• Home
  • About us
  • Contact Us
  • Date/Time
  • Login
  • Subscribe

logo

  • Home
  • Politics
  • Economics & Finance
  • World
  • Arts & Books
  • Life
  • Science
  • Philosophy
  • Subscribe
  • Events
Home
  • Home
  • Blogs
  • Politics
  • Economics & Finance
  • World
  • Arts & Books
  • Life
  • Science
  • Philosophy
  • Subscribe
  • Events
  • Home
  • Arts & Books

What’s the point of political philosophy?

Beware attempts to make political theory "relevant"

by Alex Worsnip / May 17, 2013 / Leave a comment
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Email

In majority-Sikh societies, a law making it compulsory to wear a motorcycle helmet would go against the will of the people. Are principles of justice universal or contextual? © Flickmor

It is a near-truism that philosophy operates at a remove from the “real world.” Many philosophers suppose that the answers to questions in logic, epistemology and metaphysics are independent of particular empirical facts about how human society happens to be set up. But what about ethics and political philosophy? How far should philosophers concerned with these areas take into account the messy reality of everyday life?

Not far at all, says one venerable tradition that dates back at least to Kant in the 18th century, and probably as far as Plato. From this perspective, the job of ethics and political philosophy is to work out how things ought to be. This need not be closely related to how things actually are. For the philosopher trying to imagine the ideal society or specify the nature of virtue, engaging in detail with the world in its current state (or in its historical forms) may be unnecessary or even unhelpful.

This traditional picture, however, has always had its detractors. In recent years the attack has been led by a group identifying themselves as “political realists,” counting amongst their number philosophers such as Raymond Geuss and the late Bernard Williams. According to the realists, the traditional picture risks making political philosophy both irrelevant and falsely universalistic, mistakenly supposing that the same abstract principles are applicable to societies of radically different kinds. Realists have singled out many of the most prominent political philosophers of the 20th century—John Rawls, Robert Nozick, Ronald Dworkin and GA Cohen—for particular scorn.

The realist critique of these philosophers—let’s call them, by contrast, the “idealists”— encompasses a number of distinct charges, not all of which sit well together. One criticism is that the idealists’ abstract theories of justice are insufficiently engaged with real politics. Another related accusation is that their demands are unrealistic, standing no chance of being implemented. Another common charge, although a very different line of attack, is that idealists—Rawls in particular—are apologists for the political status quo, cooking up a convenient justification for the US’s particular brand of liberal democracy. Finally, the realists sometimes seem sceptical about the whole project of formulating theories of justice, suspecting that such theories are merely ideological devices that obscure power relations, or that there is in fact no universal theory of justice independent of particular societies and their convictions. They argue that trying to design a single political theory to apply to, say, Britain, China and Morocco—not to mention the political cultures of the past—is hopelessly naive.

YOU'VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don't worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we'll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we'll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party.
You can unsubscribe from the Prospect e-mail newsletter at any time.

DEBUG messsage: regular

Related articles

Kwame Anthony Appiah: Our thinking is grounded in false assumptions—but that's no bad thing
Sameer Rahim / September 1, 2017
Idealisation can serve a purpose—even in fields like physics
Secularism is under attack worldwide—we must defend it
Andrew Copson / September 8, 2017
From Turkey to Trump's America, the principles of secularism are under threat. We all...
Share with friends
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Email

