What concept does Rawls argue against in the context of reasonable pluralism?

John Rawls, in his theory of justice and reasonable pluralism, argues that while human beings will inevitably engage in moral discussions due to the diversity of beliefs and values in society, they must learn to coexist and find principles of justice that everyone can accept, regardless of their differing moral perspectives. This acknowledgment of the coexistence of various moral viewpoints highlights the importance of engaging in moral dialogue while not necessarily resolving every disagreement to reach a consensus.

Rawls believes that the reality of reasonable pluralism means that individuals may hold fundamentally different, yet reasonable, moral beliefs. This does not imply that we should abandon discussions about morality; instead, it reinforces the idea that moral engagement is a fundamental part of human society, even amidst disagreement. Each individual's reasoning contributes to the ongoing discourse about justice and the principles that guide our social institutions.

The other options imply a more restrictive view of moral and ethical discussion. They suggest either an unrealistic adherence to a single moral viewpoint, an insistence on resolving every conflict, or an idea that moral consensus is crucial, which does not align with Rawls's recognition of the validity of diverse moral perspectives in a pluralistic society.