Consequentialism and the Role of Practices in Political Philosophy

Author:

Schmidt Andreas T.ORCID

Abstract

AbstractPolitical 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.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Law,Philosophy

Reference78 articles.

1. Achen, Christopher H., and Larry M. Bartels. 2017. Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

2. Adorno, Theodor W., Ralf Dahrendorf, Harald Pilot, Hans Albert, Jürgen Habermas, and Karl R. Popper. 1978. Der Positivismusstreit in der Deutschen Soziologie. Darmstadt/Neuwied: Luchterhand.

3. Arneson, Richard J. 2003. Defending the purely instrumental account of democratic legitimacy. Journal of Political Philosophy 11 (1): 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9760.00170.

4. Bailey, James Wood. 1997. Utilitarianism, institutions, and justice. Oxford University Press.

5. Bales, R. Eugene. 1971. Act-utilitarianism: Account of right-making characteristics or decision-making procedure? American Philosophical Quarterly 8 (3): 257–265.

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3