Comments on: Can Ideal Political Theory Be Valuable For a Pragmatist?

By: LFC

LFC — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 16:09:35 +0000

Well, Rawls had no real, rather than scholastic effect. But Nozick ... had an immense effect. Nozick might have converted a few (prob. not that many) people to libertarianism and Anarchy State and Utopia might -- and I emphasize 'might', b.c. I've no idea -- have been read a bit more widely outside the academy than A Theory of Justice. But to say that Rawls had no "real effect" and Nozick had "an immense effect" is basically nonsense. Nozick perhaps happened to be more in tune w certain political currents of the time, but that doesn't mean he caused them or even had that much to do w them.

By: Tony Lynch

Tony Lynch — Wed, 20 Feb 2013 13:01:56 +0000

Anarcissie asks, “How is the behavior of a (capitalist) ruling class affected by a book of moralistic political philosophy?”
]
Well, Rawls had no real, rather than scholastic effect. But Nozick – with a very bad book (which, I think, is why he never returned to political philosophy) – had an immense effect.

Why?

Nozick gave freedom to all in a universal contextless “economic” sense (I mean, the State as a Dominant Protection Agency) , and so to the rich. It was wonderful!

By: Derek

Derek — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 21:12:13 +0000

Anarcissie asks, “How is the behavior of a (capitalist) ruling class affected by a book of moralistic political philosophy?”

I think it goes like this: a ruling class, capitalist or otherwise, is made up of human beings, and its status as the ‘ruling class’ depends upon the activities of other human beings. But the behavior of human beings is a product of – among other things – our beliefs about what is morally justifiable, what we are morally entitled to, and what is morally intolerable. So a work of moralistic political philosophy can affect the behavior of the ‘ruling class’ either directly, if it affects their moral beliefs, or indirectly, if it affects the moral beliefs of those whose actions (and inaction) they depend upon.

That this is possible in general is proven by the role of Locke’s moralized political theory in the American context. The Declaration of Independence reads like a Cliff’s Notes version of Locke’s social contract theory, and those same principles have been explicitly invoked in successful movements of political liberation. See, for example, Frederick Douglass’s stinging 4th of July oration, or King’s “Dream” speech.

Indeed, even an account that dismisses these moral appeals as mere ideological obfuscation thereby admits the political power of such moral ideals – why else should the powerful, or their opponents, bother with such a masquerade?

By: Tony Lynch

Tony Lynch — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:12:16 +0000

I Rest My Case.

By: LFC

LFC — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 03:28:19 +0000

I find it rather absurd that someone is arguing that A Theory of Justice (published in 1971) diverted progressives from political activity to 'scholastic' pursuits. I'm aware of no evidence to suggest that the revival of normative political theory in the Anglosphere (for lack of a better word) weakened what would otherwise have been a massive, enduring progressive political movement. That would seem to be the imaginary tale (or certainly a better candidate for one).

By: Tony Lynch

Tony Lynch — Sun, 17 Feb 2013 00:18:08 +0000

“A Theory of Justice” came out as social democracy went into real decline – I see no evidence that it did anything to even slow this down – though it did provide career path benefits for progressives whose potential for political activity could now assume scholastic form as they mined and argued and debated Rawls’s imaginary tale. It was the Owl of Minerva and it was Dusk…

By: Stephen Frug

Stephen Frug — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:04:08 +0000

Just taking the title question at face value, it seems that the answer is basically obvious. Can ideal political theory be valuable for a pragmatist? Yes — if it works. (That is, if it (“in the long run and on the whole, of course”) improves matters.)

By: Anarcissie

Anarcissie — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:35:39 +0000

How is the behavior of a (capitalist) ruling class affected by a book of moralistic political philosophy? This is not a rhetorical question. I am curious as to how this is supposed to work.

By: Kevin

Kevin — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:25:10 +0000

And, for god’s sake, he did provide the most influential and sophisticated intellectual defense of the welfare state when such a thing was actually still ascendant (or at least not depressingly descendant). Perhaps – just maybe? — at least one reason why the new right hasn’t been able to be even more destructive of social democracy than it has in fact been. Radical understatement definitely intended.

By: LFC

LFC — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 00:15:27 +0000

@4
Rawls indirectly helped contribute to the revived growth of concern about inequality and poverty that didn’t come fully into its own politically, perhaps, until after his death. Extensions of his ideas (and of those of some other normative theorists) have, as the OP indicates, in some cases made a practical contribution to reducing poverty.

By: Tony Lynch

Tony Lynch — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 22:51:50 +0000

I feel like saying: “What has Rawls ever done for social democracy?” – except allow “progressives” to live exciting lives in fantasy land…

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:11:02 +0000

‘…overcoming human imperfection IN practice.”

By: Kevin

Kevin — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:10:00 +0000

One important difference, clear in the phrasing I think, is that the former implies full actual compliance whereas teh second does not (and thus the second is closer to ‘reality’ than the first). More specifically, the second assumes full endorsement but not full actual compliance. The point is that the endorsement condition changes the ideal theory into a tool for critique and improvement of (inevitably( imperfect behaviour/compliance. The full compliance condition assumes that a successful theory aims (per impossible) at overcoming human imperfection practice. I think…

By: ex

ex — Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:05:56 +0000

“Rather than understanding ideal theory as [1] sketching a utopian world where all comply with the normative ideals and which is taken to be the one and only truth the theorist believes in and wants all of us to believe in, we could understand such theories rather as [2] examining the moral values and normative principles which would be feasible if all would endorse them (hence the full compliance clause), and which could serve as an ideal which we can use in our democratic deliberations on which normative principles our institutions should embody.”

What is the difference between [1] and [2]? I see a difference in phrasing but I do not see any difference in the underlying claims.