Comments

  1. Alyson
    May 17, 2013 at 19:38
    'If, like Miller, you think that there need not be such deeper universal principles underlying particular prescriptions, what does make such prescriptions appropriate in one context but not another? For example, Miller suggests that even basic democratic principles are not applicable in some societies. Since formulating political principles is about articulating our convictions, says Miller, democratic principles may be inappropriate in a society where people do not support democracy. And this is not just a hypothetical scenario: recent polling data suggests that democracy does not always find popular support—even in countries such as Libya which have been portrayed as swept up in recent pro-democracy movements.'Rights to basic equality, self-determination and freedom of speech, enshrined in law, are pre-requisites for effective democracy. As soon as a theocracy or one-party system denies some elements of the population any of these three pre-requisites, then rule of law is not open to improvement, to universal human rights or multi-culturalism.It is easy to stifle dissent when the penalties are too high to mount an effective challenge to the ruling cadres.
  2. Ramesh Raghuvanshi
    May 18, 2013 at 07:32
    What may philosopher wrote that one his unconscious autobiography.All philosophers are wrote about ideal society which they want to be come in reality. that one is compelled on them from readers.All readers are expected guidance from philosopher how live on earth.From Plato to Sartre .spread illusion in society.If they tell the truth people may stone them.Just consider how many generation of west abused to Machiavelli because he told truth.spoke on reality
  3. John Black
    May 18, 2013 at 11:38
    David Miller says that our sense of justice is a human construct. The human eye is not a human construct. Are altruism and concern for others human constructs? We seem to share these impulses with other mammals and without them human society and species survival seem unlikely.
  4. Greg McColm
    May 18, 2013 at 17:16
    Actually, "realism" in political philosophy goes back to Thomas Hobbes and Machiavelli, and their are signs of it in Aristotle and Han Fei. Meanwhile, this looks like a debate over situation ethics (what should we do given the situation) than political philosophy (what is really happening?).
  5. Charles
    May 19, 2013 at 03:03
    If you think Plato didn't concern himself with the messiness of the reality of politics as his wrote his Republic and Laws, the you haven't read either book ver well. A primary concern in the "rule if philosophers" is whether this is even possible. At the very least consider the diminution of Eros in the Republic and how Plato uses prisoners at the center of his government in the "nocturnal counsel" in The Laws.
  6. Steve
    May 19, 2013 at 05:40
    Democracy is not defined here sufficiently for the needs of the whole point. Masses want to rule just as much as elites. Rulers want to vanquish their competitors, definitely not give anywhere near "equal treatment" to others. Where the real bone of contention is; how do you let them live? That's a fact not only in the US, but in more equitable environs (like Scandinavia) too. The popular power of religion in over 2/3d of the global population, clearly proves the widespread desire to be above "oth-ers". Racial, ethnic, regional inferiority theories form alliances. Funny that motorcycle helmet laws are at the top of the message. They were hugely unpopular among riders in the US, (including myself, though I always wore mine when going faster than app. 30 mph (48 kmph) but big money rammed it through legislation. Curiously, that may tell me why I live in a first world democracy: the majority is somewhat balanced by big money. Having come from the killing fields of Europe, I've seen enough to believe majority rule needs counter-weight if the minority is to survive. Unchecked majority rule (democracy?) crashes, and it's not pretty. Look at the third Reich, USSR, Napoleon, etc. They didn't have the majority you say? Hmm. I've seen two of them close up; when things went well: most, nearly all, were for it. Just like the US voter in my 56 years here, one war after another. Domestic, (drugs, crime, poverty (there's a good one), and many more, and foreign. Granada; Yeaa. Vietnam; Boo. So let's not even begin to talk about Democracy, Freedom, and other buzzwords. FDR (Eleanor?) defined four freedoms. Today, Obama rides roughshod over the first; freedom of speech. (Manning? Wiki?) Heads of state, any state, give marching orders to armies of lackeys persecuting dissidents. It's a fact. Democracy, =majority votes, = command of the state armies (too numerous to mention) to the powerful; the moneyed, the popular, the vote getter. What is Democracy?
  7. James
    May 19, 2013 at 10:24
    A fantastic read. Bravo.
  8. Sand
    May 19, 2013 at 10:44
    Instead of assuming absolutes of the rights to conform or not conform to various traditions, religious or otherwise, it might be worthwhile to consider the possible results of enforcement of particular behavior. Society can accept various illogical traditions if they cause no harm. If Sikhs wear no helmets while motorcycling, do they have a sizable injury and death rate over those who do wear helmets and is this acceptable among Sikhs? And if the rates are higher, then, justifiably Sikhs should have a higher insurance rate for a motorcycle license to cover the cost of disability and thereby relieve society in general of the extra costs and in cases of accidents there should be some acceptable prejudice against Sikhs in reparations for head injuries because of the lack of helmets. Various dangerous sports are tolerated in society as long as health and medical costs for these indulgences are not put on the rest of society.
