How can I objectively decide what political ideals to take?
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.
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.
Comments (6)
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.
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.
The entire notion of that is a category error.
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.
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.