• rickyk95
    53
    So, although Ive studied some major political and moral philosophers and what they had to say, it is very difficult for me to chose any specific political philosophy. Should I be conservative? After all, we are built to live in small groups, and the greatest degree of freedom from government intervention does seem to be benefical to the economy (at least in principle). But, what about welfare? I mean, it somehow seems deeply immoral to be indifferent towards the shocking picture that global economic inequality is painting to us. Ive thought about this for some time, and it seems that whatever the way in which people pick their political leanings is, it is not an ultimately objective method. In other words, people decide to be conservative, liberal, libertarian, moderate, anarchist, or whatever, because the arguments presented for those philosophies a priori, resonate with them more than the others. This however, does not mean that they chose these philosophies based on empirical evidence of what works and what doesnt. Maybe if we had a more scientific approach towards politics, and examine which policies lead to better outcomes empirically, we could be more objective in our political views.
    Of course, in determining "what works best", one needs to define an ideal final outcome, or a state of affairs that would be set as a standard to measure the success of any given policy. This however, does seem to be deeply intertwined with morality, and this makes things ever more complicated, bringing questions of moral truths and their accesibility to the table.
  • VagabondSpectre
    1.9k
    One of the most difficult pieces of the puzzle is actually taking into account the real world as it exists. Different situations and states of affairs in the world (such as resource scarcity) might make different economic theories more or less effective (and moral one's too if you think about it).

    Like many moral dilemmas, the most satisfying answers come from looking directly at specific situations where as many factors as possible can be eliminated (which simplifies the questions).

    First try to understand the world you're in, as it is necessary if you want to draw global conclusions regarding economic and moral theory. For now it's enough to have a solid understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the various theories you encounter, you don't actually need to hammer a stake into one.
  • TimeLine
    2.7k
    ...it is very difficult for me to chose any specific political philosophy.rickyk95
    Why do you need to choose? Whilst broadening your understanding of political theories, all you are required to do as a citizen is differentiate with a neutral mindset the policies of various political parties that effectively fit the needs and requirements of your state. The complication rests in the domination of two-party systems and political philosophy will ameliorate your appreciation of what could potentially be a just approach to politics, but the idea that somehow any of them are correct would be false because no such answer has ever been solidified. The fact is, there is no answer in politics as much as there is no utopia.
  • Terrapin Station
    13.8k
    You can't.

    The entire notion of that is a category error.
  • Chany
    352


    I'm currently reading through Amartya Sen's The Idea of Justice, which appears to relate to what you're saying. The book deals with the notion of transcendental justice and how a portion of western political philosophy focuses on this "ideal state." He wants to criticize this notion of justice (Rawls, Nozick, Hobbes, Locke, and the like) and replace it with comparative justice- something rooted in actual circumstances and actual practices and make judgement calls about justice surrounding the actual possibilities in front of us. For example, he argues that we don't need an "ideal state" to make comparisons and value them. In other words, a comprehensive "perfect ideal" political doctrine is not a necessary condition in order to make judgement calls about which state of affairs is better in a lot of the cases we are facing in the actual world.
  • Moliere
    4.6k
    I think you're approaching the problem from the wrong end.

    Rather than defining ideals, choosing identities, and judging which methods of judgment might lead you to an objective set of beliefs on the matter I'd say you learn politics -- including what you find to be more acceptable and less acceptable, the "practical reason" or values that you find to be correct, and not merely know-how -- simply by doing political things.

    This is not to say that political philosophy is neutered or irrelevant. It's very relevant -- just as relevant as actually getting your hands dirty. Without either you won't be able to answer which political philosophy you find to be closest to the truth.
  • rickyk95
    53
    This makes a lot of sense. So I think what you are saying is that despite not being able to perfectly describe what an ideal state would look like, we are able in many cases, to differentiate between those states of affairs who are further and those who are closer to this ideal. In other words, despite not being able to tell you what a utopia might look like, I can tell you with certainty that the current state of affairs in the US is better than that of Nazi Germany, and thus closer to this undefined but nontheless existent ideal.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.