Consequentialism and the Role of Practices in Political Philosophy

Andreas T. Schmidt
{"title":"Consequentialism and the Role of Practices in Political Philosophy","authors":"Andreas T. Schmidt","doi":"10.1007/s11158-023-09631-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Political philosophers have recently debated what role social practices should play in normative theorising. Should our theories be practice-independent or practice-dependent? That is, can we formulate normative institutional principles independently of real-world practices or are such principles only ever relative to the practices they are meant to govern? Any first-order theory in political philosophy must contend with the methodological challenges coming out of this debate. In this article, I argue that consequentialism has a plausible account of how social practices should factor in normative political philosophy. I outline a version of consequentialism, Practice Consequentialism, that provides a plausible blueprint for integrating social practices in normative theorising. Second, I argue that Practice Consequentialism accounts well for the central arguments on both sides of the practice-dependence debate. Capturing arguments for practice-dependence, consequentialism brings out why real-world practices are central in formulating institutional principles. Conversely, capturing arguments for practice-independence, consequentialism offers a clear external normative perspective from which to evaluate practices.","PeriodicalId":45474,"journal":{"name":"Res Publica-A Journal of Moral Legal and Political Philosophy","volume":"85 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Res Publica-A Journal of Moral Legal and Political Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-023-09631-1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Political philosophers have recently debated what role social practices should play in normative theorising. Should our theories be practice-independent or practice-dependent? That is, can we formulate normative institutional principles independently of real-world practices or are such principles only ever relative to the practices they are meant to govern? Any first-order theory in political philosophy must contend with the methodological challenges coming out of this debate. In this article, I argue that consequentialism has a plausible account of how social practices should factor in normative political philosophy. I outline a version of consequentialism, Practice Consequentialism, that provides a plausible blueprint for integrating social practices in normative theorising. Second, I argue that Practice Consequentialism accounts well for the central arguments on both sides of the practice-dependence debate. Capturing arguments for practice-dependence, consequentialism brings out why real-world practices are central in formulating institutional principles. Conversely, capturing arguments for practice-independence, consequentialism offers a clear external normative perspective from which to evaluate practices.
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
结果主义与实践在政治哲学中的作用
政治哲学家最近一直在争论社会实践在规范理论化中应该扮演什么角色。我们的理论应该独立于实践还是依赖于实践?也就是说,我们是否可以独立于现实世界的实践而制定规范性的制度原则,或者这些原则是否只与它们所要治理的实践相关?政治哲学中的任何一阶理论都必须应对这场辩论所带来的方法论挑战。在这篇文章中,我认为结果主义对社会实践应该如何影响规范性政治哲学有一个合理的解释。我概述了结果主义的一个版本,实践结果主义,它为将社会实践整合到规范理论中提供了一个合理的蓝图。其次,我认为实践结果主义很好地解释了实践依赖辩论双方的核心论点。结果主义抓住了实践依赖的论点,揭示了为什么现实世界的实践是制定制度原则的核心。相反,结果主义抓住了实践独立性的论点,为评估实践提供了一个清晰的外部规范视角。
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
1.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
32
期刊介绍: Res Publica: a Journal of Legal, Moral and Social Philosophy is an interdisciplinary publication concerned with the philosophical analysis of moral, political, social and legal issues. It provides a forum for discussion of theoretical issues; a public arena for voicing matters of practical concern; and a vehicle for addressing questions of morality, politics, law and society, the interconnections between them and, more generally, the relation of theory to practice. The journal seeks to publish articles and review essays which are both philosophically rigorous and accessible to a wide range of academics and professionals. Replies to articles are welcome. It is the policy of Res Publica to encourage publication by researchers at the beginning of their careers as well as by established scholars; and by those in non-Western countries.
期刊最新文献
The Promise of Representative Democracy: Deliberative Responsiveness Domination and Freedom: Quality, not Quantity* Which Elections? A Dilemma for Proponents of the Duty to Vote Blaming Reasonable Wrongdoers On a Columnar Self: Two Senses of Expressing Partisanship
×
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