Summery Contemporary Social and Political Philosophy
Introduction (Shorten, 2016)
Political theory involves asking and trying to answer questions about how we ought to live
together. It is thus a normative enterprise, it is about how the world ought be, rather than
about how the world is, it has to do with values. Some believe the values/principles in
political theory (such as the principles of justice) are timeless and fact-free, while others
believe they depend on general facts about humanity and specific fast of certain groups and
peoples. Some people would argue normative claims are fruitless, since they cannot be tested.
Yet, John Rawls responded by saying that political theorists should move back and forth
between judgements and theories, between there is a reflective equilibrium (when one's
judgements about particular cases are consistent with general convictions and one's
philosophical views).
Political theory is about concepts, many of which are 'essentially contested', with
irresolvable disagreement, because the subject at stake is prone to constant revision and
question. This is by the way not to say that any definition of such an essentially contested
concept (such as justice) goes. Here Hart notes that people can agree on the concept (general
structure) while people disagree on conceptions.
Political theorists are engaged with questions about democracy, equality, freedom,
justice and rights. Historically, the most important questions political theorists asked had to do
with how to justify political rule/what is a legitimate government. This was the primary
concern of classical political theorists such as Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Hume and Kant.
With the development of capitalism, political theorists started to focus more on how to
distribute important social goods (political power, money, opportunities). Today, political
theorists are concerned with an even wider variety of questions.
Important in the development of political theory in the twentieth century is John
Rawls' work A theory of justice, in which Rawls develops his conception of a just society,
which reconciles freedom (for the individual) and equality (of opportunities). Rawls' work
inspired some disagreements during the 1980s, such as the liberal-communitarian debate.
Liberal societies equip individuals with the same set of rights, and gives them the freedom to
pursue their own ends. Communitarians have two objections: 1) Liberalism neglects
communal solidarity 2) Liberalism can only be justified by appealing to controversial
assumptions that are not universally shared, such as the significance of choosing one's own
life plan. Besides Rawls contribution, other trends in political theory developed. For example,
deliberative democracy in the 1990s, and recently there has been an increased emphasis on
sexual, cultural and gender identities, postmodernism is another trend, as is the trend in the
last decade of giving more attention to global issues/globalization (instead of seeing political
theory as domestic enterprise, as had historically been the case).
Subjectivism in ethics (Rachels, 2003b)
Subjective ethics: Morality is based on nothing more than our feelings, there is no objective
right or wrong. Often a philosophical idea will go through several stages:
1
, The idea will be proposed in a simple form, and many people will find it attractive.
The idea will be subjected to critical analysis and will be found to have defects, some
people will abandon the idea, others will try to refine the idea.
New arguments may be found against the new version of the theory, some people will
abandon the idea, others will refine it.
Etc.
The idea of ethic subjectivism, originating from David Hume's simple subjectivism,
developed in this manner. His simple subjectivism was that when a person says something is
morally good or bad, it simply means he/she approves or disapproves of the idea. Yet, this
excludes the possibility of human fallibility (if one merely expresses one's own
approval/disapproval, one cannot possibly be mistaking). Furthermore, simple subjectivism
cannot account for disagreement (if you say, I disapprove of that, I cannot really disagree with
that, since it might be true you are disapproving). A refined version of simple subjectivism
was emotivism, developed by Charles L. Stevenson, and this is one of the most influential
theories in ethics in the 20th century. According this theory, moral language is aimed at
changing people's behaviour (whereas simple subjectivism simply argued that moral language
was reporting attitudes), and hence emotivism is not prone to the objections that embarrassed
simple subjectivism. Yet, moral judgements should be based on reasons, and since emotivism
states that anything might be a reason for any moral judgement, this cannot be correct. Two
common mistakes people make when thinking about ethics are:
1. Thinking there are moral facts.
2. Thinking our values are nothing more but an expression of our subjective feelings.
But this overlooks the possibility that moral truths are truths of reason; for a moral
reason to be true, it needs to be backed by better reasons than the alternatives. So to
understand the nature of ethics, we must focus on reasons. The answer to an ethical question
is the one backed by the best reasons, which are independent of our desires, wishes and
feelings. Many claim that moral judgements cannot be proved, even if we have good reasons,
but:
1. When people demand proof, they often think of proof in a natural science way, while in
ethics proof consists of giving reasons, analyzing arguments and justifying principles.
2. When we think of proving ethical opinions, we automatically think of the most difficult
matters.
3. There is a difference between proving your point, and persuading someone else. You might
proof a point well, but the other might still not be convinced.
