Notes – Introduction to Political Science 2022
Lecture 01: 04/11/2022
What is political science?
The political process is about collective choice, without simple resort to force or violence, although it does
not exclude at least the threat of those options. It is about what shapes and constrains those choices, the
use of power, and its consequences.
Political Science studies one aspect of human behaviour/life from different theoretical perspectives.
There is no consensus about political science and what we study ("Celebration of diversity").
An arena definition regards politics as occurring within certain limited arenas, initially focusing on
Parliament, the executive, the public service, political parties, interest groups, and elections, although this
was later expanded to include the judiciary, army, and police. Here, political scientists like behaviouralists,
rational choice theorists, and some institutionalists focus on the formal operation of politics in the world of
government and those who seek to influence it.
The other definition of politics, a process of definition, is much looser than the arena one and reflects the
idea that power is inscribed in all social processes (family, schoolroom). This broader definition of the
political is mainly associated with feminism, constructivism, poststructuralism, and Marxism.
,Notes – Introduction to Political Science 2022
Lecture 02: 07/11/2022
Normative political theory
The normative concepts are justice, equality, freedom, rights, democracy, and authority. They are
normative in that they seek to specify what we should do rather than simply describing how political life
functions.
Political theory studies concepts and principles used to explain, critique, describe and prescribe political
action, events, and institutions.
Core themes in political theory are power, legitimacy, authority, justice, equality, rights, and ideology.
The fact/ value distinction
- A traditional view is that facts and values can be cleanly separated
- Facts are concerned with "what is" (Empirical) -> can be verified
- Values are concerned with "what should be" (Normative) -> what could be better + measurement
Normative and empirical claims
- Empirical statements are claims about what factually is
- It is sunny outside
- I had French toast for breakfast
- Normative statements communicate value judgements
- We should go and sit in the garden (prescriptive) -> no claim about a fact
- French toast is delicious (evaluation) -> deliciousness is a value judgement
Normative arguments
- Each argument with a normative conclusion (X) must have at least one normative premise (Y).
Example argument:
- Torture is always wrong -> normative premise
- Waterboarding is a form of torture
- The CIA waterboarded Al Qaeda suspects in 2002 -> empirical fact
- What the CIA did was morally reprehensible -> normative conclusion
Normative claims and moral claims
- All moral claims are normative claims
- Torture is always wrong
- Not all normative claims are moral claims
- French toast is delicious
,Notes – Introduction to Political Science 2022
Methods in normative political theory
John Rawls provided a methodology for political theorists which has proven to be highly influential. He set
the tone for much normative political theory, sometimes called "analytical" political theory.
He both tackled substantive questions of which principles of justice are the best and methodological
questions about how to go about theorising justice.
Concepts and conceptions of justice - "A Theory of Justice."
- Rawls asked: How might citizens live together on terms which are fair to each of us and therefore
ensure that the exercise of the state's coercive power is justified (free and equal citizenship).
- We may agree on principles of justice when stated abstractly but disagree when specified using
conceptions.
- Distribution of justice -> distribution of resources fairly (different conceptions)
Rawls proposed two tests for a theory of justice.
Rawlsian test 1: reflective equilibrium
- Reflective equilibrium describes a process of mutually revising considered moral judgements
(reasonably confident views about cases of justice and injustice) and general principles.
- We should not hold judgements against our principles and vice versa. Of course, they can be
changed to be in line (mutual adjustment), but an argument is formally wrong if they are not
coherent.
- The goal is articulating a theory which reaches a state of reflective equilibrium – i.e., one that is
fully compatible with our considered judgements.
Rawlsian test 2: impartiality
- Rawl's second test of a theory of justice lies in its impartiality.
- One of the most familiar criticisms of the political arguments presented in public life is that they are
self-serving.
- You should not make an argument if it is exclusively attached to a person's goal/ will (self-interest).
- He designed a thought experiment to describe what this kind of impartiality might mean in politics.
- The veil of ignorance/ the original position -> a person should "forget" basic things about herself
(race, religion, …) to make a neutral argument and not only in favour of a specific group.
An argument, therefore, should be capable of attaining a state of reflective equilibrium and emerging
under a hypothetical decision procedure that models impartiality.
Rawls' two principles of justice
- The Greatest Equal Liberties principle is a system of fundamental liberties that maximises equal civil
liberties.
- If we all imagine ourselves behind the veil of ignorance/ in the original position, civil liberties
would be equal.
- Social and economic inequalities guarantee the most significant benefit to the least advantaged and
fair equality of opportunity.
- If we imagine ourselves behind the veil of ignorance/ in the original position, we do not know in
which position of society we are and want to secure ourselves if we would be in the least
advantaged group.
, Notes – Introduction to Political Science 2022
1. Cohen on facts and values
G. A. Cohen suggested that when we assess rival normative theories, the standard to judge a theory of
justice should be the truth, not coherence and justifiability. Some theories and conceptions of critical
political ideas are preferred to others because they are right and others wrong. Principles of justice are to
be defended because they are true, not because of the conditions in which people might or might not
choose them (in opposition to Rawls's "Veil of Ignorance").
Justice requires equality -> Rawls accepts inequality if it benefits the least advantaged. There should be no
concession because of human nature (selfishness)
Cohen suspects that in appearing to condone incentives only necessary because of human selfishness,
Rawls is no longer producing an argument about what justice is. He is, instead, answering the entirely
different question of what we should do when selfishness means that we can no longer achieve perfect
justice.
Political ideals and feasibility
Rawls tried to popularise the distinction between ideal and non-ideal theory. Although we live in an unjust
world, we must first work out the right principles to regulate an idealised society somehow, to work out
what justice is. Answering that question gives us our ideal theory of justice. Then, once we have that theory
clear, we can investigate what we should do once we drop the idealising assumption about behaviour and
assume that people will comply with our chosen rules imperfectly. This is the non-ideal theory, which gives
the most guidance on what to do.
Rawls assumes that stability is a desideratum for a principle of justice. For Rawls, a principle that people are
unlikely to abide by over time must be rejected even at the level of ideal theory.
Other scholars say that rejecting a principle because it would be technologically impossible to implement
might be one thing. However, rejecting a principle of justice because people are not likely to make the
sacrifices it demands is a different matter. Normative ideas should stretch towards what we can achieve.
What is to be considered feasible can come on in leaps and bounds in response to changing circumstances,
and to a considerable extent, beliefs about what is possible influence what is possible. This means that
feasibility concerns should not be a hard constraint on political theorising.
Ideal and non-ideal theory
- Theories are ideal or non-ideal in relation to:
- The degree to which they assume full compliance
- The degree to which they are realistic or utopian
- Whether a theory is transitional or ends state
Ideal theory -> we assume that people are fully complying (utopianism)
Non-ideal theory -> we accept how the people are (realistic)
Amartya Sen's comparative approach
- Sen thinks that ideal theory is unnecessary – comparative judgements are enough
- If we try to get to our utopian world (ideal theory), we might create an even more unequal world.
We need to try and improve the current system (non-ideal theory).
- Ordinal (non-ideal) vs cardinal (ideal) utility in economics
