Pragmatic Pluralism: Decency, Harm Avoidance, and the Search for a “Good Enough” Framework

The ongoing dialogue about value pluralism—sparked by Michael Ignatieff’s Ordinary Virtues and enriched by engagement with thinkers like John Dewey, Judith Shklar, Richard Rorty, and Avishai Margalit—has yielded a compelling, pragmatist approach to moral and political cooperation in diverse societies. The conversation, especially as extended through exchanges with Claude AI, highlights both the promise and the persistent challenges of fostering decency amid deep difference.

Strengths of the Pragmatist Approach

The most distinctive strength of the framework developed in these discussions is its grounding in empirical reality and practical inquiry. Rather than seeking abstract, universal principles or perfect consensus, the approach accepts the inescapable realities of cultural relativism, power asymmetry, and bias. This realism is not defeatist, but rather enables a more honest and effective engagement with the complexities of pluralism.

Key examples illustrate the power of this approach:

• Cultural Misunderstandings: A public school’s ban on headscarves provokes protests from Muslim families, who experience the policy as humiliating. This rupture forces a Deweyan inquiry: Does the policy cause harm? The inquiry is not resolved by appealing to abstract rights, but by examining the concrete experiences of those affected.

• Institutional Exclusion: A hospital’s triage protocol prioritizes younger patients during a crisis, prompting accusations of ageism from elderly patients. Here, the “neutral” policy is revealed as value-laden, and the rupture invites a re-examination of institutional priorities.

• Revealed Hypocrisy: A corporation that publicly champions LGBTQ+ inclusivity is found to donate to politicians opposing trans rights. Employees and customers demand accountability, exposing a misalignment between stated and enacted values. This rupture catalyzes a process of institutional self-examination and reform.

These examples show how “ruptures of experience”—moments when routine practices break down or are challenged—can serve as catalysts for inquiry and adaptation. The approach is scalable: while Dewey originally focused on small communities, the same method can address macro-level conflicts between cultures, religions, and ideologies.

Negotiating Power and Bias

A central insight from the dialogue is that definitions of harm and the framing of problematic situations are always contested, often shaped by power differentials. The sociological concept of “negotiated order” captures this reality: those with more power have greater influence over how problems are defined and addressed. Rather than seeking to eliminate all power differentials—an impossible and potentially paralyzing goal—the pragmatist approach accepts that negotiation will always occur under conditions of inequality.

Historical examples demonstrate that meaningful progress is possible even under such constraints:

• Labor Negotiations: Workers have secured protections despite corporate dominance.

• Indigenous Treaties: Indigenous groups have achieved some autonomy despite colonial power structures.

• Civil Rights Movements: Marginalized communities have won legal and social changes despite political exclusion.

These cases show that power asymmetry does not preclude negotiation, but it does shape outcomes. The challenge is to create mechanisms that allow marginalized voices to be heard and to influence decisions, even if perfect justice remains elusive.

From Perfectionism to Process

A crucial shift in the pragmatist approach is the move from “puzzle-solving” (where all pieces must fit into a perfect system) to “managing contingent difficulties” (where the goal is incremental, revisable improvement). This is not a lowering of standards, but a recognition that real-world problems are messy and that solutions are always provisional.

Inquiry is recursive and adaptive:

• Case-Based Learning: Real-world examples provide data for developing provisional principles.

• Openness to Revision: All outcomes are subject to re-examination as new evidence or perspectives emerge.

• Documentation and Analysis: Keeping a record of both successful and unsuccessful negotiations builds empirical knowledge and informs future efforts.

Areas for Further Development: Toward a “Good Enough” Framework

Despite these strengths, important challenges remain, especially regarding the need for a workable “good enough” framework for assessing outcomes and guiding action. Such a framework must avoid the rigidity of a priori concepts, remaining open to recursive inquiry and empirical revision. At the same time, it must have enough substance to address the serious risks of complicity and complacency in the face of injustice.

Key elements for a “good enough” framework might include:

• Minimal Standards: Outcomes should ensure that affected parties feel heard, that no group is severely humiliated, and that arrangements remain open to revision.

• Acknowledgment of Power: Power differentials should be made visible and addressed, not hidden or ignored.

• Mechanisms for Critique and Accountability: Institutions should include processes for ongoing feedback, dissent, and adaptation.

• Pattern Recognition: Developing a taxonomy of rupture responses (productive inquiry, suppression, cooptation, escalation, transformation) can help identify what works and why.

The framework itself must be subject to the same recursive, experimental process as the outcomes it evaluates. It should not be imposed from above, but emerge from and adapt to the lived experiences of those affected by decisions.

Avoiding Complacency and Complicity

A persistent risk is that accepting imperfection becomes an excuse for complicity with injustice. To mitigate this, the framework must maintain a commitment to ongoing critique and improvement. The journalistic approach—documenting what happens, whether or not it leads to inquiry—helps keep the process honest and provides resources for future action.

Sustainability is also a concern: Negotiated arrangements must adapt to changing power dynamics, generational shifts, and external pressures. This requires flexible institutions and ongoing dialogue.

Conclusion

The dialogue with Claude AI, building on the insights of Ordinary Virtues and related thinkers, has produced a robust, pragmatist approach to pluralism. By accepting the realities of power, bias, and cultural difference, and by focusing on process over perfection, the framework offers a realistic and hopeful path forward. The challenge is not to resolve all tensions, but to make them productive—to foster a pluralism that is both humble and ambitious, grounded in the everyday work of decency and harm avoidance, and always open to learning and adaptation.

The search for a “good enough” framework is not a search for final answers, but for ways to keep the conversation alive, inclusive, and responsive to the ever-changing realities of human coexistence.