• Young children often ask profound questions, revealing an innate curiosity about philosophical concepts.
• This early philosophical spirit can fade, so the taste for philosophy must be rediscovered later in life.
• Philosophical inquiry is often sparked by specific experiences or contingencies.
• For instance, adolescents might explore ethical questions through conflicts with authority, such as parental rules.
• These conflicts raise questions about authority, respect, and the nature of right and wrong.
• Ethics encompasses these questions, and many people initially engage with philosophy through basic ethical issues.
• Political life also brings philosophical questions to the forefront, such as debates over authority, liberty, and justice.
• Authoritarian regimes and democratic systems alike prompt reflections on ethical and political philosophy.
• Many philosophical questions are not new; they have been debated for millennia.
• Studying political philosophy involves engaging with historical debates and theories.
• The history of philosophy, from ancient Greeks to modern thinkers, provides valuable insights and perspectives.
• Reading historical philosophical texts can be enlightening and liberating, offering diverse viewpoints.
• This book will focus on the central questions and leading theories of political philosophy, rather than its history.
• It will also explore the methodology of political philosophy and the relationship between theory and judgment in ethics.

The methods of ethics and political philosophy

A methodological impasse?

• Consider a scenario where a sheriff, guided by utilitarianism, punishes an innocent person to prevent greater harm from a rioting mob.
• The sheriff believes that his action is justified because it maximizes overall welfare, even though it involves harming an innocent person.
• A critic argues that the sheriff’s action is wrong due to its inherent injustice, regardless of the overall benefits achieved.
• This presents a dilemma: should we accept the sheriff’s utilitarian theory despite its justification of unjust actions, or reject the theory because it violates a fundamental principle against punishing the innocent?
• The core issue is methodological, involving how we evaluate moral theories and principles.
• One approach, ‘particularist,’ views moral theories as systematizations of our moral judgments. It prioritizes our intuitive judgments about right and wrong over the theoretical framework.
• According to this view, if a theory leads to judgments that conflict with our deeply held principles (e.g., punishing the innocent), we may reject or revise the theory.
• Another approach, ‘foundationalist,’ sees moral theory as a means to validate or generate moral principles. This view holds that theories like utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, or Divine Command Theory should guide our moral judgments.
• Foundationalist theories are used to assess and potentially revise our intuitions and principles based on the theory’s framework.
• This approach suggests that a robust theory could resolve dilemmas like the one posed by the sheriff’s actions by providing a coherent basis for moral principles.
• The speaker, however, doubts the success of foundationalist projects, suggesting that such comprehensive theories may be unattainable.
• There are two main conceptions of moral theory:
  • Particularist: Views moral theories as systems that systematize and explain our moral judgments.
  • Foundationalist: Sees moral theory as a way to validate or generate moral principles, which can then guide and potentially revise our judgments.
• These conceptions reflect broader disputes in political philosophy about methods and approaches.
• Hegel noted that modern individuals often adopt a stance of ‘subjective will,’ where they believe principles or institutions should be valid only if perceived as rational by themselves.
• This approach can be described as individualist or liberal and echoes Kant’s idea of a critical age where all principles must be subjected to scrutiny.
• An individualist or liberal approach involves stepping outside of personal or institutional biases to assess moral and political principles objectively.
• For example, questioning personal obligations to family or legal obligations might involve detaching from these roles to evaluate their legitimacy.
• Seventeenth-century philosophers, such as Hobbes and Locke, examined the legitimacy of political authority by hypothetically removing existing structures and questioning whether rational agents would establish such authority.
• This method, rooted in skepticism, requires a theory to test the validity of principles and institutions.
• Such individualist scrutiny often assumes a universal moral status for individuals, including liberty, equality, and basic needs like survival.
• This approach is often labeled as liberalism due to its emphasis on individual rights and rational evaluation.
• The detached, critical stance of individuals in this approach may also be termed atomism, suggesting that society is made up of independent, rational agents.
• Care should be taken when using philosophical labels, as they can be misleading or overly simplistic.

• The communitarian view rejects the idea of a completely abstracted self. It argues that our moral constitution is deeply embedded in our personalities and identities. Our moral intuitions and views on living well are shaped by our social contexts and cannot be easily detached from them. Gender, family structures, tribal affiliations, religious beliefs, and regional environmental conditions all influence our moral perspectives. This dense network of attachments and ties creates what Hegel called ‘ethical life’ and ‘ethical substance,’ which are integral to our identities.

• This debate echoes historical philosophical contrasts. Plato proposed a utopian vision of justice, while Aristotle described practical institutions necessary for human flourishing. Kant sought a detached, universal standpoint of reason, whereas Hegel emphasized understanding principles and institutions rooted in historical contexts.

