The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism: And Why Philosophers Can’t Solve It by Thaddeus Kozinski (review)

BOOK REVIEWS 501 reasonable hope of fetal survival and the cost of not aborting the fetus is another human life, a more nuanced moral analysis may be called for—albeit one that does not reduce to mere consequentialism and that recognizes that the fetus has a prima facie right to life. The rigor of Kaczor’s metaphysical and ethical arguments concerning when a person begins to exist and the moral rights that pertain to embryos and fetuses should help disarm many alternative views that have been popular in both scholarly and public arenas. Nevertheless, certain difficult questions persist even among those who agree with his overall view. Kaczor’s contribution should definitely move the debate forward in ways that will allow scholars to focus their attention on these and other related questions that have heretofore been relatively neglected in the literature. JASON T. EBERL Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis Indianapolis, Indiana The Political Problem of Religious Pluralism: And Why Philosophers Can't Solve It. By THADDEUS KOZINSKI, Lanham, Md.: Lexington Books, 2010. Pp. 288. $53.00 (cloth). ISBN: 978-0-7391-4168-7. In this work Thaddeus Kozinski tackles the prickly problem of religious pluralism. His main target is liberal political theory, or more specifically the liberal solution to the problem of religious pluralism. We are told by liberal theorists that in order to respect the religious beliefs of others we should not rely on our personal religious beliefs in developing our political positions and advocating them, as to do so would involve imposing our personal beliefs on others who do not share them. Instead, liberal political theorists offer to provide a way of structuring and governing society (including our political debates), which is either compatible with all rival comprehensive doctrines (neutralist liberalism) or at least a wide range of such doctrines (perfectionist liberalism). Kozinski seeks to address this problem through an examination of three different philosophical proposals for how we ought to understand and deal with the problem of religious pluralism: those of John Rawls, Jacques Maritain, and Alasdair MacIntyre. All three take different positions on the liberal solution. Rawls is the liberal theorist par excellence, providing one of the most sophisticated defenses of liberalism. Maritain is a Thomist who attempts a synthesis of the Christian and liberal traditions to address the problem of pluralism. And MacIntyre, also a Thomist, offers perhaps the most unrelenting philosophical critique of modernity and liberal political theory. The work is divided into six chapters with a very clear exposition-critique structure. Each BOOK REVIEWS 502 chapter explaining the political philosophy of one of these three theorists is followed by a chapter of critique. Kozinski begins with Rawls in chapter 1. His focus is Rawls’s revised political theory, “political liberalism,” in which Rawls claims to have developed a "political" as opposed to a comprehensive theory of justice that all “reasonable” citizens will be able to affirm without having to give up or change their commitment to their existing comprehensive beliefs. This political conception is claimed to be “freestanding” (not dependent on any particular comprehensive doctrine) and therefore allows for the possibility of an “overlapping consensus” by those who affirm rival reasonable comprehensive doctrines. Rawls’s work is not particularly easy to navigate, so Kozinski must be congratulated for providing a good, clear summary of his arguments. In chapter 2, Kozinski develops a sophisticated philosophical and theological critique of Rawls, outlining and building on the most important criticisms of his political liberalism so far developed. Of particular importance is his discussion of the theological nature of Rawls’s political liberalism. Kozinski convincingly shows that Rawls’s political liberalism is guilty of relying not simply on controversial metaphysical positions—which Rawls claims to avoid and indeed must avoid for the success of his theory—but also on a controversial theological position. In brief, when considering fundamental political matters, Rawls requires that one’s theological beliefs be subordinated to what is considered most “reasonable” (understood in a Rawlsian way). This is a succinct critique of Rawls’s political liberalism. Kozinski next turns to the work of Catholic convert and philosopher Jacques Maritain, whose response to the problem of pluralism involves an attempt to effect a synthesis...