Realism about political philosophy.

AuthorRescher, Nicholas
PositionREFLECTIONS

First, an important distinction. Realism in politics is a position urging modest expectations regarding what political activity can achieve: it stresses the limited efficacy of political measures in realizing desired political objectives. By contrast, realism about political theory is a position urging modest expectations regarding what political theory can achieve: it stresses the limited efficacy of political generalization in enhancing our understanding of political phenomena. The aim of the present discussion is to substantiate this second mode of realism. Accordingly, it calls into question the sort of idealism that looks not just to the removal of imperfections but to the attainment of perfection, for these two goals are far from being one and the same.

Political philosophy all too commonly exhibits a certain Utopian penchant for determining generally benign sociopolitical arrangements and addressing the ways and means of arriving at such an outcome. But serious obstacles impede the realization of this desideratum--impediments whose basis is not merely practical but more fundamentally theoretical.

The rational management of political affairs is usually held to aim at promoting the general good. However, for this promotion to hold it would be necessary to determine at the outset just wherein "the general good" consists. But regrettably there is good reason to view this task as in principle unachievable. And the grounds for this unrealizability are not far to seek, for the ideal of "the general good" raises so many questions that the entire matter becomes rationally intractable.

The prime difficulty here is that when we try to get a grip on the conception of "the general good," the venture runs like sand between our fingers. Here we meet with more questions than answers:

* Is "the general good" a matter of satisfying felt wants or real needs) (Think here of Oliver Cromwell's invocation: "Not what they want but what's good for them.")

* Who decides? Who is to be the arbiter of what is for "the general good"? (The public at large? The voters? Their elected representatives? The "experts"? Some "enlightened" individual?)

* What factors are determinative of "the general good"? (The greatest amount of satisfaction? The least amount of dissatisfaction? An intermediate average? And is the matter not just one of satisfaction/dissatisfaction, but are degrees of each also to be taken into account?)

* How are the various different component...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT