Reasonable pluralism

            I think that maybe part of my problem with Nussbaum comes from the fact that I think that questions almost always have a right answer.  And the only questions that don’t have right answers are ones where people’s answers are simply based on preference or ones where the answers are in principle not knowable.  In other words, I do not believe in agree-to-disagree.  As a result, I am attracted to Mill’s truth-based justification of liberty, and don’t really believe in the idea of “reasonable pluralism”.  I do think that there are issues that are difficult to resolve and that parties who disagree can do so respectfully and reach an agreement in a civilized manner.  However, to claim that every reasonable person’s view is equally valid and to say that even promoting the pursuit of truth is disrespecting your fellow citizen (329) is wrong.  In fact, I think that being part of a society means engaging in the types of discussion that search for important truths, rather than simply accepting everyone’s view.  The fact that people are deserving of equal respect does not mean that people’s views are equal as well.

            This difference also may be why I am less wary about shame as a tool.  To Nussbaum, being part of a liberal society means accepting and respecting other people’s way of life, and shaming others would mean not accepting others and stigmatizing people.  However, because the potential for stigma is not my main focus and because I am less scared to say that people are wrong, I think I am also more open to the possibility of shaming people for doing or believing things that are wrong.  Of course, I agree with Nussbaum that things like customs, culture, sexual orientation, or race are things that people should respect.  However, this is because there is no right answer to “What is the best culture” or “What is the correct sexual orientation”, not simply because people are deserving of respect.  So clearly it would be wrong to shame people for deciding on an answer that is not better than the people who are shaming.  However, I think that there are other questions like “Should the rich be free to do whatever they wish with their money” or “Should people be obligated to help strangers when it is easy to do so” that are questions which I believe have right answers and are such that having the wrong answer reveals something about the person that could be shamed by society.  So while I understand why Nussbaum is hypervigilant about shame, I don’t think it is impossible to distinguish between questions that do and do not have correct answers, and to potentially use shame as a tool when someone has a wrong answer to a moral or ethical question.