• Methodological disputes are reflected in the individualist and communitarian perspectives. The individualist view is characterized as ‘radical’ because it subjects all beliefs and institutions to critical review, seeking a theoretical stance to validate principles and practices according to higher values. The communitarian view is labeled ‘conservative’ because it accepts the entrenched moral categories and institutions within society, emphasizing the validity of moral self-description rooted in socialization and rejecting the possibility of a fully detached theoretical perspective.

• The methodological approaches of foundationalism and particularism align with these perspectives. Foundationalists seek to validate and generate moral principles, while particularists base their approach on existing moral judgments and principles. The individualist aligns with a top-down approach, focusing on theoretical validation, while the communitarian adopts a bottom-up approach, emphasizing the values and institutions constituting their historical identity.

Reflective equilibrium

• To address the sheriff’s dilemma, expanding the information available for judgment is a first approach. More data might help align theory and intuition by revealing that the sheriff’s action, while seemingly justifiable in the short term, could have broader negative consequences, such as eroding public trust if his practice of framing innocents became known.

• Another approach is to review and potentially revise the theory itself. This might involve limiting the ambitions of the utilitarian theory to incorporate principles of retributive justice. While this results in a more complex theoretical structure, it may offer a more nuanced understanding of decision-making across various cases.

• Additionally, the critic’s principle regarding the punishment of the innocent can be reassessed. The critic may be persuaded by scenarios where the inevitability of wrongful convictions in any criminal justice system forces a reconsideration of the principle. Recognizing that no system can guarantee against wrongful convictions might lead to a more flexible view of the principle.

• The discussion highlights two main issues in ethical methodology. The first is the philosopher who insists on finding a high-level ethical theory to test and validate all lower-level principles, which can be seen as unrealistic or overly idealistic. The second is the belief in unalterable moral principles or intuitions that resist correction or contextual understanding, which can be rigid and unreflective of real-world complexities.

• The balance between bottom-up and top-down approaches in moral theory is crucial. The bottom-up approach involves collecting judgments from particular cases to develop principles that reflect these judgments. With a set of principles, the aim is to identify common features and propose a more general theory of ethics, improving our understanding of human activities.

• The top-down approach seeks to refine our intellectual framework by starting with a core insight into morality. Modern theories include utilitarianism, which focuses on well-being and alleviation of suffering; Kantian ethics, emphasizing rationality and autonomy; and contractualism, which deals with conflict resolution and justification to others. These insights form the basis of general theories used to review judgments and principles.

• Both strategies—bottom-up and top-down—are used in practice. We evaluate actions based on principles and assess principles in light of their implications. The ideal of aligning theory, principles, and judgments is known as “reflective equilibrium,” a concept proposed by John Rawls.

• In reality, achieving reflective equilibrium is challenging due to imperfect information and variable judgment. The process requires continual adjustment as new facts and implications are considered. This ongoing effort reflects the enduring nature of ethical inquiry.

• An optimistic approach seeks reconciliation through reflective equilibrium. However, this reconciliation must also address the tensions between individualist and communitarian perspectives. While the caricatured representations of these positions may illuminate key elements, a deeper critique is necessary.

• Communitarian accounts must be scrutinized, particularly when they defend practices that seem indefensible, such as slavery or forced conversion. The deep cultural and historical roots of such practices do not protect them from criticism. Unreflective adherence to moral principles or institutions should not shield them from challenge.

• Even deeply entrenched practices and beliefs are subject to scrutiny and potential change. There should be a critical examination of the false beliefs underpinning these practices, and the possibility of reform should be considered for those holding problematic views.

• Despite contempt for cruelty and wickedness, one should maintain methodological modesty in moral judgments. Individualism, as characterized, relies on a conception of typical human wants and values, which is subject to debate.

• Philosophers like Hobbes and Locke provided frameworks for understanding human nature and morality, but these frameworks are debatable. Hobbes focused on the universal desire to avoid death and live well, while Locke emphasized natural rights and the law of nature, which are also contested.

• Just as communities can disseminate errors, individualists can base their critical positions on principles that are difficult to defend. Critics should expect that their stance may also be controversial and fallible.

• A model for addressing these issues involves recognizing our historical and philosophical inheritance. We inherit a complex moral and social framework structured by rules and institutions.

• We view ourselves and others through categories with moral significance, such as personal responsibility, respect for rights, autonomy, and duty. These categories shape how we interact and what we expect from others.

• Hegel’s perspective suggests that our moral understanding is a structured cluster of principles expressed through institutions, with the law being prominent. These principles guide how we should act and be acted upon.

