Adams, Ian-The Inevitability of Political Metaphysics

8/18/2019 Adams, Ian-The Inevitability of Political Metaphysics

1/16

THE INEVITABILITY OF POLITICAL METAPHYSICS

ABSTRACT

The purpose here is to examine the nature and extent o the metaph!si"a# e#ement in normati$e po#iti"a# theor!% the "entra# "ontention &ein' that a## su"h theor! is a (ind o metaph!si"s) It *i## &e

su''ested first o a## that% despite appearan"es% the "ru"ia# metaph!si"a# e#ement underpinnin' &oth

theo#o'i"a# and rationa#ist theories is in a"t the same) Se"ond#! it *i## &e ar'ued that the norma##!

assumed distin"tion &et*een metaph!si"a# oundations and the non+metaph!si"a# theor! that rests

upon it is unsustainae% and that the metaph!si"a# e#ement per$ades the *ho#e o su"h theories) The

main thin(ers dis"ussed are Marx and Rawls) Third#! it *i## &e ar'ued that the distin"tion &et*een

,ideo#o'i"a#, and ,phi#osophi"a#, theories is a #ar'e#! spurious one and that a uni!in' notion o

po#iti"a# metaph!si"s "ou#d rep#a"e &oth) Fina##!% it *i## &e ar'ued that sin"e normati$e thou'ht is

ines"apae in modern po#iti"s% then so too is po#iti"a# metaph!si"s)

Throu'hout the histor! o *estern po#iti"a# thou'ht% metaph!si"s has had a re"o'nised ro#e in pro$idin' oundations upon *hi"h a 'reat man! normati$e or ideo#o'i"a# theories rest) -hat *i## &e

ar'ued here% ho*e$er% is that metaph!si"s is not mere#! a oundationa# e#ement in man! normati$e

theories &ut an essentia# and per$asi$e e#ement o a## su"h theories. indeed% to su"h an extent that

normati$e theor! as su"h "an &e proper#! understood as a orm o metaph!si"s) It *i## &e urther

ar'ued that% sin"e po#iti"s ne"essari#! in$o#$es a normati$e or ideo#o'i"a# dimension% po#iti"a#

metaph!si"s must &e a ne"essar! part o po#iti"a# #ie)

Religion, nature and human nature

-hat then is metaph!si"s/ This is a "omp#ex and "ontro$ersia# issue *ithin phi#osoph!)0n12 But or

present purposes it is sui"ient to ta(e a strai'htor*ard and #itera# $ie*% *hi"h is that metaph!si"sis simp#! that *hi"h is &e!ond ph!si"s) In other *ords% a"tua# "#aims a&out the nature o rea#it!

that "annot in principle &e in$esti'ated or tested &! ph!si"a# s"ien"e) 3emote rom our experien"e

as this ma! sound% metaph!si"s does in a"t tou"h us "#ose#!) Metaph!si"a# assumptions rame our

e$er!da! thin(in'% *hi#e the *a! *e #i$e our #i$es is "o#oured &! a $ariet! o metaph!si"a# &e#ies

rom the existen"e o 'od to the nature o the se#) The ar"het!pa# orm o metaph!si"a# &e#ie is

re#i'ion) Here #ie is en"ompassed &! some notion o the di$ine% usua##! di$ine &ein's% 'ods or 'od%

oten &eni'n% a#thou'h not ne"essari#! so) Su"h &e#ies ha$e% o "ourse% proound#! shaped the

normati$e po#iti"a# tradition)

But a#thou'h a "on"ept o the di$ine dierentiates the re#i'ious rom other (inds o thou'ht% it does

not *ho##! deine re#i'ion) 3e#i'ion is more than 4ust a theor! a&out *hat exists% o dierent #e$e#so existen"e) It is a *a! o #ie% a #ie #i$ed in re#ation to the spiritua#) The "onerrin' o spiritua# and

thereore metaph!si"a# status upon the *or#d% or aspe"ts o it% is at the same time a "onerrin' o

ethi"a# si'nii"an"e) 3e#i'ions mora#ise rea#it!) The! inuse the *or#d *ith values% &ut insist upon

their o&4e"ti$it!% independent o human "ons"iousness) 5ood and e$i# are seen as or"es in the

*or#d *ith presen"e and po*er)

S"ien"e "an no more in$esti'ate the o&4e"ti$e existen"e o values than it "an entities #i(e 'ods or

sou#s% so that *hi#e re#i'ion,s status as metaph!si"a# &e#ie is primari#! a matter o the positin' o

spiritua# entities% it is a#so metaph!si"a# &! $irtue o its o&4e"tii"ation o values6 ma(in' them part

o externa# rea#it!) Most phi#osophers *ou#d no* insist that values "annot &e independent o us in

this *a!% that the! are *hat *e &rin' to rea#it!) Values are entire#! separate rom a"ts% are *hat *e

&rin' to a"ts) There is no ar'ument that unam&i'uous#! sho*s one "an &e deri$ed rom the other)

Most instan"es o the attempt are demonstra! a#se% as Hume asserted a #on' time a'o) Ho*e$er%

re#i'ions not on#! $io#ate this principle% it is their nature to do so) 3e#i'ious understandin' as su"h

http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#tochttp://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib1http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#tochttp://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib1


2/16

"oners ethi"a# si'nii"an"e on o&4e"ti$e rea#it! &! theoreti"a##! usin' to'ether the rea#ms o a"t

and value) These rea#ms o a"t and value "an &e united and 4oined% and one made to entai# the other%

at a metaph!si"a# #e$e# *here the usion "an &e sustained &! aith) Thus% in 7udaism% Christianit!

and Is#am% 5od 4ust does not happen to &e 'ood% 5od #itera##! is 'oodness6 5od and 'oodness are

deined in terms o ea"h other) For the &e#ie$er% ,5od is 'ood, is not a simp#e e$a#uati$e statement%

&ut is a a"tua# statement that des"ri&es 5od,s essen"e) It is a statement o ne"essar! truth a'ainst

*hi"h other statements a&out 5od and the *or#d ma! &e tested)The pro"ess o usin' a"t and value is a $er! simp#e one) It &oi#s do*n to no more than a 8uestion

o deinition) The *or#d o a"t is deined in terms o the *or#d o value. at its simp#est 5od% or

some e8ui$a#ent% is deined as 'ood% the 9e$i# is deined as e$i#) This usion o a"t and value is

perhaps most exp#i"it in the semi+re#i'ious $ision o P#ato% *here u#timate rea#it! is "onstituted &!

the *or#d o the Forms) These are arran'ed in a 'reat hierar"h! that "u#minates in the Form o the

5ood% *hi"h% *e are to#d% "auses% inuses and animates a## the rest) And 4ust as a## empiri"a##!

o&ser$ae do's% as part o their su&stan"e% parta(e in the Form o the 9o'% so a## 'ood thin's

parta(e o the Form o the 5ood) In The 3epui" this is not ar'ued or% &ut mere#! asserted &! the

"hara"ter o So"rates)0n:2 Ne$erthe#ess% mere#! &! this pro"ess o des"ri&in' rea#it! in a "ertain

*a!% values are em&odied in the *or#d and made part o the "onstitution o rea#it!)Be"ause no s"ientii" pro"edure "an estaish *hat is ethi"a##! 'ood or &ad *e $er! proper#!

ex"#ude values rom s"ien"e) An! theor! that ma(es the mora##! 'ood and &ad% ri'ht and *ron'%

superior and inerior% part o its "on"eption o o&4e"ti$e rea#it! in a s!stemati" *a! is ne"essari#! a

metaph!si"s) -hat is &ein' su''ested here is that this ne"essari#! em&ra"es the *ho#e o normati$e

po#iti"a# theor!)

