By way of an engagement with the thought of Stuart Hampshire and his account of the ‘normality of conflict’, this article articulates a novel distinction between two models of value pluralism. The first model identifies social and political conflict as the consequence of pluralism, whereas the second identifies pluralism as the consequence of social and political conflict. Failure to recognise this distinction leads to confusion about the implications of value pluralism for contemporary public ethics. The article illustrates this by considering the case of toleration. It contends that Hampshire’s model of pluralism offers a new perspective on the problem of toleration and illuminates a new way of thinking about the accommodation of diversity as ‘civility within conflict’.
Stuart Hampshire and the Normality of Conflict
Derek Edyvane and Demetris Tillyris
‘The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing’. -Archilochus quoted in Berlin, The Hedgehog and the Fox, 22
The fragment from the Greek poet Archilochus, quoted in Isaiah Berlin’s essay ‘The Hedgehog and the Fox’, serves as a metaphor for the long-standing contrast and rivalry between two radically different approaches to public ethics, each of which is couched in a radically different vision of the structure of moral value. On the one hand, the way of the hedgehog corresponds to the creed of value monism, reflecting a faith in the ultimate unity of the moral universe and belief in the singularity, tidiness and completeness of moral and political purposes. On the other hand, the way of the fox corresponds to the nemesis of monism, the philosophical tradition of value pluralism, to which this collection of essays is devoted. This dissenting countermovement, which emerges most clearly in the writings of Isaiah Berlin, Stuart Hampshire, Bernard Williams and John Gray, is fuelled by an appreciation of the perpetuity of plurality and conflict and, correspondingly, by the conviction that visions of moral unity and harmony are incoherent and implausible. In the view of the value pluralists, ‘there is no completeness and no perfection to be found in morality’ (Hampshire 1989a: 177).
John Gillespie, Kyle Shuttleworth, Nik Farrell Fox, and Mike Neary
before Barnes's translation in 1956 – underlined the intellectual cosmopolitanism of academic philosophy at the time, with various assessments published by major philosophers such as A. J. Ayer, Stuart Hampshire and Alasdair Macintyre dismissing his
The Private, the Public and the Political
, moral orientations. Pluralist thinkers such as Thomas Nagel (1978 , 1991 ), Stuart Hampshire (1978) and Michael Walzer (1973) have identified and demonstrated the moral difficulties and complexities of distinguishing between different spheres of
met the approval of many influential philosophers. Perhaps the closest we get to a resonant endorsement of PJNM is by Stuart Hampshire (1999) . In the preface to Justice Is Conflict, Hampshire explains that his political opinions and loyalties do