Abstract

Available from UMI in association with The British Library. Requires signed TDF. ;In this thesis, I argue against the following common philosophical explanations of political disagreement: firstly, the view that those who disagree about political issues do so because they completely fail to understand each other; secondly, the view that political disagreement is value-laden and persists because disputes over values, unlike disputes over facts, are not amenable to rational resolution; thirdly, the general view that moral and political arguments are, in principle, rationally unsettlable. I also consider the view that moral and political reasoning is open-ended and, as a result, that there is always something inconclusive about political argument. I argue that there are, indeed, a number of ways in which moral and political reasoning is open-ended, but maintain that none of these ways is sufficient to explain fully the existence and intractability of moral and political disputes in developed capitalist societies. ;I defend an alternative conception of how political disagreement should be explained. I make a distinction between rational and non-rational explanations of political disagreement and claim that, in general, philosophical explanations of political disagreement are rational ones because they appeal simply to the reasons those who disagree about political issues have for making the judgements they do. Instead, I urge that we should seek non-rational explanations for the holding of political beliefs and then construct explanations of political disagreement out of them. I defend an empirical model which attempts to do this. This model appropriates some aspects of an account of the construction of gender proposed by N. Chodorow, and employs the results of some research performed by C. Gilligan on the different ways in which men and women reason about moral and political issues. I apply the model to the work of two contemporary political theorists: John Rawls and Robert Nozick