In "onsiderin' in more detai# the re#ationship &et*een re#i'ion and po#iti"a# thou'ht% it is

parti"u#ar#! appropriate to #oo( at the *or( o 7ohn Lo"(e% sin"e he stands at the head o a num&er

o inte##e"tua# traditions that are o parti"u#ar si'nii"an"e or the *ider 8uestion *e are examinin')

He is the most important oundin' i'ure o the #i&era# tradition% and o natura# and human ri'hts

theor!) Furthermore% he is the ounder o the tradition o modern phi#osophi"a# empiri"ism% *hi"hasserts the authorit! o the e$iden"e o the senses in a## epistemo#o'i"a# matters% e#e$atin' s"ien"e

as the ar"het!pa# orm o (no*#ed'e) It is a $ie* that is the $er! antithesis o% and a "hie sour"e o

"riti"ism o% a## metaph!si"a# thou'ht)0n;2

9espite Lo"(e,s stature in respe"t o these dierent traditions% the! do in a"t "on#i"t) It is notorious

that there is a "hasm in his thin(in' &et*een his epistemo#o'! on the one hand% and his ethi"a# and

po#iti"a# thou'ht on the other) Lo"(e insists that a## (no*#ed'e must "ome rom the senses and he is

parti"u#ar#! s"ornu# o an! notion o innate ideas) Yet in his T*o Treatises o 5o$ernment he

inorms us that the Natura# La* is 0usin' Ci"ero,s *ords2 ,p#ain ))) *rit in the Hearts o a##

Man(ind,)0n


3/16

The "riti"a# "on"ept is human nature) -e ha$e seen ho* Lo"(e de$e#oped a $ersion o Natura# La*

*here the indi$idua# is endo*ed *ith natura# ri'hts% rom *hi"h po#iti"a# pres"riptions "an &e

dedu"ed) This is a mora#ised "on"eption o human nature% and e8ui$a#ent "on"eptions "an &e ound

in a## normati$e theories% *hether the! ha$e re#i'ious "onne"tions or not) Human &ein's are seen as

essentia##! ree or e8ua#% or determined &! ra"e or nation or sex% or their re#ation to nature% or some

other ethi"a##! si'nii"ant re#ation) These values &ein' "entra# to human nature% it is on#! possie

or human &ein's to #ourish i the! #i$e in a so"iet! *here there is reedom% or e8ua#it!% or *herethe nation is ree or the master ra"e dominant% or *here there is a true &a#an"e *ith nature% or

other*ise em&odies *hate$er values are "entra# to a 'i$en ideo#o'!) This mora# out#oo(% that

intimate#! #in(s values *ith human nature and the 'ood so"iet!% per$ades the *ho#e o an!

normati$e theor!) Su"h mora#ised "on"eptions o human nature are ne"essari#! metaph!si"a#) No

s"ien"e "ou#d determine that peop#e need reedom in order to #ourish or that humanit! "an on#!

u#i# its destin! i a## are e8ua# or i a "ertain ra"ia# orderin' is o&ser$ed6 nor "an it estaish *hat

(ind o so"iet! em&odies the 'ood or man(ind)

Ho*e$er% the metaph!si"s does not end at this oundationa# #e$e#% &ut extends throu'h the *ho#e o

an! ideo#o'i"a#=normati$e theor!) To i##ustrate this it is useu# to #oo( at Marx% *hose theor! is at

the opposite po#e rom Lo"(e,s re#i'ious one)Marx *as a mi#itant atheist and materia#ist% and "#aimed his theor! to &e thorou'h#! s"ientii") He

*as adamant that the end o "apita#ism and the "omin' o "ommunism *as not a mora# idea# to &e

stri$en or &ut an histori"a# ne"essit!% that "ou#d &e demonstrated &! s"ientii" reasonin' *ith no

mora# "ontent)0n>2 Nonethe#ess% Marx does ha$e a mora#ised and thereore metaph!si"a# "on"eption

o human nature that per$ades his *ho#e theor!)

Marx,s materia#ism and dia#e"ti" are &oth metaph!si"a# ideas% &ut that does not "on"ern us here)

More important#!% he had a "on"eption o humanit! as essentia##! "reati$e6 *ho throu'h its #a&our

"reates its o*n *or#d% !et *hi"h throu'hout re"orded histor! has &een denied the true

a"(no*#ed'ement and en4o!ment o that *or#d throu'h "#ass di$ision and asso"iated exp#oitation)

The resu#t is that man(ind is a#ienated) That is% man(ind is possessed o a di$ided and estran'ed ps!"he% su"h that indi$idua#s are a#ienated rom the *or#d% rom others and rom themse#$es)0n?2

This is p#ain#! an e$i#% or to &e a#ienated is to &e de'raded and dehumanised% and denied u##

de$e#opment as a human &ein')

Furthermore% this is "#ear#! no ps!"ho#o'i"a# theor! that "ou#d &e su&4e"t to o&ser$ation and test)

There are no measurae s!mptoms% not e$en unhappiness) A Vi"torian a"tor! *or(er "ou#d &e as

happ! as a #ar(% &ut or a Marxist he is a#ienated none+the+#ess) This *or(er% emp#o!ed &! a

"apita#ist% is ipso a"to de'raded% exp#oited and dehumanised) Human &ein's are on#! ree and

u#i##ed *hen master o their o*n #a&our% and u#i##in' their true nature) This ,true nature, is a

mora# "on"ept and man(ind is thus deined in su"h a *a! that 'ood and &ad are &ui#t into it) It is%

thereore% a metaph!si"a# "on"eption o humanit!% no #ess than the "on"eption that ea"h indi$idua#

has 5od+'i$en natura# ri'hts) It is a "on"eption that "#aims to reer to a deeper rea#it!% one that #ies

&ehind those mere appearan"es to *hi"h empiri"a# in$esti'ation is "onined)

Marx thus posits an essentia# human ps!"he% *hi"h is 4ust as m!sterious and empiri"a##!

ina""essie as the Christian sou#% !et *hi"h is a#so the mainsprin' o #ie) 7ust as in Au'ustinian

theo#o'! the sou# is tainted and distorted &! sin% so the Marxian ps!"he is tainted and distorted &!

exp#oitation) And 4ust as there is a pre+ordained a## and redemption% so in Marx there is an

histori"a# drama% to &e p#a!ed out in *hi"h the ps!"he is s!stemati"a##! disassemed and

ra'mented% on#! to &e reassemed% re"onstru"ted and restored to *ho#eness at a hi'her% and se#+

understandin' #e$e# o existen"e% *hen the histori"a# pro"ess has &een "omp#eted) 5oodness #ies in

the te#os% in humanit!,s restored and se#+"ons"ious *ho#eness6 *hate$er pre$ents that out"ome

0pre$ents pro'ress2 is an e$i#% e$en i a ne"essar! e$i#) The standard is Nature% 4ust as in Natura#La*% &ut it is an Aristote#ian $ersion o Nature% out o He'e#)0n@2 Nature is 'ood and 'oodness is

&ein' true to one,s nature. that is% that *hi"h it is in one,s nature to &e"ome% a u##! inte'rated human

http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib5http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib6http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib7http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib5http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib6http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib7


4/16

&ein'% #i$in' in "reati$e harmon! *ith e##o* human &ein's in the *or#d) Marx dea#s here in

pro"esses and states o aairs &ehind empiri"a# rea#it! that "annot &e dis"erned *ithout the aid o

the theor!% *hi"h is o ne"essit! &oth metaph!si"a# and ethi"a#)

