Citizens in modern western societies often justify their political action by claiming that what they advocate is for the good of their societies or that it promotes ideals and values that will help their fellow citizens lead valuable and fulfilling lives. Sometimes these claims are well founded, sometimes they are false and sometimes they are rationalizations of selfinterest or group bias. But, irrespective of their merits, these claims are often dismissed. In response to them it is said that it is not the business of governments to promote controversial visions of the good society or to act on particular conceptions of what it is that makes a life valuable and fulfilling.

Many different arguments can and have been made in defense of this response. But of late the argument that has become the most influential appeals directly to the “fact” of reasonable pluralism. This is the claim that in modern western societies there exists a multitude of conflicting, irreconcilable and reasonable religious, moral and philosophical doctrines. Taking this “fact” as a permanent feature of these societies, the argument seeks to establish that it is unreasonable or inappropriate to use political power to advance controversial conceptions of the good society or to promote controversial ideals or values. Naturally, this claim leads proponents of the argument to search for a conception of politics that all parties could reasonably accept, despite the beliefs and ideals that divide them.

Let us call the general statement of this argument the bracketing strategy.