Between Facts and Norms - Contributions to a ... - Blogs Unpad

310Chapter 7The neutrality debate branches out at this point, because even thistolerant version of the neutrality thesis is contested, indeed fromopposite directions.From the communitarian side, one hears the radical objection thatstandards for an impartial judgment of practical questions ingeneral cannot be separated from the context of specific worldviewsand life projects: on this view, no presumptively neutral principle. can ever be neutral in fact. Every apparently neutral procedure· reflects a specific-in Ackerman's case, liberal-conception of thegood life. Furthermore, a neutral procedure must not implicitlyserve to realize preferred values or goals that prove to have priorityfrom the vantage point, say, of a liberal understanding of law andpolitics; otherwise, it would discriminate against citizens with differentconceptions and value orientations. This objection can bemet if one can show that the neutrality principle is a necessarycomponent of a practice that is without alternatives or substitutes,and in this sense unavoidable. A practice is "unavoidable" ifitfulfillsfunctions vital to human life and cannot be replaced by any otherpractice. Ackerman plays on this kind of unavoidability when heasks, "If we disdain the art of constrained conversation, how will wecome to terms with each other? Is there another way beyondexcommunication and brute suppression?"33 If we find ourselvesconfronted with questions of conflict resolution or concerning thechoice of collective goals and we want to avoid the alternative ofviolent clashes, then we must engage in a practice of reachingunderstanding, whose procedures and communicative presuppositionsare not at our disposition.This leads Larmore to trace the neutrality principle back to auniversal rule of argumentation:The neutral justification of political neutrality is based upon what Ibelieve is a universal norm of rational dialogue. When two peopledisagree about some specific point, but wish to continue talking about themore general problem they wish to solve, each should prescind from thebeliefs that the other rejects, (l) in order to construct an argument on thebasis of his other beliefs that will convince the other of the truth of thedisputed belief, or (2) in order to shift to another aspect of the problem,where the possibilities of agreement seem greater. In the face of disagreement,those who wish to continue the conversation should retreat to