Thus% in "ommon *ith other normati$e theories% Marxism has an ethi"a#= metaph!si"a# oundation)

But *hat is &ein' ar'ued or here is the mu"h stron'er "#aim that normati$e po#iti"a# theor! is

s!stemati"a##! and ne"essari#! metaph!si"a#6 that indeed normati$e po#iti"a# theor! is a spe"ies o

metaph!si"s) This is so in the sense that its metaph!si"a# e#ement per$ades and determines the*ho#e nature o a normati$e theor!% and that in "onse8uen"e *e "an desi'nate an! su"h theor!%

*hether it &e ,phi#osophi"a#, or ,ideo#o'i"a#,% as a po#iti"a# metaph!si"s)

The language and structure of normative theory

A## normati$e po#iti"a# theories ha$e some (ind o theoreti"a# stru"ture *hi"h purports to te## us

ho* the human *or#d is% exp#ains ho* it "ame to &e in its present "ondition and *hat its potentia# is

or the uture) In the "ourse o "onstru"tin' su"h a theor!% as in the "onstru"tion o s"ientii"

theories% there is a ne"essar! de$e#opment o $o"a&u#ar!) To "reate a "oherent theor! "on"epts ha$e

to &e deined% and the! must &e deined in terms o ea"h other to ensure a "onsistent and

inter"onne"ted s!stem o meanin') It is durin' this pro"ess that in a normati$e po#iti"a# theor! the

ethi"a# "ontent is diused throu'hout the stru"ture) First o a##% terms *ith an o&$ious mora# "ontent

are used% su"h as a#ienation% exp#oitation and t!rann!% as *e## as parti"u#ar $ersions o 4usti"e%

reedom% pro'ress and others) These are then used to deine other terms that in ordinar! usa'e do

not ha$e a mora# "ontent% &ut are 'i$en one &! this pro"ess)

In Marxism% or examp#e% terms su"h as ,"apita#ism,% ,state,% ,"#ass, and ,ideo#o'!, are deined in su"h

a *a! as to ha$e a mora# "ontent "onerred upon them% and *hi"h re#ates to the mora#ised

"on"eption o human nature a#read! dis"ussed) Conse8uent#!% *hen a Marxist uses the term

,"apita#ism, it ne"essari#! em&odies the mora# notions o exp#oitation and dehumanisation% *hi"h it

does not ha$e in norma# uses o the term) A## the "entra# "on"epts o a theor! "arr! a simi#ar mora#

"har'e% either o$en or "on"ea#ed) In this *a! an! num&er o des"riptions and exp#anations are possie that appear to &e o&4e"ti$e#! a"tua# and exp#anator! &ut *hi"h are "ompromised &! their

mora# "ontent) And sin"e the! pi"ture a rea#it! *ith values &ui#t into it% it must &e a metaph!si"a#

pi"ture)

On a Marxian $ie*% the *or(in's o "apita#ism are &ased upon the notion o surp#us value% *here

*or(ers are depri$ed o most o the *ea#th the! "reate throu'h their #a&our &! o*ners *ho

0a""ordin' to the theor!2 "ontri&ute nothin' to the produ"ti$e pro"ess and are mere#! parasiti" upon

it) -or(ers% thereore% are ne"essari#! exp#oited% and so Marx,s #a&our theor! o value has a mora#

"har'e that% or examp#e% 3i"ardo,s does not ha$e)0n2 Conse8uent#!% or Marxists the "apita#ist

s!stem is inherent#! &ad% exp#oitati$e and dehumanisin' &! deinition) The theor! deines it as an

instrument o "#ass oppression that depri$es those it oppresses o the "han"e o de$e#opment as u##human &ein's) It does not 4ust happen to do this6 it is an essentia# part o the theor! that it must do

it) Thus% here too *e ind the pro"ess o em&od!in' values in rea#it!% *ea$in' them into the a&ri"

o *hat exists% *hi"h *e ha$e su''ested is the mar( o a metaph!si"a# dimension)

It is not 4ust that "apita#ism is e$a#uated in a "ertain *a!% the theor! is a&out ho* the *or#d *or(s)

Capita#ism is an e$i# s!stem that has "ertain ine$itae and ne"essar! "onse8uen"es or so"iet! and

indi$idua#s. it o ne"essit! 'enerates a#ienation% *hi"h is a de'radin' and dehumanisin' "ondition)

These "onse8uen"es ma! &e impossie to dis"ern &! empiri"a# means) -e ma! ha$e a "apita#ism

that seems to produ"e happ!% "ontented and #ourishin' *or(ers6 &ut Marxism insists that there is a

deeper hidden rea#it!% &e!ond the rea"h o empiri"a# s"ien"e% *here the rea# truth% the ne"essar! and

ine$itae truth% is the opposite o *hat appears)

The Marxist "on"eptions o the state and ideo#o'! are urther examp#es o this pro"ess o "onerrin'

ethi"a# status upon other*ise non+ethi"a# "on"epts) -ithin Marxist theor! the state is deined as an

http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#tochttp://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib8http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#tochttp://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib8


5/16

instrument o "#ass oppression)0n2 The Marxist has% thereore% a mora#ised "on"ept o the state% and

one that has &een endo*ed *ith attri&utes and ee"ts that no empiri"a# test "ou#d sho* or measure)

Simi#ar#!% ideo#o'! is a part o the s!stem% *ith its me"hanisms o oppression% that is a#ienatin' and

dehumanisin' in *a!s that are ne"essari#! so% *hate$er the empiri"a# e$iden"e)0n12 The! &oth

ha$e their part to p#a!% #i(e "apita#ism% in 'eneratin' a#ienation% that *e ha$e noted ear#ier is a

metaph!si"a# "ondition% and &e"ause o this a"hie$e metaph!si"a# status themse#$es) Thus% throu'h

the pro"ess o deinin' non+mora# entities++#i(e "apita#ism% ideo#o'!% the state and others++in mora#terms% the parti"u#ar mora# $ision that an ideo#o'! has is "arded in a## its "hara"teristi" "on"epts% and

&! this pro"ess inused into a## the e#ements o an ideo#o'!,s stru"ture) A## the des"ripti$e and

exp#anator! statements "arr! the mora#+metaph!si"a# "har'e% "reatin' a pi"ture o the *or#d that

"annot &e in$esti'ated &ut on#! sustained &! &e#ie) The *ho#e stru"ture is a metaph!si"a# one% sin"e

a## its e#ements ha$e values &ui#t into their nature and a## are in$o#$ed in pro"esses &e!ond the

means o s"ien"e to $eri! or measure or test)

Mu"h the same is true o an! normati$e po#iti"a# theor!) In an! su"h theor! its "on"eption o human

nature is &oth the (e! stru"tura# e#ement and the "entra# &earer o values)0n112 Ea"h normati$e

theor!% or $ersion o an ideo#o'! *ithin an ideo#o'i"a# tradition% has its o*n mora#ised "on"eption

o humanit!% *hi"h is "on"ei$ed o as &ein' &! nature "ompetiti$e or "o+operati$e% determined &!ra"e or "#ass or nationa#it!% or in need o order and hierar"h!% or en#i'htenment or reedom or

e8ua#it! or demo"ra"!% or *hate$er it mi'ht &e) These values% thus em&odied in human nature%

&e"ome in turn the &asis o the idea# so"iet! or *a! o #ie in *hi"h man(ind% 'i$en its essentia#

nature% *i## #ourish) This pi"ture o essentia# humanit! and its idea# "ir"umstan"es then &e"omes

the &asis or e$a#uatin' the present *or#d% *hi"h usua##! a##s short o the idea#) It he#ps to exp#ain

ho* the present *or#d "ame a&out and under#ies the pres"riptions or turnin' the present into the

idea#)0n1:2

At the same time an! normati$e theor! 'enerates a $o"a&u#ar! o *ords and phrases *hi"h "arr!

