Talk:Value pluralism

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political / Analytic / Contemporary Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy
	Analytic philosophy
	Contemporary philosophy

Joseph Raz[edit]

Does Joseph Raz defend value pluralism? If so, the page should say that, rather than merely that he clarified it.

Raz defends a particular sort of value pluralism in his contribution to this book, (The Practice of Value) --Christofurio 21:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?![edit]

"Oxford philosopher and historian of ideas, Isaiah Berlin, is credited with being the first to write a substantial work describing the theory of value-pluralism, bringing it to the attention of academia. (cf. the Isaiah Berlin Virtual Library)."

Um...W. D. Ross? 1930?

Normative pluralism[edit]

There should probably be an entry on the concept of normative pluralism, which is what some secular governments have sought to impose on Christian parents and their children. [1] ADM (talk) 08:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The Neo-Calvinism article needs a lot of work as well. Ottre 08:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how your comment about neo-Calvinism is relevant to topics surrounding the philosophy of pluralism. ADM (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Value monism[edit]

Value monism currently redirects here. I suggest to generalize this article to cover both value pluralism and value monism. I also think merging with value system might be good.--Chealer (talk) 23:39, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Messed up sentence makes no sense[edit]

In the first paragraph of the Context section, the last sentence is a jumbled word salad that makes no sense. Some sort of editing or typographical error. Here it is: “ Furthermore, moral decisions often take radical preferences cause people’s needs differ and leaves with varying rational calculus's that determine moral values attributed to the moral facts.” Delysiderata (talk) 15:04, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]