Advertisement

Res Publica

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 337–347 | Cite as

Should Political Philosophy be more Realistic?

Bell, Duncan (ed). 2009. Political Thought and International Relations: Variations on a Realist Theme. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 256 pp Bourke, Richard, and Geuss, Raymond (eds). 2009. Political Judgement: Essays for John Dunn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 368 pp
  • Jonathan Floyd
Book Review

There has been a great deal of argument of late regarding the proper relationship between politics and moral theory (Estlund 2007; Freeden 2009; Galston 2009; Geuss 2008; Gray 2007; Philp 2007; Swift 2008; Williams 2005). Whereas so-called ‘moralists’ hold that politics is subject to determinate, absolute moral rules, even if those rules are not quite the same as those applicable to matters of personal morality, ‘realists’ hold that matters are, in reality, substantially more complicated. And yet, exactly why these new realists believe things to be so complicated, and exactly whatthey think such complications entail for both political philosophy and political practice, is often unclear. It is, therefore, a most welcome fact that both of these two volumes go some way towards easing that lack of clarity, and in particular towards helping us answer three important questions, each of which looms large over realist political thought as it exists today. These are: (1) what exactly is the...

References

  1. Appiah, Kwame A. 2008. Experiments in Ethics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Berlin, Isaiah. 2003. The Crooked Timber of Humanity. London: Pimlico.Google Scholar
  3. Dunn, John. 1979. Western political theory in the face of the future. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dunn, John. 2000. The Cunning of Unreason. London: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  5. Estlund, David. 2007. Democratic Authority. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Freeden, Michael. 2009. Failures of Political Thinking. Political Studies 57.Google Scholar
  7. Galston, William. 2009. Realism and Moralism in Political Theory: The Legacies of John Rawls. In Reflections on Rawls: an assessment of his legacy, ed. Young, Shaun P. Farnham, Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Geuss, Raymond. 2008. Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Greene, Joshua D. 2003. From neural ‘is’ to moral ‘ought’: what are the moral implications of neuroscientific moral psychology? Nature Reviews Neuroscience 4: October.Google Scholar
  10. Gray, John. 2000. Two Faces of Liberalism. New York, NY: The New Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gray, John. 2007. Black Mass: Apocalyptic Religion and the Death of Utopia. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  12. Hampshire, Stuart. 1989. Innocence and Experience. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  13. Hampshire, Stuart. 1999. Justice is Conflict. London: Duckworth & Co.Google Scholar
  14. Mouffe, Chantal. 2005. On the Political. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Newey, Glenn. 2000. After Politics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Nichols, Shaun, and Joshua Knobe. 2008. Moral Responsbility and Determinism: The Cognitive Science of Folk Intuitions. In Experimental Philosophy, ed. Joshua Knobe, and Shaun Nichols, 105–128. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Philp, Mark. 2007. Political Conduct. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Sinnott-Armstrong, Walter. 2006. Moral Intuitionism Meets Empirical Psychology. In Metaethics After Moore, ed. Terry Horgan, and Mark Timmons, 339–365. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Swift, Adam. 2008. The Value of Philosophy in Nonideal Circumstances. Social Theory and Practice 34: 3.Google Scholar
  20. Taylor, Charles. 1984. Philosophy and its history. In Philosophy in History, ed. Richard Rorty, Jerome B Schneewind, and Quentin Skinner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Williams, Bernard. 2005. In the Beginning was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Politics and International RelationsUniversity of OxfordOxfordEngland

Personalised recommendations