the values o the theor!% and this too "entres on the basic "on"eption o human nature) In the $arious

shades o 5reen theor!% or examp#e%0n1;2 there is a "ommon 'enera# "on"eption o &ein' ,in

harmon! *ith nature, &ehind *hi"h there is a *ho#e arra! o metaph!si"a# theories o humanit!a&out *hat is our proper re#ationship *ith the natura# *or#d and ho* *e "an &e at odds *ith nature)

This in turn imp#ies a theor! o histor! a&out ho* a natura# harmon! has &een #ost and "an &e

restored% *hi"h is in turn the &asis o an ethi"s *here *hate$er is ,in harmon! *ith nature, is 'ood

and *hat is ,out o harmon! *ith nature,% is ne"essari#! &ad)

In most "ases it is ne"essar! mere#! to point to a notion o human nature in a po#iti"a# theor!%

*hether imp#i"it or exp#i"it% or its ethi"a#+metaph!si"a# "ontent to &e apparent) This is true e$en o

theories that appear to a&4ure metaph!si"s and the *ho#e apparatus o theories o human nature and

histor!% i the! are nonethe#ess normati$e) An o&$ious re"ent examp#e is postmodern theor!% *hi"h

purports to "ondemn metaph!si"a# theories a&out human nature and the "ourse o histor!

0metanarrati$es2 as ,tota#isin', and oppressi$e) But #eadin' theorists sti## ha$e a ,*or#d $ie*,% *ith a"on"eption o human nature and o histor! "#ear#! imp#i"it) The! sti## pi"ture human &ein's as in

need o reedom e8ua#it! and demo"ra"! in order to #ourish% e$en i this does re8uire dierent

$ersions o these than pre$ai#in' normati$e theor! a##o*s)0n1


6/16

thou'ht is metaph!si"a#% then it is that o 7ohn Rawls)0n1?2 -e need% thereore% to #oo( at his ideas

in some detai#)

Recent liberal theory

3e"ent phi#osophisin' in the #i&era# tradition presents a pe"u#iar#! dii"u#t "ase or the theor! &ein'

oered here% and or reasons that are part#! due to the de$e#opment o t*entieth "entur! phi#osoph!in 'enera#% espe"ia##! in the En'#ish+spea(in' *or#d)

The rise o ana#!ti"a# phi#osoph! in the ear#! t*entieth "entur! *as in sharp rea"tion to the

extra$a'ant#! metaph!si"a# neo+He'e#ianism that *as in $o'ue in Britain and Ameri"a at the time%

and a triumphant reassertion o the o#der empiri"ist tradition in British thou'ht) Phi#osophers #i(e

3usse## and Moore poured s"orn upon the ashionae metaph!si"s as empt! *ind% *hi#e the

Lo'i"a# Positi$ists dismissed a## metaph!si"s as stri"t#! nonsense) The next dominant $ie*%

-itt'enstein,s ordinar! #an'ua'e phi#osoph!% a#so sa* the *ho#e metaph!si"a# enterprise as

essentia##! *ron'+headed% as arisin' rom mere "onusions o #an'ua'e to &e disso#$ed a*a! &!

patient ana#!sis)

Su&stanti$e mora# phi#osoph! *as simi#ar#! under a "#oud% *hen% espe"ia##! under the atta"(s oLo'i"a# Positi$ists% mora# #an'ua'e *as deemed to ha$e no meanin' &e!ond the expression o

persona# ee#in's% *ith no possi&i#it! o mora# statements &ein' o&4e"ti$e#! true) Certain#! there *as

no 8uestion o there &ein' an! sett#ement &! #o'i"a# means o proound dieren"es o$er mora#s) But

*hi#e this extreme $ie* is no #on'er "ommon% the $ie* that it is not possie or phi#osoph! to

pro$e one set o mora# values superior to another is sti## *ide#! he#d)

These de$e#opments he#ped to 'enerate a *idespread &e#ie in the 1>s that normati$e po#iti"a#

phi#osoph! *as indeed dead) Time pro$ed it to &e mere#! dormant and it su&se8uent#! re$i$ed% &ut

did so *ith an added se#"ons"iousness) Metaph!si"a# "#aims are a$oided% theories o human nature

and the human 'ood tend to &e minima#ist or ,thin,% espe"ia##! amon' those in the #i&era#

mainstream)That mainstream runs in se$era# "hanne#s% &ut is most o&$ious#! represented &! 7ohn Rawls and

3o&ert Noi"(% the #eadin' exponents o the #i&era# phi#osophi"a# tradition in the #ate t*entieth

"entur!) Neither dis"usses their "on"eptions o human nature% and their metaph!si"s is imp#i"it

rather than exp#i"it) In the "ase o Rawls's #ater *ritin's an! metaph!si"a# "ontent is irm#! denied6

&ut it is there nonethe#ess)

In A Theor! o 7usti"e%0n1@2 Rawls ma(es no mention o essentia# human nature or idea# so"ieties or

o metaph!si"a# oundations or an! su&stanti$e ethi"s) Instead he presents his "on"#usions as the

out"ome o the non+mora#% se#+interested "hoi"es o ordinar! rationa# peop#e) An ima'inar! 'roup

o them are as(ed to desi'n a so"iet! in *hi"h their interests *i## &e prote"ted% &ut the tas( is set up

in a su"h a *a! as to pre$ent them (no*in' *hat their interests are 'oin' to &e) In "onse8uen"ethe! sensi! "hoose a so"iet! *here the &est interests o e$er!one *i## &e ser$ed to the maximum

de'ree% so *hate$er ma! &e their situation in the ne* so"iet! the! *i## &eneit% e$en i the! end up

at the &ottom o the so"ia# heap) Based as it is% or appears to &e% on non+mora#% se#+interested

"onsiderations% it "ertain#! seems to ha$e #itt#e to do *ith the mode# o normati$e theorisin'

su''ested ear#ier% *ith its metaph!si"a# $ie* o human nature and an idea# so"iet! dedu"ed rom it)

But this is mis#eadin') Rawls,s pro"edure dis'uises ho* traditiona# his theor! is% or &ehind the

seemin' "ommon sense and uno&4e"tionae rationa#it! there is a "on"eption o essentia# human

nature at *or( and one rom *hi"h an idea# so"iet! is dra*n)

Rawls's idea# so"iet! is o "ourse that *hi"h his peop#e in the ,ori'ina# position, 0the ,"ontra"tees,% as

Rawls+"a##s them2 "hoose) It is a so"iet! that has the 'reatest de'ree o e8ua#it! that is "ompatie

*ith 'reatest liberty) Liberty% ho*e$er% "omes first % sin"e it is presumed that e$er!one,s first priority

*i## &e the reedom to pursue his or her o*n indi$idua# sense o the 'ood) A## e#se% it seems% is

se"ondar!) It is not a mora##! neutra# so"iet! that the "ontra"tees e#e"t to 4oin% &ut a orm o #i&era#

http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib16http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#tochttp://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib17http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib16http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#tochttp://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib17


7/16

so"iet!% one that em&odies #i&era# values% and *hi"h% in traditiona# #i&era# manner% is portra!ed as

the rationa# and thereore mora##! 'ood so"iet!)0n12 But as man! "ommentators ha$e su''ested%

0n12 this is an e#e"tion that has &een ri''ed) It is a thou'ht experiment *ith a 'uaranteed out"ome

