Conflict Theories

According to Karl Marx in all stratified societies there are two major social groups: a ruling

class and a subject class. The ruling class derives its power from its ownership and control of

the forces of production. The ruling class exploits and oppresses the subject class. As a result

there is a basic conflict of interest between the two classes. The various institutions of society

such as the legal and political system are instruments of ruling class domination and serve to

further its interests. Marx believed that western society developed through four main epochs-

primitive communism, ancient society, feudal society and capitalist society.

Primitive communism is represented by the societies of pre-history and provides the only

example of the classless society. From then all societies are divided into two major classes -

master and slaves in ancient society, lords and serfs in feudal society and capitalist and wage

labourers in capitalist society. Weber sees class in economic terms. He argues that classes

develop in market economies in which individuals compete for economic gain. He defines a

class as a group of individuals who share a similar position in market economy and by virtue

of that fact receive similar economic rewards. Thus a person's class situation is basically his

market situation. Those who share a similar class situation also share similar life chances.

Their economic position will directly affect their chances of obtaining those things defined as

desirable in their society. Weber argues that the major class division is between those who

own the forces of production and those who do not. He distinguished the following class

grouping in capitalist society:

The propertied upper class

The property less white collar workers
The petty bourgeoisie
The manual working class.

A consensus theory of truth is any theory of truth that refers to

a concept of consensus as a part of its concept of truth.
Consensus gentium
An ancient criterion of truth, the consensus gentium (Latin for agreement of the peoples), states
"that which is universal among men carries the weight of truth" (Ferm, 64). A number of
consensus theories of truth are based on variations of this principle. In some criteria the notion of
universal consent is taken strictly, while others qualify the terms of consensus in various ways.
There are versions of consensus theory in which the specific population weighing in on a given
question, the proportion of the population required for consent, and the period of time needed to
declare consensus vary from the classical norm.

Consensus as a regulative ideal

A descriptive theory is one that tells how things are, while a normative theory tells how things
ought to be. Expressed in practical terms, a normative theory, more properly called a policy, tells
agents how they ought to act. A policy can be an absolute imperative, telling agents how they
ought to act in any case, or it can be a contingent directive, telling agents how they ought to
act if they want to achieve a particular goal. A policy is frequently stated in the form of a piece of
advice called a heuristic, a maxim, a norm, a rule, a slogan, and so on. Other names for a policy
are a recommendation and a regulative principle.

A regulative ideal can be expressed in the form of a description, but what it describes is an ideal
state of affairs, a condition of being that constitutes its aim, end, goal, intention, or objective. It is
not the usual case for the actual case to be the ideal case, or else there would hardly be much
call for a policy aimed at achieving an ideal.

Corresponding to the distinction between actual conditions and ideal conditions there is a
distinction between actual consensus and ideal consensus. A theory of truth founded on a notion
of actual consensus is a very different thing from a theory of truth founded on a notion of ideal
consensus. Moreover, an ideal consensus may be ideal in several different ways. The state of
consensus may be ideal in its own nature, conceived in the matrix of actual experience by way of
intellectual operations like abstraction, extrapolation, and limit formation. Or the conditions under
which the consensus is conceived to be possible may be formulated as idealizations of actual
conditions. A very common type of ideal consensus theory refers to a community that is an
idealization of actual communities in one or more respects.

Critique of consensus theories

It is very difficult to find any philosopher of note who asserts a bare, naive, or pure consensus
theory of truth, in other words, a treatment of truth that is based on actual consensus in an actual
community without further qualification. One obvious critique is that not everyone agrees to
consensus theory, implying that it may not be true by its own criteria. Another problem is defining
how we know that consensus is achieved without falling prey to an infinite regress. Even if
everyone agrees to a particular proposition, we may not know that it is true until everyone agrees
that everyone agrees to it. Bare consensus theories are frequent topics of discussion, however,
evidently because they serve the function of reference points for the discussion of alternative
theories.