John Rawls, Jacques Maritain, and Alasdair MacIntyre on the possibility of an overlapping political consensus

This dissertation examines the idea of an "overlapping political consensus" in the political thought of John Rawls, Jacques Maritain, and Alasdair MacIntyre. Although many philosophers have grappled with the political problem of religious pluralism, what has not been explored sufficiently with regard to this problem is the reciprocal relationship of foundational belief to political theory, and political theory to political practice. The way in which the political philosopher understands these relationships determines the particular character of his theoretical and practical project, and the depth and accuracy of this understanding determines its theoretical coherency and practical possibility.; The dissertation argues that the three philosophers it analyzes, although differing in relative success, ultimately fail. None is able to articulate a theoretically coherent and practically effective model for a political order in a sociological milieu of deep pluralism. John Rawls's proposal of a "freestanding, purely political, overlapping consensus" incoherently rests upon a particular comprehensive doctrine with not only metaphysical but also theological premises. Jacques Maritain's model, the "democratic charter," is superior to Rawls's due to its explicit metaphysical and theological grounding; however, it does not successfully reconcile the theoretical particularity of its underlying Thomism with the practical neutrality it demands.; Unlike Rawls and Maritain, Alasdair MacIntyre does not propose an overlapping political consensus model. Instead, he provides a persuasive philosophical explanation for the inevitable failure of this kind of model. MacIntyre's theory of "tradition-constituted rationality" explains why a large-scale, morally robust political order cannot be effected in a society of deep pluralism. As MacIntyre's theory suggests, the goal of any overlapping consensus should be the eradication of the ideological pluralism that necessitates it. It should aim to create the political conditions for the communal discovery and political establishment of that unifying tradition within which political justice can most effectively be obtained.; Nevertheless, MacIntyre's philosophical thought is ultimately inadequate to the task of providing a coherent and effective model for the ideal political order attainable in a pluralistic society. The thesis of this dissertation is that political philosophy itself is inadequate for this task: both political philosophy and political theology are required.