0as *ere notions o the state o nature that it rep#a"ed2) No dou&t i Ho&&es had used the de$i"e the

peop#e in the ori'ina# position *ou#d ha$e &een preo""upied% not *ith reedom% &ut *ith

'uaranteein' persona# se"urit!) A medie$a# theorist *ou#d perhaps ha$e seen a""ess to 5od,s truth

as the o$erridin' priority6 *hi#e i Edmund Bur(e "ou#d ha$e &een persuaded to parti"ipate in soa&stra"t an exer"ise% his "ontra"tees *ou#d no dou&t ha$e stressed the need or an estaished so"ia#

hierar"h! o propert! and independen"e)

In ea"h "ase the peop#e in the ori'ina# position *ou#d &e ar"het!pa# human &ein's% indeed

maniestations o the "on"eption o human nature the parti"u#ar theorist operates *ith) And so it is

*ith Rawls) Stripped as the! are o a## indi$idua#it!% o time and o p#a"e% and o an! ps!"ho#o'i"a#

or so"ia# parti"u#arit!% the! "ou#d hard#! &e other*ise) These "ontra"tees are not ordinar! peop#e

suerin' rom amnesia and oi'ed to p#a! stran'e 'ames% or the! are not rea# peop#e at a##) The!

are a&stra"t theoreti"a# "onstru"ts% pure unen"um&ered indi$idua#s% on#! interested in their o*n

pro4e"ts) The! are se#ish% rationa# and ree o a## ties o "ountr! and "ommunit! and ami#! and

'eneration6 ties that not on#! &ind us to our e##o*s% &ut *hi"h% as "ommunitarians and others *ou#dmaintain%0n:2 ma(e us indi$idua# human &ein's) In a *a! these "ontra"tees are maniestations o

the idea# that #i&era#s ha$e a#*a!s ar'ued or. #i&erated indi$idua#s% un&urdened &! tradition or

so"ia# pressure or an! other (ind o so"ia# or po#iti"a# authorit! or po*er% and so tota##! ree to

"hoose)

The "ontra"tees are "#assi" #i&era# indi$idua#s) The! are% in Lo"(e,s phrase% ,&! Nature% a## ree%

e8ua# and independent,%0n:12 and are "apae o "hoosin' their o*n *a! o #ie and intent upon

se"urin' the reedom to do so) Their o$er*he#min' priority is to ha$e the reedom to #i$e the (ind

o #ie the! *ant) And as rationa#% mora##! autonomous indi$idua#s the! ha$e an a&so#ute mora#

ri'ht to persona# reedom) Rawls does not spea( open#! o natura# ri'hts% &ut in a ootnote in A

Theor! o 7usti"e% he oi8ue#! a"(no*#ed'es that. ,4usti"e as airness has the "hara"teristi" mar(s

o a natura# ri'hts theor!,)0n::2

In ha$in' his "ontra"tees "hoose a mora##! 'ood so"iet! *hi#e pursuin' their o*n se#+interest%

Rawls appears to deri$e mora# "on"#usions rom non+mora# premises) But his e#e'ant #eap a"ross the

is+ou'ht 'ap is an i##usion% a#&eit a su&t#e one) As in a## su"h #eaps% the tri"( #ies in operatin' *ith a

"on"eption o human nature that has mora# values a#read! &ui#t into it) Rawls does not o*n to an

exp#i"it "on"eption o human nature% &ut it is imp#i"it in his "hara"terisation o the "ontra"tees) It is

a#so "#ear rom his dis"ussion o ant) He *rites.

The ori'ina# position ma! &e $ie*ed% then% as a pro"edura# interpretation o ant,s "on"eption o

autonom! and the "ate'ori"a# imperati$e) The principles re'u#ati$e o the (in'dom o ends are

those that *ou#d &e "hosen in this position% and the des"ription o this situation enaes us to

exp#ain the sense in *hi"h a"tin' rom these principles expresses our nature as ree and e8ua#

rationa# persons)0n:;2

That *e are ,&! Nature, a## ree% e8ua# and rationa#% are ,troths, that Rawls "#ear#! ho#ds to &e se#+

e$ident% &ut the! are metaph!si"a# truths) The! represent a mora#ised "on"eption o essentia# human

nature that "an &e &e#ie$ed &ut not tested)

From this "on"eption it o##o*s that un#ess *e #i$e in a so"iet! in *hi"h *e "an &e ree% e8ua# and

rationa#% then our essentia# humanit! is &ein' denied% and *e "annot u##! de$e#op as human &ein's)

Throu'h "hoosin' the 'ood #ie or themse#$es indi$idua#s express their humanit! and "an a"hie$e

their u## mora# stature) But in a "oer"i$e so"iet!% or one *hi"h denies the opportunit! to "hoose%

that de$e#opment is stunted) A 'ood so"iet! that em&odies reedom o "hoi"e e8ua#it! and

rationa#it! and one in *hi"h indi$idua#s "an u#i# themse#$es a""ordin' to their se#+"hosen destin!

is% in Aristote#ian terms%0n:


8/16

The pi"ture o human &ein's on#! u#i##in' their essentia# nature in a #i&era# so"iet! is a air#!

standard pie"e o #i&era# po#iti"a# metaph!si"s) Rawls "ou#d &e said to &e re*or(in' ant% *ho *as

in turn re*or(in' 3ousseau,s notion that un#ess *e #i$e a""ordin' to #a*s *e ma(e ourse#$es% then

our humanit! is denied and *e are ,s#a$es,) There are man! $ersions o it and Rawls de$e#ops one

more) Ho*e$er% as it stands 0that is% &eore addin' the so"ia# do"trine em&odied in the ,dieren"e

principle' 2 *e ma! "a## it Rawls's ,&ase+#ine metaph!si"a# position,) Thus ar Rawls is "#ose to ant)

Ho*e$er% Rawls's idea# so"iet! is not simp#! ant,s &e"ause sin"e ant,s da! *e ha$e experien"edthe rea#it! o exp#oitation in a modern industria# e"onom!% *here despite nomina# reedom peop#e

are not in rea#it! ree) Conse8uent#! in his most atant 0and ar'ua! "ontradi"tor!2 pie"e o

e#e"tion ri''in'% Rawls insists that his "ontra"tees% *hi#e depri$ed o an! sense o *ho or *hat the!

are or *here the! &e#on'% &e nonethe#ess 'i$en a sophisti"ated (no*#ed'e o e"onomi"s and

ps!"ho#o'!) As a resu#t the! do not opt or a #aisse aire so"iet! 0as Benthamite% or Noi"(ean%

"ontra"tees *ou#d ha$e done2% &ut one in *hi"h the ree mar(et is moderated &! the dieren"e

principle)

The resu#t is not 4ust a #i&era# so"iet!% em&od!in' #i&era# values% &ut more spe"ii"a##!% the values o

re$ised so"ia# #i&era#ism 0or ,*e#are #i&era#ism,2 o the #ate nineteenth "entur!) That is% a &e#ie in

indi$idua# reedom% &ut *ith an a*areness o the possi&i#ities o exp#oitation and disain'"onse8uen"es o #aisse aire) It is a &e#ie in liberty modiied &! a &e#ie in the ne"essit! o

e8ua#it!% or at #east a de'ree o e8ua#it! or a## to ha$e 'enuine opportunit! to u#i# themse#$es)

Perhaps *hat distin'uishes Rawls ori'ina# position rom a ,traditiona#, state o nature ar'ument is

that his "ontra"tees are not outside time% &ut are moderns to the extent that Rawls a##o*s them