The challenge of cultural relativism (Rachels, 2003a)
Six propositions of cultural relativism:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society.
3. There is no objective standard to judge the moral codes with.
2
, 4. The moral code of one's own society has no privileged status, it is just one among
many.
5. There is no universal truth in ethics.
6. It is mere arrogance to try to judge the conduct of other peoples, we should be tolerant
towards the practices of other cultures.
However, to say that there is no universal agreement about moral standards, does not
necessarily imply that such a universal standards do not exist. The implications of cultural
relativism:
1. We can no longer claim our culture is superior.
2. Social practices, no matter how cruel, become immune for criticism.
3. What is right or wrong, can be decided just by looking at the moral standards of the
society at stake.
4. There is no moral progress.
We should take into account, that disagreement about customs, does not necessarily
imply disagreement about values. Very different, seemingly contradictory values can be
underpinned by the same values. What is more, all cultures will have some values in common,
simply because they are necessary for the survival of the society, such as:
Taking care for young children (who can of course not care for themselves).
Speaking the truth (otherwise communicating would become impossible).
Abstain from killing (otherwise the society would disintegrate.
A standard we might use to judge cultural practices, is to see how it affects the lives of the
people at stake. Yet, people are still reluctant to judge other cultures, because:
1. Western colonial/imperial history was full of interfering with practices of other
cultures.
2. People want to be tolerant to other cultures.
3. People do not want to condemn the whole society they criticize.
Its mistakes notwithstanding, two lessons to be learned from cultural relativism:
1. It is dangerous to assume all our preferences are based on absolute standards.
2. We have to be open minded towards other cultures.
Human rights, cultural difference and globalization (Schechs and Haggis)
Since the 1980s human rights have been an integral part of North-South relations,
development policies and globalization. Three common debates about human rights:
Universalism versus particularism (critics claim that human rights ignore cultural
difference)
Individualism versus collectivism (critics claim that human rights are too much
individual centre and artificially separate the individual from groups and communities.
3
, Other critics claim human rights are of little value to marginalized groups in societies,
such as ethnic minorities).
Which rights are more important: Social and economic rights or civil and political
rights?
These debates sometimes overlap with West/non-West debates, with critics arguing that
because human rights are a Western construction, they are only to a limited extend applicable
to non-Western societies. Others have claimed that human rights were useful tools in
anticolonial struggles, and yet others claimed that human rights have roots in all major
religions.
In 1948 the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, with the claim to universality (as made explicit in article 30 of the charter). Various
groups across the globe accept the principle of human rights, while at the same time human
rights are violated virtually everywhere. The Western countries paid lip service to human
rights, but denied their colonial subjects these human rights (although the accusation of
Western hypocrisy did not fade after the decolonization of most colonies). Cold War was a
shield against widespread human rights violations. Since the mid 1970s, the higher profile of
human rights and the accumulation of human rights treaties made the world more favourable
to human rights. In 1986 the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on Right to
Development, to give voice to the concerns of many Third World countries, though the lack of
support for this declaration by major donor countries shows resistance to establishing
development/development aid. In the 1990s assistance from donor countries and international
organizations became dependent on whether developing countries adopted free markets and
free elections. The recent prominence of human rights in development policies point to the
seeming trade-off that has to be made between social/economic and civil/political rights (with
some Third World governments arguing 'human rights begin with breakfast').
Social/economic rights entered the political agenda in Europe in the 19th century. In
the Universal Declaration, France, Britain and the US and their allies wanted to stress
civil/political rights, while the Soviet Union and its allies wanted to emphasize the right to a
decent standard of living. The dominance of the West resulted in a greater emphasis on civil
and political rights, though many poor countries prioritize the right to material well-being.
The implied trade-off between social/economic and civil/political rights, the liberty trade-off,
is based on the assumption that the exercise of civil/political rights might jeopardize
development plans. This is a position that is voiced by some East Asian government who
stress Asian values of economic development and the subordination of the individual to the
community and authority. They argue that Western countries use human rights as pretext to
cut aid and restrict trade with developing countries, to retain their economic dominance and
keep the rest of the world poor, thereby violating the right of poor people to reach a decent
standard of living. A way to respond to these critics is to give more equal weight to
social/economic and civil/political rights and to stress their interconnectedness, though in
theory human rights do often conflict with each other. Examples:
Child labour: This is often accompanied by human rights violations (exploitative work,
children cannot go to school and develop properly, which is by the way also bad for the
economy), but the Universal Declaration does not explicitly restrict, and some say child
4
Introduction (Shorten, 2016)
Political theory involves asking and trying to answer questions about how we ought to live
together. It is thus a normative enterprise, it is about how the world ought be, rather than
about how the world is, it has to do with values. Some believe the values/principles in
political theory (such as the principles of justice) are timeless and fact-free, while others
believe they depend on general facts about humanity and specific fast of certain groups and
peoples. Some people would argue normative claims are fruitless, since they cannot be tested.
