Why Political Philosophy Should Be Robust

IF 5.9 1区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE American Political Science Review Pub Date : 2023-10-16 DOI:10.1017/s0003055423000898
ALEXANDER S. KIRSHNER, JEFF SPINNER-HALEV
{"title":"Why Political Philosophy Should Be Robust","authors":"ALEXANDER S. KIRSHNER, JEFF SPINNER-HALEV","doi":"10.1017/s0003055423000898","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Political philosophers and theorists make arguments about high-stakes problems. This article shows that those theories would be more credible if political philosophers ensured their work was robust: capable of withstanding reasonable changes to their assumptions and to the cases to which their arguments apply. The world is varied and inconstant. As a result, scientists and social scientists recognize the virtue of robustness. This article shows why political philosophers should also do so. It defines robustness, demonstrates its value, and shows how it can be evaluated. Illustrating the stakes of robustness, the article assesses prominent arguments concerning multiculturalism and open borders. Avoiding misunderstanding and confusion should be a central aim of political philosophy. To sidestep these outcomes and to reassure scholars that one’s theory is not subject to concerns about its credibility, it will often be reasonable for philosophers to explicitly test their theories for robustness.","PeriodicalId":48451,"journal":{"name":"American Political Science Review","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":5.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Political Science Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055423000898","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Political philosophers and theorists make arguments about high-stakes problems. This article shows that those theories would be more credible if political philosophers ensured their work was robust: capable of withstanding reasonable changes to their assumptions and to the cases to which their arguments apply. The world is varied and inconstant. As a result, scientists and social scientists recognize the virtue of robustness. This article shows why political philosophers should also do so. It defines robustness, demonstrates its value, and shows how it can be evaluated. Illustrating the stakes of robustness, the article assesses prominent arguments concerning multiculturalism and open borders. Avoiding misunderstanding and confusion should be a central aim of political philosophy. To sidestep these outcomes and to reassure scholars that one’s theory is not subject to concerns about its credibility, it will often be reasonable for philosophers to explicitly test their theories for robustness.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
为什么政治哲学应该稳健
政治哲学家和理论家对高风险问题进行争论。这篇文章表明,如果政治哲学家确保他们的工作是稳健的,那么这些理论将更加可信:能够承受他们的假设和他们的论点所适用的情况的合理变化。世界是变化无常的。因此,科学家和社会科学家认识到稳健性的优点。这篇文章说明了为什么政治哲学家也应该这样做。它定义了健壮性,展示了它的价值,并展示了如何评估它。为了说明稳健的重要性,文章评估了有关多元文化主义和开放边界的突出论点。避免误解和混淆应该是政治哲学的中心目标。为了回避这些结果,并让学者们放心,一个人的理论不会受到对其可信度的担忧,哲学家们通常会明确地测试他们的理论的稳健性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.80
自引率
5.90%
发文量
119
期刊介绍: American Political Science Review is political science''s premier scholarly research journal, providing peer-reviewed articles and review essays from subfields throughout the discipline. Areas covered include political theory, American politics, public policy, public administration, comparative politics, and international relations. APSR has published continuously since 1906. American Political Science Review is sold ONLY as part of a joint subscription with Perspectives on Politics and PS: Political Science & Politics.
期刊最新文献
Survivorship analysis of CAD-CAM total shoulder replacement. Descriptive Representation and Party Building: Evidence from Municipal Governments in Brazil Domestic Distributional Roots of National Interest My History or Our History? Historical Revisionism and Entitlement to Lead Don’t Look Back in Anger: Cooperation Despite Conflicting Historical Narratives
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1