{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015174506828528073, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.106481481481482, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Pluralism in International Law: Warnings, Opportunities, and Queries

between ethics and morality are shared by at least an appreciable segment of society. If all peoples and societies accept Dworkin's notion of ethical independence—that many ways to live a good life exist across societies and within global society, and that political and legal systems should protect and support my right to live the life I choose, only if my practices are not reasonably rejectable by some other group—then standards of impartiality, reasonableness, and recognition respect may do the job. But conflicts between values may be so significant that giving some the freedom to pursue their own lives may be seen by others as unreasonable restrictions on their freedom. Some traditional societies may maintain comprehensive or perfectionist views incompatible with reasonable pluralism. I do not have good answers to this dilemma. It is a clash of ultimate moral standards. Political philosophy has immediate practical relevance in our efforts to dissolve the dilemma by focusing on what we all agree on—which is a great deal, and which we take for granted— and to continue to help us understand what it means to put equal dignity and respect for each person into practice in the design of important institutions like international law.