Yet, John Rawls responded by saying that political theorists should move back and forth
between judgements and theories, between there is a reflective equilibrium (when one's
judgements about particular cases are consistent with general convictions and one's
philosophical views).
Political theory is about concepts, many of which are 'essentially contested', with
irresolvable disagreement, because the subject at stake is prone to constant revision and
question. This is by the way not to say that any definition of such an essentially contested
concept (such as justice) goes. Here Hart notes that people can agree on the concept (general
structure) while people disagree on conceptions.
Political theorists are engaged with questions about democracy, equality, freedom,
justice and rights. Historically, the most important questions political theorists asked had to do
with how to justify political rule/what is a legitimate government. This was the primary
concern of classical political theorists such as Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau, Hume and Kant.
With the development of capitalism, political theorists started to focus more on how to
distribute important social goods (political power, money, opportunities). Today, political
theorists are concerned with an even wider variety of questions.
Important in the development of political theory in the twentieth century is John
Rawls' work A theory of justice, in which Rawls develops his conception of a just society,
which reconciles freedom (for the individual) and equality (of opportunities). Rawls' work
inspired some disagreements during the 1980s, such as the liberal-communitarian debate.
Liberal societies equip individuals with the same set of rights, and gives them the freedom to
pursue their own ends. Communitarians have two objections: 1) Liberalism neglects
communal solidarity 2) Liberalism can only be justified by appealing to controversial
assumptions that are not universally shared, such as the significance of choosing one's own
life plan. Besides Rawls contribution, other trends in political theory developed. For example,
deliberative democracy in the 1990s, and recently there has been an increased emphasis on
sexual, cultural and gender identities, postmodernism is another trend, as is the trend in the
last decade of giving more attention to global issues/globalization (instead of seeing political
theory as domestic enterprise, as had historically been the case).
Subjectivism in ethics (Rachels, 2003b)
Subjective ethics: Morality is based on nothing more than our feelings, there is no objective
right or wrong. Often a philosophical idea will go through several stages:
1
, The idea will be proposed in a simple form, and many people will find it attractive.
The idea will be subjected to critical analysis and will be found to have defects, some
people will abandon the idea, others will try to refine the idea.
New arguments may be found against the new version of the theory, some people will
abandon the idea, others will refine it.
Etc.
The idea of ethic subjectivism, originating from David Hume's simple subjectivism,
developed in this manner. His simple subjectivism was that when a person says something is
morally good or bad, it simply means he/she approves or disapproves of the idea. Yet, this
excludes the possibility of human fallibility (if one merely expresses one's own
approval/disapproval, one cannot possibly be mistaking). Furthermore, simple subjectivism
cannot account for disagreement (if you say, I disapprove of that, I cannot really disagree with
that, since it might be true you are disapproving). A refined version of simple subjectivism
was emotivism, developed by Charles L. Stevenson, and this is one of the most influential
theories in ethics in the 20th century. According this theory, moral language is aimed at
changing people's behaviour (whereas simple subjectivism simply argued that moral language
was reporting attitudes), and hence emotivism is not prone to the objections that embarrassed
simple subjectivism. Yet, moral judgements should be based on reasons, and since emotivism
states that anything might be a reason for any moral judgement, this cannot be correct. Two
common mistakes people make when thinking about ethics are:
1. Thinking there are moral facts.
2. Thinking our values are nothing more but an expression of our subjective feelings.
But this overlooks the possibility that moral truths are truths of reason; for a moral
reason to be true, it needs to be backed by better reasons than the alternatives. So to
understand the nature of ethics, we must focus on reasons. The answer to an ethical question
is the one backed by the best reasons, which are independent of our desires, wishes and
feelings. Many claim that moral judgements cannot be proved, even if we have good reasons,
but:
1. When people demand proof, they often think of proof in a natural science way, while in
ethics proof consists of giving reasons, analyzing arguments and justifying principles.
2. When we think of proving ethical opinions, we automatically think of the most difficult
matters.
3. There is a difference between proving your point, and persuading someone else. You might
proof a point well, but the other might still not be convinced.
