Comments on: Political Philosophy and Evidence

By: Nicole Hassoun

Nicole Hassoun — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:42:01 +0000

Hi Will,

Just saw your post on mine. I wasn't sure, though, whether you were concerned about the libertarianism post or the one about idea/non-ideal theory, I think it is the former. If you are interested in the relevant facts to support the empirical claims that I make in the paper on libertarianism please see the citations in the footnotes. I talk, for instance, about how malnutrition can lead to a host of diseases that can undermine autonomy (e.g. beri beri). I agree entirely with your worries about political philosophy in general, however.

You might also be interested in my best attempt to get a handle on the empirical case for free trade (I think there is a draft on my web page though the paper is currently under revision).

One reason more political philosophers probably don't engage so much with the empirical data is that it is difficult to find a good place to publish interdisciplinary articles.

Cheers, -Nicole

By: Nicole Hassoun

Nicole Hassoun — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 00:42:01 +0000

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:37:57 +0000

I'm not sure factual and moral claims come apart so easily. I suspect many views about the nature of social justice are deeply fact-laden. That is to say, I don't think theorists arrive at their favorite principles of justice independently of what they think the world would IN FACT look like were it implemented. My hypothesis, then, is that a prior grasp of the body of evidence that helps explain empirical social patterns affects what moral principles we find attractive. If you found, for example, that political authorities never failed to badly abuse their power, I bet it would make a difference to your view of legitimate political authority.

But I think the simplest case of the relevance of facts to moral claims has to do with where one puts the boundary between a reasonable ideal theory and a pointlessly utopian theory. Facts have a lot to do with that. And in that case, facts determine which moral principles are in the eligible set. As you well know, a lot of fights in political philosophy are really just fights about whether a particular set of principles is pointlessly utopian or feasibly ideal, and those fights are basically intractable without appeal to facts .

By: destlund

destlund — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 00:21:42 +0000

Factual claims require factual support, certainly. What about fundamental moral claims? What about fundamental moral claims about politics, such as the nature of social justice, or political authority? Which facts would be helpful there?

By: Jacob T. Levy

Jacob T. Levy — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:32:57 +0000

As I've urged you before– read more political theory written by people with political science PhDs!

By: mghertner

mghertner — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 09:08:22 +0000

But usually, the argument aims to establish something substantive with an armchair, a Joe Stiglitz op-ed, and something remembered from the Tuesday Science Times.

That sounds suspiciously like…blogging.

By: k3nt

k3nt — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 00:16:42 +0000

Will, please recommend some books in moral theory that do the good stuff with psychology that you're saying moral theory has done in the past decade. If you do, I promise to read at least a large percentage of everything you recommend. So recommend a bunch of stuff! Thanks.

By: Will Wilkinson

Will Wilkinson — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:30:37 +0000

This is a test comment.