Does political philosophy reduce to ethics?
Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.:
This seems a little flippant and I'm as a rule suspicious of these kinds of formulations, but I was thinking about this the other night and I realized that I really can't think of any way of properly understanding political philosophy that isn't effectively an extraordinarily broad and complex issue in applied ethics, i.e. the ethics of social relationships at the macro level of a state society. I'd be interested in hearing both supporting arguments and counterarguments.
Antonio the Sixth:
Of course. This is how Plato, Aristotle, and all the thinkers who gave us the very concepts of "ethics" and "politics" understood it. Politics is the pursuit of Good within the social realm. The fact that a lot of modern political philosophy seems uninterested in or straight-up denies this connection is frankly a worrying sign of moral and intellectual decline.
Vosem:
I think a universalist political philosophy which advocates that everyone follow its tenets certainly reduces to an ethical system, and most or nearly all forms of contemporary liberalism are universalist, but this becomes sort of questionable once you say that it is possible to have different classes or races or nationalities to have different fundamental interests. (The line I'm trying to draw is somewhere between redistributionist taxation -- one could certainly argue on a number of different grounds that this is actually in the long-term interests of wealthy people -- and dekulakization where you justify just killing people who have greater than a certain net worth).
Not all ethical systems are universalist! Many religions (particularly ethnic ones like Judaism) make elaborate demands of their own followers but only very simple demands (or none at all) of individuals who don't follow those religions. (And it's certainly possible for a universalist political philosophy to argue that people should advocate for their own interests within certain limits -- most or nearly all forms of contemporary liberalism prescribe multi-party systems, and most also envision roles for organizations like labor unions or religious congregations. Ameriright forms of contemporary liberalism might add organized militias here.) But I think when a political philosophy stops being universalist it very quickly moves towards a sort of brutality against its outgroup which it would condemn if directed towards its ingroup; one is reminded here of Klemperer noticing an entire category of words in Nazi propaganda which were positively-connotated when applied to Germans but negatively-connotated when applied to foreigners. Such philosophies usually don't even perceive themselves to be ethical systems.
Blue3:
Somewhat yes, but I think it does oversimplify some of it. Sometimes we may agree in values and ultimate outcomes, and agree on at least some of the do's and don'ts of the methods/processes... but still disagree. Yet it might not always come down to ethics, it could be questions of pragmaticism versus idealism, experience versus newer innovations and changes, etc. Political Philosophy, I feel, encompasses much more than just desired ultimate outcomes.
For example, what is the ultimate end of higher education?
* Progressives and Conservatives may initially agreed it should lead to a valuable, high-paying job that actually makes a meaningful difference.
* But differ on the role of government to provide affordability, or if affordability should be prioritized higher than content or admission qualifications, or how non-college higher education should be a factor in those discussions and policies.
* Both may overall agree it would be good to not have students go into debt, but the solution could be subsidizing and debt cancellation versus raising financial considerations (of both background and major) in admissions criteria and how much to emphasize alternatives.
* Even more so, we could dig even deeper. Is affordable college, and a valuable high-impact, high-paying job really the true ultimate end goal? Aren't high-paying and high-impact jobs also just means to an end, regarding means of survival and quality of life, that perhaps should be approached in ways besides higher education? Do we think further years of education itself in different areas, beyond K-12, is a worthy goal in itself - and should colleges be the best method for that, or would K-12 be better?
* Also, perhaps a method to address all this has been tried in the past, to very mixed results if not outright failure. Experience may say to not try it again. But perhaps other factors have changed, or could be changed, for it to work this time? How strong must the evidence be for either side of this, to appease all decision-makers?
So while some of the above may be ethics at its core, or ethics-related... I really don't think the political philosophy differences here can be boiled down to only ethics. That seems like oversimplification. At least in some policy areas.
Flats the Flounder:
I would say no, personally. Certainly ethics plays a large role in political philosophy, but the way someone's ethics are applied can heavily differ depending on the perception of the world that one's political philosophy promotes.
For example, say you have two people who both believe in the importance of safety as an ethical principle, but both have different political philosophies.
The first person's philosophy includes the belief that human nature is inherently evil, while the second's philosophy includes the belief that human nature is good.
The first person may interpret safety as protecting humanity from their own nature, while the second may interpret safety as protecting human nature from some other societal force.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page