  9. lloyd667
    May 19, 2013 at 13:07
    Well, I stumbled pretty early on, at the example of violation of religious principles. Why would motorcycle helmets be illigitmate if the violate religious principles, but legitimate if not? On what philisophical principle, in other words, would we, as a "fundamental" matter, place religious belief above, say, a personal taste for riding without a helmet? Fundamentally, the proposition is nothing more than begging the question.And this is not an isolated example. Exactly thevsame comment applies, mutatis mutandis, to the examples of charity and racial discrimination. In all cases, what is to be proved is simply assumed.Maybe the author is just talking down to us plebs, rather than providing arguments that are legitimate but "too difficult". If so, the article is a waste of paper. Or, maybe the author is accurately characterizing the state of political philosophy. if so, the article is quite the eye opener, and I would conclude that political philosophy departments should be shut down.
  10. Saksin
    May 19, 2013 at 20:22
    I find it revealing that so much of this thoughtful article deals with the influence of political philosophy and ethics, with "its aspirations to reform both our sense of what justice is and our concrete political system," as the author puts it. If these philosophers cared more for understanding and explaining moral convictions, precepts, and systems, rather than for reforming, promulgating or advocating them (ultimately recommending policy) they might end up contributing to moral clarity rather than to academic controversy. They might then also find that though there obviously cannot be a theory of justice "independent of us", there very likely can be one specific to us. That is, it would be specific to us in our capacity of human beings as opposed to pigs or asses, as already Heraclitus recognized when he penned his immortal lines "Pigs delight in mire rather than in clean water", and "Asses would choose chaff rather than gold" The standard of comparison in both cases is of course human beings: We are the ones who would choose clean water and gold, and the differences ultimately come down to the different biological natures of the species in question. That the contrasting natures of biological species, which extend into their psychologies through the differing needs and consequent motivational structures, preferences and choices that derive from those contrasts, that such things should have nothing to do with the subject matter of political philosophy and ethics, seem implausible on the face of it. To explore what that relevance might in fact be, one would have to know what convictions human beings actually hold in these areas, along the lines of the cross-cultural studies of the psychological bases of morality pursued by Jonathan Haidt and others. The most general patterns in these matters can then be pursued as provisional candidates for moral derivatives of our species-specific human nature.
  11. Barry Cooper
    May 19, 2013 at 23:50
    A lot of gobbledy-gook disappears when you do two things: 1) assume progress is possible; and 2) define in what it would consist.The foundational problem philosophers--so-called--have, that plumbers do not, is that they don't know what they are trying to do, and don't know when they get there. Obviously, they spill a lot of words, but at what point does ANYONE insist that there be a real world consequence of their having lived and worked?Our civilization is imploding under the weight of bad ideas, ideas which are created and promulgated by people for whom being RELEVANT, much less useful, is of only marginal interest.In my view, I have solved these problems. I have an essay on my website, which should be linked, which deals with the nature of what I choose for simplicities' sake to call Goodness.I would ask, as well, a general question: if you are neither building Goodness, nor even trying to define it in a useful way, in what respect are you not a waste of space and talent?
  12. Klaus
    May 20, 2013 at 21:27
    On reading this, I'm struck by the fact that Miller seems to be taking the same sort of adolescent relativist line that I refute every year in my Introduction to Philosophy classes. Facile, and not worthy of debate with Gerry Cohen!
  13. IVAN TIRCUIT SR.
    May 20, 2013 at 23:21
    Very balanced insights. Excellent Read.
  14. Ted Schrey Montreal
    May 21, 2013 at 19:07
    Right from the start of reading this piece I 'm tripping myself up by distinguishing between 'political philosophy', the philosophy of politics' and something I can only call 'the politics of philosophy'--without having the vaguest idea what these concepts mean.The best I can do so far is to hook into the comment that '...justice is a human invention', an idea that seems to me so obvious that I have a hard time taking alternative suggestions seriously. Of course I also assume religions are a human invention. But let me continue to read, so I may or may not learn something.
  15. Ted Schrey Montreal
    May 21, 2013 at 19:38
    Before immersing myself in further reading, what never fails to stick in my craw, or in a place very close to it, is the idea that people are/want to be 'tolerant' and 'sensitive' to diverging norms or customs by creating or allowing conditions in which other, presumably equally tolerant and sensitive folk can persist in being apparently less than fully tolerant and sensitive in turn. What's that all about?
  16. Mark
    May 22, 2013 at 01:23