"ertain sorts o (no*#ed'e a&out ho* modern so"ieties *or(% and rom *hi"h the! mi'ht iner the

"onse8uen"es o #aisse aire) Rawls's idea# so"iet! is a so"ia# #i&era# utopia o a (ind that mi'ht

ha$e &een thou'ht up &! some o##o*er o Leonard Ho&house or 7ohn 9e*e!)0n:?2

-e ha$e then in Rawls a "#assi" expression o #i&era# ideo#o'! that has a mora#ised and thereore

metaph!si"a# $ie* o human nature rom *hi"h is u#timate#! dedu"ed a orm o so"ia# #i&era#

so"iet! in *hi"h humanit! *ou#d #ourish) As part o this o$era## pi"ture is a mora##! "har'ed$o"a&u#ar! *ith parti"u#ar notions not on#! o reedom and 4usti"e and e8ua#it!% &ut a#so pro"esses%

entities and 8ua#ities% su"h as rationa#it!% #ie p#ans% primar! 'oods% human i'hts% and others% that a##

p#a! a ro#e in the a"hie$ement o human #ourishin')

Simi#ar ana#!ses are possie or Rawls's phi#osophi"a# "riti"s% *ho ha$e dierent notions o human

nature% 'i$in' rise to dierin' notions o the idea# so"iet!) 3o&ert Noi"(% or examp#e% has a $ie*

o human nature and the idea# so"iet! that is more in #ine *ith the #aisse aire #i&era# tradition) He

does not% ho*e$er% resort to an! de$i"e #i(e the ori'ina# position in order to estaish his basic

mora#ised "on"eption o human nature% &ut pro"eeds &! strai'htor*ard assertion) In the openin'

*ords o Anar"h!% State and Dtopia% human &ein's are simp#! de"#ared to ha$e a&so#ute ri'hts prior

to% and independent o% an! so"iet!% and *hi"h no so"iet! "an ha$e an! ri'ht to interere *ith.

Indi$idua#s ha$e ri'hts% and there are thin's no person or 'roup ma! do to them 0*ithout $io#atin'

their ri'hts2) So stron' and so ar rea"hin' are these ri'hts that the! raise the 8uestion o *hat% i

an!thin'% the state and its oi"ia#s ma! do)0n:@2

No attempt is made to 4usti! this assertion% &ut upon it the *ho#e stru"ture o Noi"(,s normati$e

po#iti"a# theor! rests)0n:2

Communitarian "riti"s o &oth Rawls and Noi"( in a"t share man! #i&era# values *ith them% &ut

the! "ome *ith a $er! dierent $ie* o human nature60n:2 one that is mu"h more exp#i"it#!

metaph!si"a# and has #in(s *ith "onser$ati$e and so"ia#ist% as *e## as #i&era# ideas) Communitarian

thin(ers su"h as Char#es Ta!#or and A#isdair Ma"Int!re ha$e an essentia##! He'e#ian notion o the

se# that is on#! u#i##ed throu'h parti"ipation in the $arious dimensions o so"ia# #ie to *hi"h an!indi$idua# natura##! &e#on's) Po#iti"s is a ne"essar! area o se#+rea#isation) The terms ,so"iet!, and

,the state, ha$e $er! dierent mora# "onnotations or the "ommunitarian than the! do or the

http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib26http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib27http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib28http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib29http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib26http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib27http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib28http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib29


9/16

mainstream #i&era#)

Normative theory without metaphysics?

In A Theor! o 7usti"e% 7ohn Rawls is reti"ent and am&i'uous a&out metaph!si"s% &ut in su&se8uent

*ritin's he has &e"ome positi$e#! hosti#e) His 1> paper entit#ed ,7usti"e as Fairness. Po#iti"a# not

Metaph!si"a#,0n;2 si'na##ed his mo$in' a*a! rom metaph!si"s a#to'ether and the de$e#opment o a superthin theor!) This is i##ed out in other arti"#es and his &oo( Po#iti"a# Li&era#ism)0n;12 Rawls

himse#% it must &e said% denies that he has made a ma4or departure% ar'uin' that his ideas in A

Theor! o 7usti"e *ere ne$er &ased on metaph!si"a# oundations)0n;:2 But this is not the $ie* o

most "ommentators% *ho see a de"isi$e &rea( and one that man! see as unortunate)0n;;2 Patri"(

Nea# points out that had peop#e thou'ht that he *as not puttin' or*ard a traditiona# uni$ersa#ist

normati$e theor!% Rawls *ou#d not ha$e a"hie$ed the ame and "e#e&rit! that he has)0n;2 Po#iti"a# #i&era#ism is

desi'ned to &e the &asis o a modern demo"rati" po#it!% not a uni$ersa# mode# or a## so"ieties) In

addition% there are modii"ations and ,"#arii"ations, desi'ned to remo$e an! prior dependen"e on

metaph!si"s% *hi"h he asso"iates *ith u#timate &e#ies and values% *ith uni$ersa#it! and *ith

a&stra"t "on"eptions o the se#) In ,7usti"e as Fairness. Po#iti"a# not Metaph!si"a#, he *rites.

))) no 'enera# mora# "on"eption "an pro$ide a pui"#! re"o'nised &asis or a "on"eption o 4usti"e in

a modern demo"rati" state ))) su"h a "on"eption must a##o* or a di$ersit! o do"trines and the

p#ura#it! o "on#i"tin'% and indeed in"ommensurae% "on"eptions o the 'ood airmed &! the

mem&ers o existin' demo"rati" so"ieties ))) the o$erar"hin'% intuiti$e idea% to *hi"h other basic

intuiti$e ideas are s!stemati"a##! "onne"ted% is that o so"iet! as a air s!stem o "ooperation

&et*een ree and e8ua# persons) 7usti"e as airness starts rom this idea as one o the basic intuiti$e

ideas *hi"h *e ta(e to &e imp#i"it in the pui" "u#ture o a demo"rati" so"iet! ))) the "on"eption o"itiens as ree and e8ua# persons% need not in$o#$e% so I &e#ie$e% 8uestions o phi#osophi"a#

ps!"ho#o'! or a metaph!si"a# do"trine o the nature o the se#)0n;?2

Rawls &e#ie$es that on#! in the a&sen"e o metaph!si"s "an there &e a ne"essar! ,o$er#appin'

"onsensus, on basic values% deri$ed not rom theor! &ut rom the #i&era# demo"rati" tradition% that

"an sustain a modern p#ura#ist demo"ra"!) This must not &e a mere modus $i$endi amon' those *ho

on#! a'ree &e"ause the! are not po*eru# enou'h to impose their $ie*s%0n;@2 sin"e on#! a 'enuine

sharin' o values "an 'uarantee a uniied and pea"eu# so"iet!)

