Lecture 1 – Political Theory: Normative Theorising

29th January 2019

Course outline:

Block 1: Why have states?

Block 2: How should states make decisions?

Block 3: How can states become more just?

Assessments:

1. 1500-word essay (on topics from block one) 30% of your total mark Submission deadline:
2pm Monday 4th March

2. Two-hour exam (on topics from blocks two and three) 60% of your total mark Summer exam
period

3. Participation in tutorials 10% of your total mark

Empirical questions: they are about empirical matters of fact, there are no values involved, no
issues of normativity, you just need to go out in the world and look at the facts in front of us to
answer these questions.

Ex.:

Who is currently more popular among the UK electorate, Corbyn or May?

What were the main contributing causes of the rise of ISIS?

Does inequality of income and wealth contribute to higher crime rates?

Normative questions: you can’t go out into the world and collect a bunch of empirical facts to
answer these questions, you need to make an appeal to values.

Ex.:

Should states open their borders to anyone who wants to migrate into their territories?

Should all citizens of liberal democracies receive an unconditional basic income?

Should non-citizens be allowed a say over government policies when those policies threaten
their interests?

Should citizens who know a lot about politics, history, economics, etc., be given more votes
than people who know very little?
Normative & value-free questions: you’re given the values, we’re told what the goal is – it
becomes a merely technical questions about how best to achieve them. Tthese questions are
value-free, technical policy questions infused with normativity (normativity is a question of
how we should move from one state of affairs to another – how we should think, act, believe).

Ex.:

Given the goal of increasing the overall tax return, should the UK government adopt a 40%,
45% or 50% top rate of tax?

On this course we’re addressing normative questions, but value-laden: they fundamentally
require us to commit ourselves to introducing some value judgements into the explanations of
how to answer the question, you can’t separate them from that, that’s why it becomes
controversial.

How do political theorists fit in the wider political discussion?

They address decision-makers and tell them how they should act – guide political action.

In its raw form, that advice is not comprehensive and detailed enough for immediate
employability. So, there’s a division of labour in three groups (schematic separation):

 Political theorists: Ex.: Jeremy Bentham – utilitarianism (what individuals – and

therefore governments – should do is pursue the aggregate happiness and minimize
the amount of unhappiness in the world.

 Social scientists/policymakers: infuse the political theorists’ theories with a bit more
empirical content. Ex.: Welfare economists – tried to instrumentalize and
operationalize the basic principle of utility that Bentham worked out in a philosophical
deep way.

Long time lag (but it happened)

 The decision-makers: Synthesize and put into action the welfare economists’ results,
which fed into and informed the work of politicians. Ex.: Franklin Roosevelt with his
New Deal.

Normative theory without deep theoretical philosophy?

When we’re doing value-laden political theory and discussing questions about how
people/politicians should act, how things should be, aren’t we assuming loads of things about
our metaphysical world?
We can’t get hung up on existential, deeper questions. Scientists haven’t come up to a
conclusion and won’t any time soon.

Every academic discipline has to start from somewhere. And where is starts from depends on
what its point is (what role it plays).

Normative political theory aspires to be practical. It couldn’t fulfil this role if political theorists
spent their whole time doing metaphysics.

The aim is to help us think more clearly and consistently about the values that underlie
political systems and political decisions so that we can improve them.

Most common worry when studying political theory: Political theory requires us to adjudicate
between value claims. But isn’t it ridiculous to claim that some value-laden normative
judgements are ‘better’ than others? Aren’t all value-laden claims about how we ‘should’ act
just matters of opinion?

Yes, they are all just matters of opinion. But that doesn’t mean arguing about them is futile,
and it doesn’t mean there can’t be a right answer.

Not all opinions (beliefs) are equal.

There are four questions to ask when trying to determine the ‘quality’ of a belief (i.e. whether
it is objectively correct or not):

1. Is the belief ‘truth apt’?

Can they be true or false? If not, they are mere expressions of taste.

A belief about something is ‘truth apt’ when it is a belief regarding something about which
there is a fact of the matter) they can be physical or abstract). If the fact obtains then the belief
is true. If the fact doesn’t obtain, then the belief is false.

Scientific beliefs (e.g. about evolution) or medical beliefs (e.g. about the most effective course
of treatment) are truth apt.

Beliefs about which flavour of ice cream is tastiest are not truth apt.

The truth aptness of aesthetic beliefs (e.g. Jacob Collier makes better music than Morrissey) is
a controversial issue.

The truth aptness of moral and political beliefs is also controversial, but in order to do political
theory you should assume that they are truth apt – because we are doing normative political
theory.

2. How were the beliefs formed?

Always ask: have the beliefs been formed in truth-seeking ways? And not based on
preference? Have they not been tempered with in any form?

We sometimes form beliefs that are be biased, self-interested.

We sometimes form beliefs when distracted, upset, drunk, etc.

We sometimes form shallow beliefs after knee-jerk reactions.

We sometimes have a stake in irrationally sticking to previous beliefs.

We sometimes form beliefs carefully but without much knowledge or understanding of what it
is like to be in another’s shoes.

If a belief is based on calm, careful, unbiased reflection on good evidence, is it sufficiently well
justified to use as a premise in a normative argument about morality/politics?

3. Are the beliefs part of a coherent set of beliefs about that subject?

If not, you need to resolve the conflicts between the things that you believe in and come to a
coherent conclusion: narrow reflective equilibrium.

4. Has that coherent set of beliefs been exposed to extensive critical scrutiny/been compared
to alternatives?

One’s belief might be internally coherent but still wrong. Merely achieving narrow reflective
equilibrium is not enough. You’ll have to, eventually, expose your beliefs to other people.

Search for truth = examining our beliefs from different angles, exposing them to competing
explanations and alternative principles.

This exposure to external criticism is what political theorists refer to as the search for ‘wide
reflective equilibrium’.

Even if everyone goes a long way towards achieving ‘wide reflective equilibrium’ they will still
disagree on moral and political values. Doesn’t this undermine the claim that wide reflective
equilibrium is a means of achieving ‘objectivity’?

Wide reflective equilibrium is an ideal. No one can ever completely achieve wide reflective
equilibrium – a human lifetime is not long enough to test all of our moral and political beliefs
sufficiently rigorously.

And even if we each had much longer to try to achieve wide reflective equilibrium, we’d still
make mistakes. Our ability to perceive values is not as reliable as our ability to perceive
empirical facts.

Wide reflective equilibrium is an ideal. No one can ever completely achieve wide reflective
equilibrium – a human lifetime is not long enough to test all of our moral and political beliefs
sufficiently rigorously.

And even if we each had much longer to try to achieve wide reflective equilibrium, we’d still
make mistakes. Our ability to perceive values is not as reliable as our ability to perceive
empirical facts.
In sum…

When you’re doing normative political theory you should:

(a) Assume that there is an objective truth of the matter and that it is your job to discover it.

(b) Take your time when forming your beliefs and try to purge them of any obvious formative
biases.

(c) Check for internal coherence by comparing the belief you’re focusing on with other relevant
beliefs you hold.

(d) Explore alternative views and test your own view against those alternatives.