There’s a common and particularly annoying view often taken in defense of pluralism that sounds like this: There is no one “correct” answer and therefore many legitimate approaches, but here’s what I believe and why I believe it.

Daniel Sieradski of Radical Torah takes a similar position in describing the purpose of his blog.

The challenge of Radical Torah will be to demonstrate that a Left-wing religious Judaism is possible and legitimate as well. There is not one “correct” Judaism. Rather, there are several legitimate Judaisms from which to choose.

The problem is that Sieradski goes on to argue for what he considers to be left-wing religious Judaism. He’s then in the awkward position of supporting one view while conceding that there is no correct view. If there’s no correct view, then clearly his position isn’t correct either. And if it isn’t correct, why in the world is he arguing for it?

A common reply is to note the quotation marks around “correct”. He doesn’t actually mean that there’s no right answer, he might argue. It’s just that there no single “correct” or objectively true answer out there. Instead, there are various legitimate positions for us to choose from. But what criteria should use to decide? If we’re not trying to figure out an objective truth, then what are we doing? Sieradski says he’s choosing the “halakhic framework [that] resonates most strongly with [him].” If I criticize his position, though, I assume he would hold his ground and argue for why he believes it. by doing so, he effectively concedes that he believes his view has some advantage over mine.

He may respond that even granting me this point, he still doesn’t have to maintain that his view is absolutely correct. But that is besides the point. When he says that his view has an advantage over mine, he implies that it is therefore closer to the truth. And the only way for him to argue for his position is to make this kind of claim.

In the halakhic context, Sieradski might throw back at me what he says earlier in the same paragraph:

Between the 12 tribes of Israel and “70 faces of Torah,” there are indeed many “Judaisms.”

That is to say that Judaism itself recognizes some form of pluralism. I think that’s true but not in the way Sieradski means it. Judaism’s celebration of diversity and disagreement among the rabbis doesn’t mean that particular questions of law and ideology have no right answer. Rather, the disagreement itself - the act of deciphering God’s will - has a religious dimension. As long as this motive is present the disagreement is considered leshem shamayim (for the sake of heaven).