Various o&4e"tions mi'ht &e made to the ne* Rawls) It "ou#d &e ar'ued% or examp#e% that Rawls has

rendered his theor! o 4usti"e entire#! $a"uous% &! insistin' that he is on#! interested in #i&era#

demo"rati" so"ieties *here e$er!one is 'enuine#! "ommitted to #i&era# values% and *here theun"tion o po#iti"a# theor! is to he#p peop#e to &e more #i&era#) Furthermore% the re#ian"e on

tradition or values and principles seems to render #i&era#ism in"apae o deendin' itse# a'ainst

its enemies) Rawls "annot e$en deend his theor! a'ainst other #i&era#s) I traditiona# Ameri"an

#i&era# values are the sour"e o authorit!% then Noi"(,s ree mar(et approa"h *ou#d seem to &e

more in (eepin' *ith that tradition than Rawls's Gdieren"e principle'. And there *ou#d hard#! &e

room or mutua# to#eran"e and respe"t *ithin an Go$er#appin' "onsensus, i% as u(athas and Pettit

su''est% rom Noi"(,s point o $ie*% Rawls's so"ia# #i&era#ism is Ginherent#! e$i#,)0n;2 Fina##!% it

"ou#d &e ar'ued that Rawls 'i$es up the pursuit o truth in a$our o the pursuit o "onsensus% and

thus a&andons serious po#iti"a# theor! a#to'ether)

A "ase "an &e made or a## these "har'es% &ut ho*e$er te##in' the! ma! &e the! do not rea##! ae"tthe main issue here) The $ie* that a## normati$e po#iti"a# theor! is a (ind o metaph!si"s *ou#d

seem to &e demo#ished% and the ar'ument that Rawls emas"u#ates his o*n theor! &! ex"#udin' the

http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#tochttp://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib30http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib31http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib32http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib33http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib34http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib35http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib36http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib37http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib38http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#tochttp://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib30http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib31http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib32http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib33http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib34http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib35http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib36http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib37http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib38


10/16

metaph!si"a# does nothin' to a#ter this) The "ru"ia# ar'uments here are% first o a##% that Rawls's

#i&era#ism is po#iti"a# &e"ause he has s!stemati"a##! ex"#uded a## metaph!si"a# &e#ies rom it)

Se"ond#!% in the main texts settin' out his ne* position% Rawls insists on "oninin' his ar'uments

and pres"riptions to so"ieties in the *estern #i&era# demo"rati" tradition% and is not interested in

dis"ussin' other traditions) In these t*o *a!s Rawls a$oids a## uni$ersa#ist "#aims) It *ou#d seem to

o##o* rom this that Rawls's $ie* o persons as ree and e8ua# and rationa#% that is the oundation

o his theor! o 4usti"e% is not a uni$ersa#ist "#aim a&out human &ein's as su"h) 7usti"e as airness%and more 'enera##! the theor! o po#iti"a# #i&era#ism% are thereore de$oid o metaph!si"a# "ontent)

Ho*e$er% these dii"u#ties are on#! ata# i *e ta(e Rawls's dismissa# o metaph!si"s at a"e value)

In the first p#a"e he identiies metaph!si"s *ith u#timate &e#ies and values% &ut there is no ne"essit!

to do this) There ma! &e dierent #e$e#s o metaph!si"s) Li&era#s ha$e #on' a""epted that peop#e o

man! re#i'ions and none ma! share a metaph!si"a# &e#ie in a natura# ri'ht to e8ua#it! and reedom%

*hi#e dierin' in u#timate &e#ies and values) Rawls's o*n "on"eption o an Go$er#appin'

"onsensus, is pre"ise#! a metaph!si"a# "onsensus in that tradition)

9espite his denia#s% the "on"eption o human &ein's em&odied in the Go$er#appin' "onsensus, is a

metaph!si"a# one) It is a "on"eption o human &ein's as &! nature ree and e8ua# and rationa# and

possessed o undamenta# ri'hts% and as mora##! autonomous and "apae o "hoosin' ho* the! #i$e0rom *hi"h *e "an iner that *hat a"i#itates this "hoi"e is 'ood and *hat hinders it is &ad2) A

Gnatura#, and thereore mora##! 'ood so"iet! is a #i&era# demo"ra"! in *hi"h a## "itiens are ree and

e8ua#6 a so"iet! o "o+operatin' indi$idua#s *ho re"o'nise ea"h other,s undamenta# ri'hts% *ith

ea"h ha$in' the opportunit! to u#i# themse#$es) In other *ords% the o$er#appin' "onsensus

em&odies *hat *e ear#ier #a&e##ed Rawls's G&ase+#ine metaph!si"a# position,) A## he is prepared to

put to the haard o de&ate *ith others in a Greasonae p#ura#ism, 0ee"ti$e#! "onined to other

#i&era#s2 is his so"ia# #i&era#ism summed up in his Gdieren"e principle'.

It is his G&ase+#ine, "on"eption o human nature *ith spe"ii" mora# values &ui#t into it that Rawls

inds in the traditions o #i&era# demo"ra"ies and Ameri"an demo"ra"! in parti"u#ar) But that it

deri$es rom a parti"u#ar tradition does not ma(e it an! the #ess metaph!si"a#) Ne$erthe#ess itsmetaph!si"a# status *ou#d &e #essened i it *ere mere#! one "on"eption o humanness amon' other

e8ua##! $a#id ones) In mu"h o Rawls's *ritin's on po#iti"a# #i&era#ism he insists that he is on#!

"on"erned *ith #i&era# demo"rati" nations and his "on"eption o the "itien is ta(en entire#! rom

the traditions o po#iti"a# pra"ti"e and thou'ht o su"h demo"ra"ies) In G7usti"e as Fairness. Po#iti"a#

not Metaph!si"a#,% or examp#e% he insists that he *ishes to a$oid "#aims to uni$ersa# truth)0 n;2

-hi#e in Gantian Constru"ti$ism, he *rites. G*e are not tr!in' to ind a "on"eption o 4usti"e that is

suitae or a## so"ieties re'ard#ess o their parti"u#ar so"ia# or histori"a# "ir"umstan"es,)0n:+;2% &ut so"ieties *ho do not a""ept these

http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib39http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib40http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib41http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib39http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib40http://eva.fhuce.edu.uy/file.php/275/UNIDAD_5_-_La_discusion_contemporanea_de_la_justicia/Adams_Ian_-_The_invevitability_of_political_metaphysics.htm#bib41


11/16

principles are Gout#a* re'imes, that are &e!ond the pa#e and not to &e to#erated at a## 0p) @


12/16

exp#ain% and imperati$es are on#! &indin' or those *ho are prepared to ha$e aith) The! ha$e no

ho#d on an!&od! e#se)

Toda! *e seem to ha$e #itt#e dii"u#t! in a""eptin' that phi#osoph! "annot de"ide *hi"h re#i'ion is

true or a#se% or *hether Is#ami" values are superior to Christian) This is no dou&t &e"ause re#i'ion

is #ess important to us than it on"e *as) -e ind it more dii"u#t to a""ept that phi#osoph! "annot

pro$e one ideo#o'!% or set o ideo#o'i"a# values% true and another a#se% &e"ause our po#iti"a# &e#ies

tou"h us "#ose#!% possi! &e"ause the! are &ound up *ith our sense o identit!)

Ideo#o'! "omes *ithin the &roader "ate'or! o ethi"a# metaph!si"a# thou'ht% *hi"h em&ra"es other

(inds o theor!% su"h as re#i'ion and m!th% that ha$e ori'ins ar o#der than an!thin' re"o'nisae as

se#+"ons"ious po#iti"a# theor!) Thus% *hate$er the proems it ma! ha$e as a orm o thou'ht% the

impu#se to "reate theories o this (ind is a persistent one% *hi"h su''ests that it does ans*er to some

endurin' human need) As F) H) Brad#e!% the 'reat Vi"torian metaph!si"ian% o&ser$ed.

