Great OP, but one I think misses some fairly key conceptual issues.
For instance, where you talk about a lack of expertise in those other fields - well, those people have no expertise in foreign policy, let’s use as eg, and so the circle continues. I suggest a political philosopher is at least going to be live to this and, if honest, will note their shortcomings or at least put forward justifications for their statements (perhaps relying on those other experts).
The job of synthesis is usually what’s going on in any arena that isn’t single-issue.
The argument about history is also, I think, quite obviously misplaced. Yes, we’ve run history once (and it’s not done). That doesn’t say much for the fact that (using your example) every attempt to instantiate communism has caused untold misery where it has been done. We are more than welcome to assess that data on it’s merits and reject Communism (if we’re that way inclined).
The issue is that, to your point, you can also look at history through a critical lens the other way and blame everything else (i use blame here plainly, not as a disparagement) for the failure of some idea or other. And while that rarely moves me, its totally legit.
When it comes to ethical discussion, you’re right, but most people implicitly believe in an objective ethical position such as “murder is obviously wrong”. No examination required. When examination is done, people tend to rely on facts to justify an ethical position - puppies suffer when you kick them, so don’t. But there’s far more to that chain of reasoning. It’s just super uncomfortable to realise there’s no way to ground your ethical stances in anything but a loosely-held set of systemic beliefs.
As far as I know the question of the legitimacy of institutions like states is a big part of political philosophy. This definitely isn’t a debate over empirical facts but more akin to ethics so this doesn’t go into any of your categories so it’s something we might discuss? am I missing something?
No, not missing anything. That’s exactly my point. Questions such as these are within the purview because they do not rely on adjudicating experts from external fields. My point it that very rarely do you actually see that kind of discussion forming part of the analysis of political events. You see it a lot in political philosophy proper (by which I mean the academic discipline), but oddly it doesn’t seem to pull across into political discussion.
For instance, where you talk about a lack of expertise in those other fields - well, those people have no expertise in foreign policy,
I was including expertise in foreign policy as a relevant field. My point is that we can’t adjudicate over fields in which we’re not expert.
a political philosopher is at least going to be live to this and, if honest, will note their shortcomings or at least put forward justifications for their statements (perhaps relying on those other experts).
My point is, the nature of the justifications. They might well justify their position based on coherence, consistency etc. What I find actually happens (and we have examples right here on this forum) is they justify their position based on the ‘truth’ of what one expert says despite knowing there are other experts who dispute that conclusion. It’s that ‘weighing of experts’ I’m pointing out as illegitimate, not any form of justification.
When it comes to ethical discussion…
You’ve misunderstood my point about ethics. It’s not that the discussion is about ethics, it’s that it claims to be when it is not. I’m highlighting a poor tactic I’ve seen quite a lot in political discussion - to frame something as an ethical dispute when it is, in reality, a disagreement over facts.
Yes, but, and I’m sorry if this was unclear, that would mean every arena is either siloed or answerable only to itself. That seems wrong in principle. I think its totally fine to adjudicate in fields you’re not expert, as long as you’re also not a moron. Non-experts have to assess expert-derived information all the time.
Right right, and that’s totally fair and a live issue. THe problem with this is it somewhat conflicts with the above issues. If this is the case, then there is no “expertise” one would be beholden to if commenting on a subject. If even the experts disagree, then there’s no real reason to become an expert in order to gain solid information. I am being vaguely facetious here, but not to a degree that makes the point less forceful imo.
Just to clarify for myself, the issue is that for a non-expert, it is impossible in principle to correctly adjudicate between those competing expert claims? I would say the opposite is the case. A third party need adjudicate in that scenario.
This appears to be a disagreement over facts If I claim that my position is ethical and you’re claiming it isn’t, we’re just back in the same boat (within the boat).
that would mean every arena is either siloed or answerable only to itself.
Only if the weight of empirical expert-based evidence were the only basis on which we could discuss competing theories. Fortunately it isn’t.
If even the experts disagree, then there’s no real reason to become an expert in order to gain solid information.
Oh dear. Well that puts paid to academia. If experts disagree there’s no point in becoming an expert.
Well… at least it’ll save a lot on Student Loans…
the issue is that for a non-expert, it is impossible in principle to correctly adjudicate between those competing expert claims?
Correct.