    The philosopher with the biggest claim to realism was Karl Marx. But he was also the philosopher who broke with deductive logic. Moving beyond philosophy as a description of how we currently think was a conscious project for Marx but it came with the cost of allowing a subjective rather than objective test of 'truth'. The above is an interesting piece but really, the real challenge for political philosophy is how to take its 'oughts' seriously when it can't properly establish the essence of the thing itself.
  17. Ted Schrey Montreal
    May 22, 2013 at 23:16
    Whoww, this is a good read, say I, entirely unversed in pol phil.Truth, like all abstractions (love, justice, progress etc), has the sharp, solid outlines of a mirage, which provides a reassuring boost to our convictions and beliefs (incl. religious faith). When we get coser to reality or context, though, it begins to look different.
  18. Ted Schrey Montreal
    May 22, 2013 at 23:31
    'coser' in my previous pensee is better written and pronounced as 'closer'.By way of variant: abstractions are absolutes, it seems to me, and as such a source of constant conflict in human affairs.
  19. Alyson
    May 23, 2013 at 15:39
    'Miller’s book raises one final, more pessimistic, question. Does the exact methodology of political philosophy really affect its chance of influencing political practice? It is true that a more “realistic” set of demands will be more relevant in the sense that they could be implemented if anyone were listening, but the reality is that, with the possible exception of a few very high-profile figures such as Rawls, most political philosophers do not influence public policy to a great degree'Is political philosophy description or prescription? Is it comparative or does it seek a deeper underpinning to offer to political systems?Montesquieu, in his 'Esprit de Lois' 1748, proposed the political institutions of England as a model to the government of the continent. He was clear that its effectiveness lay in its mixed, or moderate, constitution, which combined the distinctive principles of monarchy, aristocracy and democracy, while also ensuring that a clear separation existed between the legislature, the executive and the judicature. [Halevy, 1924, A History of the English People]
  20. Ted Schrey Montreal
    May 23, 2013 at 16:58
    "...there's only reason to be tolerant if tolerance has a value that is not itself relative"is an assertion I am still grappling with. What could it mean, beyond being cutely semantic? One is tolerant to avoid or escape confrontation; or being tolerant expresses an appreciation of the rights and desires of others.The 'not itself relative' part of tolerance escapes me, except perhaps as a sign that when one comes to the end of tolerance there will be an absolute change in attitude. But then one no longer talks about tolerance.
  21. Ted Schrey Montreal
    May 24, 2013 at 03:55
    One last point. The reviewer opines that "...the notion of our beliefs about justice being distorted by bias does not...make sense if there is no justice independent of our beliefs, as Milder's claim...justice is a human invention implies", explaining further that "Things can only be distorted if there is a truth to distort".I find this reasoning impenetrable.The opinions on what I take to be justice by the U.S.Supreme Court, e.g., can in many cases be perused as to whether a conservative or a liberal judge is pronouncing. The 'literalists', so-called, pretend to understand what the writers of the Constitution intended. They were Earthlings, it is generally assumed. The Judges are Earthlings too, although sometimes you wonder.
  22. Gordon Simmons
    May 24, 2013 at 18:43
    Guess I'm with Nietzsche & Sartre: Yeah, humans create (make up) values. Why is knowing that ever a reason not to keep on doing it?
  23. Rational Hoplite
    May 28, 2013 at 02:33
    Perhaps one baby-step in the right direction (for a contextualist) is: While we're abandoning the pursuit of a (non-contextual? transcendental?) theory of justice, let us each worry more about the political/legislative/judicial condition of our own nation (state, county, city, town), and less about the polities or domains of others. Not my polity, no my problem -- that's my motto. (When their polity is a security threat to my polity, however...)And there's the rub. Red-in-tooth-and-claw political realism (or contextualism), however, doesn't seem to have a fighting chance. The popular and persuasive rhetoric of human rights, the mission-creep of the WHO, and the thriving aid/humanitarian relief industry all rest upon (or: take for granted) a number or normative universals. Many Westerners like - or seem to like - some of these wannabe universal moral truisms, even if (apropos of domestic matters) they self-describe as realists/contextualists. But so long as Westerns/Western nations believe in the duty to now and then wag fingers at the norms, folkways, policies, and prejudices of other peoples, contextualism will itself always be pointing to an ideal.
  24. Anjum Altaf
    July 12, 2013 at 12:44
    Alex: I am not a philosopher. That may be the reason it seemed obvious to me that a theory of justice that did not factor in the reality of power would be of little use for activists.I came to this conclusion after reading Sen's The Idea of Justice. My concern was expressed in the following:http://thesouthasianidea.wordpress.com/2009/10/18/justice-power-and-truth/Of course, not being a philosopher, I may be completely off the wall here.
  25. hypertrophy workouts
    September 19, 2013 at 07:53
    Very quickly this website will be famous amid all blog people, due to it's fastidious content

