The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism

And Why Philosophers Can't Solve It

By (author) Thaddeus J. Kozinski Foreword by Schall, SJ, James V.

Not available to order

Publication date:

10 July 2012

Length of book:

288 pages

Publisher

Lexington Books

ISBN-13: 9780739141700

In contemporary political philosophy, there is much debate over how to maintain a public order in pluralistic democracies in which citizens hold radically different religious views. The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism deals with this theoretically and practically difficult issue by examining three of the most influential figures of religious pluralism theory: John Rawls, Jacques Maritain, and Alasdair MacIntyre. Drawing on a diverse number of sources, Kozinski addresses the flaws in each philosopher's views and shows that the only philosophically defensible end of any overlapping consensus political order must be the eradication of the ideological pluralism that makes it necessary. In other words, a pluralistic society should have as its primary political aim to create the political conditions for the communal discovery and political establishment of that unifying tradition within which political justice can most effectively be obtained. Kozinski's analysis, though exhaustive and rigorous, still remains accessible and engaging, even for a reader unversed in the works of Rawls, Maritain, and MacIntyre. Interdisciplinary and multi-thematic in nature, it will appeal to anyone interested in the intersection of religion, politics, and culture.
Dr. Kozinski’s work is a masterful exposition of three of the most important political philosophers of the twentieth century. His two chapters on each form an excellent introduction for the novice political philosopher as well as a detailed critique of each of them for the expert. Having searched out the core principles of each, Dr. Kozinski finds them all wanting in different respects….Upon a thorough reading of Dr. Kozinski’s book, the conclusion that a system committed to deep pluralism on principle, like contemporary America, is not a true commonwealth is inescapable. Yet, he holds open the hope that it could become one. In doing so he sets an agenda for much philosophical work to be done.