The challenge of cultural relativism (Rachels, 2003a)
Six propositions of cultural relativism:
1. Different societies have different moral codes.
2. The moral code of a society determines what is right within that society.
3. There is no objective standard to judge the moral codes with.
2
, 4. The moral code of one's own society has no privileged status, it is just one among
many.
5. There is no universal truth in ethics.
6. It is mere arrogance to try to judge the conduct of other peoples, we should be tolerant
towards the practices of other cultures.
However, to say that there is no universal agreement about moral standards, does not
necessarily imply that such a universal standards do not exist. The implications of cultural
relativism:
1. We can no longer claim our culture is superior.
2. Social practices, no matter how cruel, become immune for criticism.
3. What is right or wrong, can be decided just by looking at the moral standards of the
society at stake.
4. There is no moral progress.
We should take into account, that disagreement about customs, does not necessarily
imply disagreement about values. Very different, seemingly contradictory values can be
underpinned by the same values. What is more, all cultures will have some values in common,
simply because they are necessary for the survival of the society, such as:
Taking care for young children (who can of course not care for themselves).
Speaking the truth (otherwise communicating would become impossible).
Abstain from killing (otherwise the society would disintegrate.
A standard we might use to judge cultural practices, is to see how it affects the lives of the
people at stake. Yet, people are still reluctant to judge other cultures, because:
1. Western colonial/imperial history was full of interfering with practices of other
cultures.
2. People want to be tolerant to other cultures.
3. People do not want to condemn the whole society they criticize.
Its mistakes notwithstanding, two lessons to be learned from cultural relativism:
1. It is dangerous to assume all our preferences are based on absolute standards.
2. We have to be open minded towards other cultures.
Human rights, cultural difference and globalization (Schechs and Haggis)
Since the 1980s human rights have been an integral part of North-South relations,
development policies and globalization. Three common debates about human rights:
Universalism versus particularism (critics claim that human rights ignore cultural
difference)
Individualism versus collectivism (critics claim that human rights are too much
individual centre and artificially separate the individual from groups and communities.
3
, Other critics claim human rights are of little value to marginalized groups in societies,
such as ethnic minorities).
Which rights are more important: Social and economic rights or civil and political
rights?
These debates sometimes overlap with West/non-West debates, with critics arguing that
because human rights are a Western construction, they are only to a limited extend applicable
to non-Western societies. Others have claimed that human rights were useful tools in
anticolonial struggles, and yet others claimed that human rights have roots in all major
religions.
In 1948 the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, with the claim to universality (as made explicit in article 30 of the charter). Various
groups across the globe accept the principle of human rights, while at the same time human
rights are violated virtually everywhere. The Western countries paid lip service to human
rights, but denied their colonial subjects these human rights (although the accusation of
Western hypocrisy did not fade after the decolonization of most colonies). Cold War was a
shield against widespread human rights violations. Since the mid 1970s, the higher profile of
human rights and the accumulation of human rights treaties made the world more favourable
to human rights. In 1986 the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on Right to
Development, to give voice to the concerns of many Third World countries, though the lack of
support for this declaration by major donor countries shows resistance to establishing
development/development aid. In the 1990s assistance from donor countries and international
organizations became dependent on whether developing countries adopted free markets and
free elections. The recent prominence of human rights in development policies point to the
seeming trade-off that has to be made between social/economic and civil/political rights (with
some Third World governments arguing 'human rights begin with breakfast').
Social/economic rights entered the political agenda in Europe in the 19th century. In
the Universal Declaration, France, Britain and the US and their allies wanted to stress
civil/political rights, while the Soviet Union and its allies wanted to emphasize the right to a
decent standard of living. The dominance of the West resulted in a greater emphasis on civil
and political rights, though many poor countries prioritize the right to material well-being.
The implied trade-off between social/economic and civil/political rights, the liberty trade-off,
is based on the assumption that the exercise of civil/political rights might jeopardize
development plans. This is a position that is voiced by some East Asian government who
stress Asian values of economic development and the subordination of the individual to the
community and authority. They argue that Western countries use human rights as pretext to
cut aid and restrict trade with developing countries, to retain their economic dominance and
keep the rest of the world poor, thereby violating the right of poor people to reach a decent
standard of living. A way to respond to these critics is to give more equal weight to
social/economic and civil/political rights and to stress their interconnectedness, though in
theory human rights do often conflict with each other. Examples:
Child labour: This is often accompanied by human rights violations (exploitative work,
children cannot go to school and develop properly, which is by the way also bad for the
economy), but the Universal Declaration does not explicitly restrict, and some say child
4