I would say the opposite is the case. A third party need adjudicate in that scenario.
Seriously? So to resolve the question of whether Unified Field Theory or Grand Unified Theories is the better unified theory model of forces in physics we ought get Sheryl from accounts to cast a quick eye over them?
If I claim that my position is ethical and you’re claiming it isn’t, we’re just back in the same boat (within the boat).
I would stick my neck out here and say the appropriate expert on the matter of ‘what my disagreement is’ might just be …me.
I think I disagree here. We do debate the degree to which it is ethically permissible to deliberately allow vulnerable people to be put in harm’s way and this is actually not as unusual as it sounds: it is actually normal governance universal to all human civilization. To make explaining my disagreement easier, I think rather than talking about extreme policing directly, let’s cut to the chase and talk about capital punishment first, because making the issue about the greatest extreme makes it as clear as possible.
I support capital punishment.
But I also recognize two sources of moral tension with supporting capital punishment that I and other supporters have to get comfortable with to maintain that position:
The number of innocent people excecuted in any imperfect system (any human system) with capital punishment will inevitably be non-zero.
Somebody has to actually be the state executioner and that person has to suspend their own personal judgements to obey the courts in order for the actual capital punishment to occur.
These are surrmountable moral burdens: they wouldn’t necessarily force us to abandon support for capital punishment, but they aren’t insignificant either. While, I reiterate, I do support capital punishment, my support for it is conditional. There may exist circumstances under which one or the other or both of these moral burdens might increase past the point where they are tolerable, like for example:
That non-zero percentage of innocent people executed by accident, should it happen to somehow increase past some threashold, should trigger a halt to the practice – obviously at some point before it reaches 100 percent of the population so that everybody’s dead.
If society changed to such an extreme degree that the state executioner, even behind the protection of relative anonymnity, became the subject of an actual civil war so that the policy itself was causing mass death of innocents, this should probably also cause a halt to the policy or at least a moratorium on it to prevent such an outcome.
I would say we have to make a similar tradeoff calculus about every policing decision similar to the one I’ve outlined about capital punishment – and the topic of exactly where to set that threshold of acceptable risk of harm is, like taxes, definitely debatable no matter how “Back the Blue” you are.
So we do, in every policing decision, accept some risk of harm to innocents by the very nature of law enforcement. Enforcing laws – any laws, enforced in any way – does put vulnerable people in harm’s way at least some of the time and we do have to accept that outcome to a degree greater than zero in order to maintain civilization at all. Also, this acceptance is deliberate in the sense that we do deliberate about it.
Assuming we aren’t anarchists, then the question isn’t whether any such risk is acceptable (it is going to be non-zero for any civilized society) but how much risk is acceptable.
Since I was talking about experts, to be “the opposite”, the third party must be a non-expert. I chose Sheryl, but we could use Bob if you prefer.
The point was we’re now disageeeinf on a fact, about what you content is ethical.
Yes, and we have the relevant expert on hand. The expert on whether I’m disputing ethics or facts is me, because I’m the one constructing the argument.
My point about not masking an empirical disagreement as ethics was one relevant to when both parties agree on the ethical principle. Not a disagreement about arguments.
This is in the politcal philosophy category, and I specified that at the outset. I’m not trying to make an argument about all discussions ever.
On the contrary, what you provide is an excellent example.
Are you happy for innocent people to die for nothing? I assume not.
Are your opponents on this issue happy to let innocent people die who they could save? We assume not.
So the argument isn’t about ethics is it? Both parties agree that the system which causes fewest overall innocent deaths should prevail. You just disagree about the empirical fact of which system that actually is.
I’m not saying this is the only argument to be had on the matter. I’m saying thay when it is, it is an illegitimate move to pretend its about ethics when its actually about the facts.
Where did “opposite” come from?
Why would you choose the most extreme “other” rather than what actually happens in many, many professional scenarios: Other, related but non-overlapping professionals review work within the domain in question. Even in peer-review, the domain in which one person works may be different to that which they are reviewing. Albeit, not the quite hte degree you seem to be interpreting me as suggesting.
Yes, but that’s a reference to your claim - not the opposite of some specific element of it. I think that was over-thinking, or perhaps over-focus on your part. I did not mean that, clearly.
If I claim that my position is ethical and you’re claiming it isn’t, we’re just back in the same boat (within the boat).