 1983. “Reply to Robert Kocis: Toward a Coherent Theory of Human Development: Beyond Sir Isaiah Berlin’s Vision of Human Nature.” Political Studies 31.
• Berlin, Isaija. 1992. Četiri ogleda o slobodi. Beograd: ,,Filip Višnjić.”
• Berlin, Isaiah. 1999. “Does Political Theory Still Exist?” In Concepts and Categories, Philosophical Essays, ed. Henry Hardy, 143–172. London: Pimlico.
• Berlin, Isaiah. 2013. “The Pursuit of the Ideal.” In The Crooked Timber of Humanity: Chapters in the History of Ideas, 1–20. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Berlin, Isaiah and Williams, Bernard. 1994. “Pluralism and Liberalism: A Reply”, Political Studies 62: 306–309. doi: doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1994.tb01914.x.
• Blokland, Hans. 1999. “Berlin on Pluralism and Liberalism: A Defence.” The European Legacy 4 (4): 1–23. doi: doi.org/10.1080/10848779908579978.
• Crowder, George. 1994. “Pluralism and Liberalism.” Political Studies 42: 293–305. doi: doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.1994.tb01913.x.
• Feyerabend, Paul. 1993. Against Method. London: Verso.
• Franco, Paul. 2003. “The Shapes of Liberal Thought: Oakeshott, Berlin, and Liberalism.” Political Theory 31: 484–507. doi: doi.org/10.1177/0090591703254385.
• Galipeau, C. J. 1994. Isaiah Berlin’s Liberalism. Oxford: Clarendon.
• Galston, William A. 2004. The Implications of Value Pluralism for Political Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Gray, John N. 1995. Berlin. London: Fontana Press.
• Kocis, Robert A. 1983. “Toward a Coherent Theory of Human Moral Development: Beyond Sir Isaiah Berlin’s Vision of Human Nature.” Political Studies 31.
• Parekh, Bhikhu. 1982. Contemporary Political Thinkers. Oxford: Martin Robertson.
• Riley, Jonathan. 2002. “Defending Cultural Pluralism: Within Liberal Limits.” Political Theory 30: 68–96. doi: doi.org/10.1177/0090591702030001004.
• Weinstock, Daniel. 1997. “The Graying of Berlin.” Critical Review 11 (4).