• The complexity of this moral framework necessitates careful philosophical inquiry. We must examine and articulate the conception of the self and the values associated with it, ensuring that these elements cohere and address potential conflicts.

• The goal of ethics and political philosophy is not to find a singular foundational touchstone but to describe, explain, and systematize our political values. This involves scrutinizing our inherited beliefs for contradictions and inconsistencies.

• A moderate skepticism is valuable, recognizing that while community demands may not always align with intellectual rigor, they provide a starting point for ethical inquiry and reflection.

Political philosophy

• Political philosophy can be approached in various ways, focusing on foundational theories to address key philosophical problems in political life.

• One approach involves studying theories like utilitarianism, natural law, natural rights theory, Kantian autonomy-based theories, contractualist theories, and no-theory theories, assessing their effectiveness in addressing political questions.

• Key questions include whether these theories justify the state’s authority, determine the optimal constitutional form, outline the proper extent of political power, and provide accounts of justice regarding ownership, benefits, and burdens.

• Alternatively, one could start by stating political problems in detail and identifying theories that best address these issues, based on our intuitions and pre-existing answers.

• The approach will be twofold: examining foundational theories and evaluating problems to find suitable theories.

• Chapter 1 will focus on utilitarianism due to its historical significance and detailed development, despite its decline in popularity among philosophers.

• Utilitarianism, with roots in the works of Hume, Bentham, and J.S. Mill, has been refined and criticized extensively. Its practical application in politics and criticism, especially regarding environmental policy, underscores its relevance.

• Understanding utilitarianism’s strengths and weaknesses is crucial for evaluating alternative theories, such as those developed by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice.

• The first part of Chapter 2 outlines the structure and main variants of utilitarian theory, addressing significant criticisms and detailing utilitarian responses.

• The second part focuses on political elements of utilitarianism, discussing its views on central political values like liberty, rights, and justice in distribution.

• The chapter concludes with a brief examination of utilitarian perspectives on political obligation and the case for democracy.

• In the following chapters, the philosophical credentials of key political ideals will be explored in depth.

• Chapter 3 investigates the value of liberty, highlighting its complexities and controversial aspects. It will address whether liberty is a value, why it might be considered so, and explore various influential interpretations.

• The chapter will clarify the conceptual background of liberty, its institutional requirements, its role in democratic processes, and principles governing the legitimate restraint of liberty.

• Chapter 4 tackles issues related to the notion of rights, including the analysis of rights claims, terminology, and philosophical contributions from figures like Bentham and Locke.

• It will examine individual and group rights, justifications for rights claims, and the effectiveness of different philosophical approaches, including autonomy and utilitarian arguments.

• The chapter will critically assess the utilitarian argument for rights, exploring its strengths and potential weaknesses.

• A notable perspective, the no-theory theory, will be considered, suggesting that the success of rights claims comes from historical practice and the recognition of all individuals as rights bearers.

• Chapter 5:

  • Examine Robert Nozick’s entitlement theory of property distribution.
  • Critique its inability to justify property claims and redistributive challenges.
  • Discuss principles of distributive justice:
    • Need: requires careful analysis.
    • Equality: review different matrices.
    • Desert: “earn what you keep” principle, with merits and shortcomings.
    • Fairness: John Rawls’s theory of justice, its contributions to allocation.
  • Consider F.A. Hayek’s rejection of social justice.

• Chapter 6:

  • Explore political obligation: legitimacy of state commands and citizens’ duties.
  • Historical context: Socrates’s decision on accepting his sentence.
  • Examine skeptical views:
    • Anarchism: state as immoral and unnecessary.
    • Communitarianism: state’s authority beyond critique.
  • Consent argument: express vs. tacit consent and challenges in democratic contexts.

• Further arguments are needed for the state to justify coercion.

  • Hypothetical consent and hypothetical contract: evaluate modern statements.
  • H.L.A. Hart’s Principle of Fairness: those benefiting from cooperation should contribute to its maintenance.
  • Tacit consent: responses are complex.
  • Argument from gratitude: conditions for successful application are stringent.

• Chapter 7:

  • Discuss the role of democracy in justifying political participation and obligations.
  • Review Rousseau’s theory of the general will and its challenges.
  • Compare direct vs. representative democracy: Rousseau’s view on direct democracy and potential need for representative models.
  • Address dangers of majority tyranny: complexities and philosophical issues.
  • Evaluate deliberative democracy: claims for resolving moral disagreements and the reality of moral pluralism.
  • Conclude that achieving substantial agreement may be unrealistic, and democracy may require coercion to defend against dangerous causes.