It is always complicated when people have to make a choice, or consider which way is the right path to turn to. Over the previous decades, scientists and philosophers were not able to answer the question, whether humans give different values to one object, or just one. However, sometimes it is the matter of liberty to believe into the universal truth, or be open-minded. The problem arises in terms of the following issue – what people appreciate most is the pluralism and freedom to choose values that best fit for them, or well-known facts, which made the ground of uniquely acknowledged verities. Current paper examines whether people are ready to deal with pluralism of thoughts in a way that it could be employed as a skill for resolving complex national issues.
There has been made a considerable contribution into the development of value pluralism. One of the theorists who worked hard on this hypothesis was Isaiah Berlin. He critically addressed the study of monism, which, by his assumptions, consisted of three main principles, which were based on one simple assumption that answer must be universal and incompatible with others. Only by having the right truthful information at the disposal, people can take proper decisions.
Pluralism, as it is known, was broadly discussed in all the fields of the present-day arts. This is especially related to the foundation of different literary trends. The politics has not gone very far from this notion. Today political stage is comprised of the diversified communities, persons that came out of uneven layers of society. Therefore, it is obvious that they may support divergent ideas and demonstrate divergent opinions towards one situation. That is why; the object of value pluralism is of a vital importance, as long as nations stick to the democracy and liberalization. Therefore, one must think how the pluralism can be appreciated in today’s world and what must be done in order to increase the interest of people to this topic not solely at the national level, but also all over the world.
At this stage of overall development and democratic outlook, mass media journalists and current educationalists wonder, whether it is actually relevant to reveal facts, because everyone has his/her freedom to take it seriously, or neglect. In his published article, Jeff Nesbit discusses two theories “deficit model” and “cultural cognition”, which explore the attitude of society to facts and how they consume those facts. Apparently, the latter one implies that a person takes a decision based on his/her cultural identity, beliefs and values, which play a significant role in their life. The former hypothesis sounds naturally – a person who relies on actuality tends to execute a correct and accurate alternative. However, such hypothesis is quite unstable, because favorable decision-making counts on personal preferences and outlook.
Value pluralism presupposes sacrifice of someone’s convictions and dogmas. Generally, according to the changeable environment, pluralism cannot exist without conflicts and confrontations. It is truly unconventional to consider that people’s thoughts and views will not generate the possible consequences of disagreement and contradiction. The proof of this is observed when everyone pictures the government and public policy atmosphere. Nevertheless, people have to come face-to-face with such outcome, because the point of view is exactly what makes us different, distinguishable and unique.
Whatever the fact or truth is, a person has to address it with dignity and morality. This is because if to take a deep insight into the development of pluralism, it becomes evident that there were the general truths approached from different angles, and there were built the grounds for the appearance of liberalism, humanism and democracy. As it was highlighted by Stanley Fish in The New York Times, the notion of “conscience” also plays a prominent role. People do something in view of their level of conscience, their ability to believe something is good, or bad. Often it turns into the disagreement between personality, his/her principles and society, especially when a person is not ready to act in favor of social rules, dogmas and canons.
It becomes understandable that pluralism and person’s choice are interrelated, especially if to take into consideration the public policy, and the decisions people should take at work, at home or in their relationships with someone. These options depend directly on the moral preferences and values a person takes for granted.
For example, if there is an advertisement about smoking prohibition, and he/she smokes a great amount of cigarettes, they will not even pay a mere attention to it. This happens only because this person does not suppose that smoking may do harm as it has been described or depicted in the advertisement column or billboard. Such reaction will not be a criminal issue, as long as it is normal to smoke cigarettes. The same samples can be employed to the huge number of situations. Moreover, they will be perfectly normal. It will be wrong to suggest that such choices are right, because each person decides what is good or bad on their own.
Especially when it comes to politics and leadership of the country, politicians must be competent enough and open-minded to choose the path, which will turn people into a well-structured and thinking organization.
The hardest decisions are usually taken in order to solve a problem, and if a person lacks facts, he/she cannot rethink it carefully and thoroughly and select the right alternative. So probably, the following is the answer – people need to know the truth to see the general overview, but they also have to produce their own ideas, suggestions, and solutions. Only in such a way, the whole society will be capable of nurturing the novelty, interest, passion for fostering the value pluralism.
Several decades ago, pluralism was the notion that came out of humanism and liberalism. Humanism was related to people’s abilities to perceive things, which they do not support, but as a human, you have to give others a chance to introduce another idea, or an option. Liberalism referred to free choice, decision-making and attitude. Together these notions formed the basis for the occurrence of a relatively new tendency – pluralism.
As it is emphasized in the article of Cherniss and Hardy, Berlin also evolved the concept of the so-called inevitable conflicts, which were caused by the characteristics of personalities, societies and nations. Everyone has several distinguishing characteristics. They are based on symbols – abstract ways of referring to and understanding ideas, objects, feelings and behaviors – and the ability to communicate with symbols. Such disagreements cannot be avoided, especially when they occur while discussing political troubles at the governmental level. Occasionally, the outrage is necessary to spark the best performance out of the employees’ abilities, produce pioneering and refreshing apprehensions to make the communities move forward.
Granting Berlin’s studies, it becomes evident that decision-making issue pertains to inherited traits. If someone chooses what to do with his or her own life, this choice would obviously be related to his/her upbringing, genetics and material culture. While some things are perceived by people based on their biological instincts, other things are performed according to their capability of being flexible and adaptive to changes in the world around them.
Kenneth Ashworth was also one of the investigators of value pluralism and choice making and paid an intense attention to a thorough examination of how a person should behave especially when he/she works in the governmental surrounding. Ashworth points out the main rules for a correct behavior, if you want to become a leader.
What is really meant here is that sometimes your core values and objectives do not really correlate with others, but in regard to multiculturalism and conscious attitude, you are to accept everything and swallow it, no matter how difficult it may seem to do it.
However, Ashworth here tried to indicate that most of the time people do not take into one’s own opinion and point of view. Therefore, correspondingly, it is necessary to understand, whether the government should give liberties to the nation in terms of making choices. As the recent experiences have shown, peoples are not ready to be free and democratic in all the spheres of their life, and it will be too difficult to gain control over them.
That is why the author emphasizes the grand imminence to have qualified and intelligent leaders who would be able to push laws and policies in consideration of multiculturalism and pluralism recognizing diverse knowledge and interests involved.
Regardless of everything that has been studied in relation to this matter, the great thinkers still face difficulties to draw a relevant conclusion on this subject. Democracy, pluralism, liberty and freedom have always been the primary values and beliefs that every person, citizen or politician must hold in high regard.
Sadly, it has become a traditional tendency that lots of people have brought this question forth so many times, although no one does anything to effectively use it while working, cooperating with others, managing a company or governing the whole country. Somehow, it turns to be a routine to talk about things, but people do nothing to implement some changes or execute any kinds of amendments. That is why there is another issue coming out - people listen to other’s ideas, but it would be more useful to know, whether people learn to accept those ideas, respect and apply them.