Prospect's free newsletter

The big ideas that are shaping our world—straight to your inbox. PLUS a free e-book and 7 articles of your choosing on the Prospect website.

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party.

This Month's Magazine

Perspiciatis unde omnis iste natus.

Should we be worried about tech giants? In this month's issue, John Naughton explains how they've created a new surveillance capitalism. Plus: Samira Shackle on collective punishment after Islamic State, Shahidha Bari on monstrous men and Salman Rushdie answers our questions.

Subscribe

Most Popular

  • Read
  • Commented

What does Momentum really want?

The new surveillance capitalism

As Western politics is reshaped by hatred, cosmopolitans mustn't become part of the problem

If David Cameron had asked the right question on Brexit, Remain could have won

The Brexit struggle awaiting Theresa May in 2018

5 Comments

Diane James: Nigel Farage is wrong to consider a second EU referendum

3 Comments

The great globalisation lie

3 Comments

Remainers need to start telling a better story

3 Comments

The new surveillance capitalism

2 Comments

About this author

Alex Worsnip
Alex Worsnip is a doctoral student and Teaching Fellow in philosophy at Yale University. Follow him on twitter @AWorsnip
More by this author

More by Alex Worsnip

John D Caputo's truth problems
January 10, 2014
Arguing against gay marriage
January 30, 2013
Against pragmatism
December 29, 2012

Next Prospect events

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Fergal Keane

    London, 2018-04-16

  • Details

    One year to go—Is Britain ready for Brexit?

    London, 2018-03-29

  • Details

    Prospect Book Club—Pankaj Mishra

    London, 2018-03-19

See more events

Sponsored features

  • Today’s manufacturing workforce challenge

  • Britain's transport infrastructure: A new vision

  • Brexit Britain: the future of industry

  • Opportunity and need for a new phase of development policy towards the occupied Palestinian territory

  • Beyond the bank

PrimeTime

Prospect was originally founded by Editor David Goodhart and Publisher Derek Coombs, as a home for intelligent debate. The magazine is owned and supported by the Resolution Group, as part of its not-for-profit, public interest activities. The aim is to tackle the big challenges confronting society, through rigorous thinking and fine writing.

Follow us
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • RSS

Editorial

Editor: Tom Clark
Deputy Editor: Steve Bloomfield
Executive Editor: Jay Elwes
Managing Editor (Arts & Books): Sameer Rahim
Head of Digital: Stephanie Boland
Deputy Digital Editor: Alex Dean
Design: Mike Turner
Production Editor: Chris Tilbury
US Writer-at-Large: Sam Tanenhaus

Commercial

Commercial Director: Alex Stevenson
Finance Manager: Pauline Joy
Head of Marketing: Paul Mortimer
Marketing and Circulations Executive: James Hawkins
Head of Research and Engagement: Saskia Perriard-Abdoh
Events Assistant: Megan Randles
Head of Advertising Sales: Adam Kinlan 020 3372 2934
Senior Account Manager: Richard Rowe 020 3372 2972
Senior Account Manager: Sophie Ryan 020 3372 2927
Account Manager: Scott Smith 020 3372 2931

  • Home
  • Advertising
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Acceptable Use Policy
© Prospect Publishing Limited
×
Login
Login with your subscriber account:
You need a valid subscription to login.
I am
Remember Me


Forgotten password?

Or enter with social networking:
Login to post comments using social media accounts.
  • With Twitter
  • Connect
  • With Google +
×
Register Now

Register today and access any 7 articles on the Prospect’swebsite for FREE in the next 30 days..
PLUS find out about the big ideas that will shape our world—with Prospect’s FREE newsletter sent to your inbox. We'll even send you our e-book—Writing with punch—with some of the finest writing from the Prospect archive, at no extra cost!

Not Now, Thanks

Prospect takes your privacy seriously. We promise never to rent or sell your e-mail address to any third party.
You can unsubscribe from the Prospect e-mail newsletter at any time.

×
You’ve got full access!

It looks like you are a Prospect subscriber.

Prospect subscribers have full access to all the great content on our website, including our entire archive.

If you do not know your login details, simply close this pop-up and click 'Login' on the black bar at the top of the screen, then click 'Forgotten password?', enter your email address and press 'Submit'. Your password will then be emailed to you.

Thank you for your support of Prospect and we hope that you enjoy everything the site has to offer.

This site uses cookies to improve the user experience. By using this site, you agree that we can set and use these cookies. For more details on the cookies we use and how to manage them, see our Privacy and Cookie Policy.