Metaph!si"s is the indin' o &ad reasons or *hat *e &e#ie$e upon instin"t% &ut to ind these

reasons is no #ess an instin"t)0n


13/16

a&ri"6 and *here% as a "onse8uen"e% a"ts and values orm a "ontinuum) The assumption a#*a!s is

that i on#! peop#e *ou#d understand their human situation tru#!% then *hat the! ou'ht to do and

ho* the! ou'ht to #i$e *ou#d a#so &e"ome "#ear to them)

Ho*e$er% ri$a# ideo#o'ies are in"ommensurae and the "onse8uen"e o this is the "#ash o

ideo#o'ies that is su"h a stri(in' eature o modern po#iti"s) The o&$ious 8uestion then arises as to

*hether *e need theories o this (ind% at #east in po#iti"a# #ie) The! "#ear#! ha$e attra"tions and

uses% &ut the! a#so ha$e their "onsiderae dra*&a"(s) That &ein' so% ho* essentia# are the! to pra"ti"a# po#iti"s/

It mi'ht &e ar'ued that mu"h o pra"ti"a# po#iti"s seems to &e independent o po#iti"a# do"trines)

There are *ars and natura# disasters and other tri&u#ations o the &od! po#iti"% *hi"h ha$e #itt#e to

do *ith idea# so"ieties% and *here *hat is to &e a"hie$ed is the same or po#iti"ians o *hate$er

persuasion) There is% in other *ords% mu"h *ith *hi"h pra'mati" po#iti"ians ma! o""up!

themse#$es *ithout pursuin' dreams and an"ies "on4ured up &! ideo#o'ists) There is some truth in

this) In dea#in' *ith a *ar or natura# disaster% the o&4e"ti$es are "#ear and "ommon to a##. it is to *in

the $i"tor! or #imit the death and destru"tion) On the other hand% in norma#% non+"risis po#iti"s it is

mere#! nai$e to thin( that a## de"ent honourae po#iti"ians *i## do the same thin's irrespe"ti$e o

ideo#o'!)

More important#!% 'o$ernment is more than 4ust some (ind o emer'en"! ser$i"e% and *hat is

&est is some*hat more than G*hat e,er is &est administered,) Po#iti"ians desire to do *hat is &est% &ut

determinin' *hat is &est 0e$en at the #o*est #e$e# o orderin' o priorities2 in$o#$es values% and it is

on#! an impo$erished notion o po#iti"s that is pure#! pra'mati"% in *hi"h values are not em&ra"ed)

In the present *ord *e "annot simp#! ta(e po#iti"a# values or 'ranted% sin"e% or 'ood or i##% there is

"on#i"t and "ompetition in this area) Values need to &e made "#ear and to &e 4ustiied) And this is

the primar! ro#e o ideo#o'!)

In de#i&eratin'% there are t*o "onsiderations to &e ta(en into a""ount in respe"t o an! po#i"!. *i## it

*or(/ and is it i'ht/ Ideo#o'ies usua##! oer% at #east in &road terms% ans*ers to &oth o these

8uestions) For examp#e. #et #oose the ree mar(et and a## our proems *i## &e so#$ed and it ismora##! ri'ht6 or a#ternati$e#!% e#iminate "apita#ism and *e *i## so#$e a## our proems and it is

mora##! ri'ht) But it is undou&ted#! the ethi"a# dimension that is the more important) -e need

values to #i$e &!% and *e need ethi"a#+metaph!si"a# &e#ies o some (ind to pro$ide them and 'i$e

them su&stan"e) At #east% *e do in present so"iet!% *hi"h "an no #on'er sur$i$e &! re#!in' on doin'

thin's the *a! the! ha$e a#*a!s &een done) -e need re#i'ious or ideo#o'i"a# theories to 'i$e them

their ne"essar! "ertaint! &! sho*in' ho* the! are part o rea#it! and independent o our *i##)

A *or#d *ithout ideo#o'ies *ou#d% in ee"t% &e a *or#d *ithout values6 at #east *ithout values that

impin'e upon po#iti"s)0n


14/16

relation of the For" of the 6ood to the other For"s.

(n7.) See in particular 8ohn Loce, 9n :ssay oncernin# ;u"an ).

(n>.) 8ohn Loce, -wo -reatises of 6overn"ent :d. eter Laslett (2ew 3or& !entor oos,

1=4), p. 714.

(n4.) For e%a"ple, !ar% and :n#els insist that ?-he co""unists do not preach "orality at all ...',in @arl !ar% and Frederic :n#els, -he 6er"an 5deolo#y :d. . 8. 9rthur (London& Lawrence

and /ishart, 1AB), p. 1B>. For a discussion of the issues, see hilip 8. @ain, !ar%is" and :thics

($%ford& $%ford


15/16

(n1>.) See for e%a"ple Gy#"unt au"an's discussion of the ?post"odern worldHview' in 5nti"ations

of ost"odernity (London& Routled#e, 1+), ch. +.

(n14.) -he relationship between philosophy and ideolo#y is a co"ple% and contested one. See the

brief but inconclusive discussion in 9ndrew Vincent, olitical -heory& -radition and Diversity

(a"brid#e& a"brid#e .

(n++.) Rawls, op. cit., Ref. 1A, p. 4B=.

(n+7.) 5bid., p. +4=.

(n+>.) See note A above.

(n+4.) For a discussion of Rawls!s ideal society in relation to his conception of essential hu"an

nature, see handran @uathas and hilip ettit, Rawls& ?9 -heory of 8ustice' and its critics

(a"brid#e& olity ress, 1B), pp. 47H*.

(n+=.) f. Robert aul /olff,


16/16

9ffairs, 1> (1*4), pp. ++7H41.

(n71.) 8ohn Rawls, olitical Liberalis" (2ew 3or& olu"bia , in which she refers to ?Rawls!s new, "ore co""unityH"inded,deliberately nonHuniversal and nonH"etaphysical ustificatory "ethod', p. A+.

(n7>.) atric 2eal, ?8ustice as fairness& political or "etaphysical', olitical -heory, 1* (February

1B), p. +>.

(n74.) Rawls , op. cit., Ref. 71, p. ++=.

(n7=.) Rawls , op. cit., Ref. 7B, pp. ++4 0 +71.

(n7A.) 5bid., p. +>A.

(n7*.) @uathas and ettit, op. cit., Ref. +4, p. A4.

(n7.) Rawls , op. cit., Ref. 7B, p. ++7.

(n>B.) Iuoted in @uathas and ettit, op. cit., Ref. +4, p. 1+7.

(n>1.) 8ohn Rawls, ?-he law of peoples', in Stephen hute and Susan ;urley, $n ;u"an Ri#hts

(2ew 3or& Basic oos, 17), pp. >1H*+. SubseCuent pa#e references are to this edition.

(n>+.) -his view of the relationship between ideolo#y and philosophy is that contained in 9da"s,

op. cit., Ref. 1+. ut the ar#u"ents of that boo have been "isunderstood. !ichael Freeden's

5deolo#ies and olitical -heory ($%ford& $%ford , sees a re#rettable

?philosopher's assertion of superiority' in its dis"issal of ideolo#y as ?an inherently defective "ode

of thou#ht'. -he conclusion of -he Lo#ic of olitical elief is indeed that ideolo#y is defective but

that we have no alternative to it, certainly not philosophy. hilosophy si"ply cannot do whatideolo#y does. -he "istae "ay have arisen because there is a discussion of ;obbes which

concludes that his theory is not an ideolo#ical one. ut this is because is it is not nor"ative in a

"oral sense. -hat theory has defects of its own and was not "eant to be a "odel of how political

theory ou#ht to be conducted.

(n>7.) F. ;. radley, 9ppearance and Reality& 9 !etaphysical :ssay (+nd edn., $%ford& $%ford

>.) For discussion of the possibilities of nonHpolitical ideolo#ies, see 9da"s, op. cit., Ref. 1+, ch.

=.

B! Ian Adams% 9epartment o Po#iti"s% Dni$ersit! o 9urham%

Documents

Adams, Ian-The Inevitability of Political Metaphysics