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
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