Political theory

What is political theory?

* The study of concepts & principles used to explain, critique, describe & prescribe political action events and institutions

\

What is normative political theory

it engages in normative decisions

\
\[Normative: derived from a standard or norm especially of behaviour\]

Themes

\
* Central to the study of political theory
* Power: the nature of power
* Legitimacy: conceptually, what’s more legitimate
* Authority: to what degree are they respected
* Justice

The distinction between fact & value

\
* In order to understand the difference between empirical & normative questions

\
* Traditional POV: facts & values can be clearly separated

\
* Facts are concerned about =='What is'== + it can be true or false → (Liz Truss the current PM of the UK, empirical claim)

\
* Values are concerned with @@‘What should be’@@ → respectively or evaluative

Normative & Empirical claims

Empirical statements are claims about what factually is

* I had french toast for breakfast

\
\
\
Normative statements communicate value judgements

* Prescriptive, tell someone what to do or not what to do → we should go and sit in the garden (no claim is made)

\
* Evaluative: french toast is delicious → value judgement is made

\

Normative arguments

Each argument + normative conclusion (X) must have at least one normative premise (Y)

\
Empirical claims

\
MUST INCLUDE a normative claim, explicitly & inexpliclty

Normative claims VS Moral claims

All moral claims are normative claims

* Torture is always wrong → this is implying a position of morality

\
NOT all normative claims are moral claims

* We should sit in the garden, not implying a postition of morality

John Rawls, Theory of Justice

* theory of distributed justice and how resources should be allocated in society

\
* It sets a tone for normative political theory and is concerned with the question of value related to philosophy

\


* Includes substantive question of which principles of justice are best

\
* And how methodological questions on how to go about theorising justice

Concepts & conceptions of justice

* A useful distinction between concepts (abstract) & conceptions (more worked-out versions)

\
* we can agree that the principles of justice when stated abstractly but disagree when specific conceptions are used

\
* Believe that equality = justice

Rawlsian test 1, Reflective equlibrium

* it describes a process that mutually revises a considered moral judgement & general principles

\
* Judgements should be consistent with our principles of justice on a theoretical level

\
* Not coherent = bad theory, judgement or principles need to be changed

\
* Judgement - divides the cake based on how much work you put in

\
* Principle - everyone gets the same amount of cake

\
* Goal: articulating a theory which reaches a state of reflective equilibrium

Rawlsian test 2, Impartiality

* More substantive

\
* Lies within impartiality

\
* if you want a convincing argument, the reasons you accept should not be in line with your own interest \[avoid your self-interest\]

\
* A thought experiment designed to describe the impartiality in politics


1. @@The Veil of Ignorance@@: you need to pretend that you know fuck all about yourself

\
2. ==The Original Position==: \[the hypothetical position you are at once adopting the veil\]

* imagine you are creating the principles of that society (you will be living in)

2 principles of justice

==Greatest equal liberties==

* a system of basic liberties that maximises equal civil liberties


* you don't know where you'll exist in society (once the veil has been taken off) & assume that everyone wants as many civil liberties as possible

\
@@Social & economic inequalities guarantee@@

* the greatest benefit to least advantages
* fair equality of opportunity


* even the worst offs should be well off too = does not mean strict equality

GA cohen critiques Rawls theory

* Rawls was giving in too much into ppl’s human nature

\
* your compromisation is getting in the way of justice

\
* Truth should be the standard used to judge a theory of justice - coherence & justifiability should not be used

Ideal & Non ideal theory

Question the constraint, on how reasonable they are, not because justice says so

\
\
Ideal theories: are ‘end-state’ theories that assume full compliance

\
Non-ideal theories: are ‘transitional’ theories that assume partial compliance

\
\
if we are too ‘realistic’ when doing normative political theory, we end up back to descriptive political science without a prescriptive and/or evaluative edge

Amartya sen's comparative approach

* Thinks that ideal theory is unnecessary & comparative judgements are enough

\
* (It'll take us further away from justice rather than changing the world for the better)