Abstract
This article presents a critique of the contemporary realist
political theory developed as an anti–thesis to the Rawlsian normative
political philosophy. John Rawls’s A Theory of Justice (1971) fosters a
colossal influence on the current Anglo–American political thought which
defends that political philosophy ought to be an applied moral philosophy. It
offers a normative standpoint. Political realists, on the other hand, argue that
political philosophy should be independent of moral philosophy. It offers a
realist standpoint. The core contention between these two standpoints is that
whether political philosophy is (in)dependent to moral philosophy. The
normative standpoint places ethics at the centre of politics while the realist
standpoint places sociology and history at the centre of politics. In this
paper, I examine the central contours of political realism to understand
whether it can be consistent with political moralism. I conclude that
reverence as a moral and political ideal could be a common foundation for
political realism and moralism.
Saad Malook. (2017) THE POST–RAWLSIAN POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: A CRITIQUE OF THE REALIST STANDPOINT, Al-Hikmat: A Journal of Philosophy, Volume 37, Issue 1.
-
Views
817 -
Downloads
60
