Premium
In Defence of Pure Pluralism: Two Readings of Walzer's Spheres of Justice
Author(s) -
Trappenburg Margo
Publication year - 2000
Publication title -
journal of political philosophy
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.938
H-Index - 66
eISSN - 1467-9760
pISSN - 0963-8016
DOI - 10.1111/1467-9760.00106
Subject(s) - pluralism (philosophy) , distributive justice , distributive property , spheres , separate spheres , economic justice , epistemology , sociology , political science , law , philosophy , mathematics , physics , pure mathematics , politics , astronomy , ideology
In this article I will argue that there are two theories of distributive justice hidden in Walzer's Spheres of Justice . The first one emphasises the separation of distributive spheres. It tries to formulate distributive criteria by sticking faithfully to sphere‐specificity. I shall refer to this theory as ‘pure pluralism’. The second theory downplays the separation of spheres and emphasises ‘across spheres’ or ‘between spheres’ criteria instead. I shall call this theory ‘mitigated pluralism’. Mitigated pluralism has become popular among Walzer's friendly critics who apparently do not want to charge him with a distributive theory as clear and rigid as pure pluralism. Although I consider myself another friendly critic, I shall argue in favour of pure pluralism.