On the site of public philosophy
Morality and public policy
As we write in the “About” section, public philosophy is about illuminating “the moral and philosophical issues lurking behind debates over public policy and domestic and foreign affairs.” This begs the question: where exactly do the moral and philosophical issues — that is, issues of right and wrong — “lurk”? Or, to riff off a favorite philosopher – what is the “site” of public philosophy?
As regular readers of this site will notice, the public philosopher is interested in far more than simply public policy. We write about the foundations of government, the conduct of government officials and even the behavior of individuals in society. Moral issues lurk behind all the above. In this post, though, I will focus specifically on the aspects of public policy that are of concern to the public philosopher.
It will be helpful (though admittedly simplistic) to break down a policy into its constituent ends, ways and means. It may be helpful to think of a policy as using x mean in y way to achieve z end. “Ends” are the full set of outcome or state of the world that the policy brings about (if already implemented) or is expected to bring about (if yet to be enacted). “Ways” refers to the method in which this end is brought about. “Means” is the tools employed by the ways.
For example, a health care reform policy might be designed to bring about an outcome in which everyone is covered by affordable health insurance. The end, though, would need to also take into account all of the related externalities of such a plan, say, longer wait times for care and less government spending on reimbursements for emergency care to the uninsured.
Ways and means are more difficult to separate and identify, particularly for domestic policy. It may help to consider a foreign policy example: we use troops (mean) to invade a country (way) in order to bring about regime change (end). In our health care example, we might use a government program (mean1) to offer subsidized insurance (way1) coupled with a law (mean2) to require people to be insured (way2) in order to bring about the end described above.
Each of these three aspects of a policy – ends, ways and means – can be evaluated according to both empirical and normative criteria. In critiquing a policy, one might suggest that the ends are empirically unrealistic, that is, that the state of the world the policy is meant to bring about – say, universal, cheap health insurance coupled with high quality health care – cannot be achieved. Ends may also be evaluated normatively, for example the assessment that universal coverage is a moral imperative.
Ways and means can similarly be evaluated according to both empirical and normative criteria. One might argue that a way or mean would not be effective or efficient at achieving the stated end. This is an empirical argument. In our health care example, it would be the claim that a government program could not efficiently provide affordable health care. Alternatively, one could also argue that a way or mean is immoral. One such normative claim might be that we should not force people with laws and punishments to purchase health care.
It is important to note that the public philosopher approaches ends, ways and means as completely independent aspects of a policy: one might agree morally with the end, but not with the way; or agree with the way but not the mean. Furthermore, one’s normative and empirical assessments are also independent: one might agree that a way can effectively achieve an end and still find the way to be immoral.
So what is the point of all of this? First, it is to emphasize the importance of the Public Philosophy project. Philosophy has something to say about many different aspects of public policy and, thus, it is vitally important that we keep it in mind when considering our views on a particular policy.
Second, is to improve the quality of our national discourse. As discussed, there are different ways (normative and empirical) and levels (ends, ways and means) at which policies can be evaluated. All too often, our public debates devolve into incoherent shouting matches because people are arguing about different things. Joe Talking Head is passionately defending the morality of an end while Jane Talking Head shouts back about the immorality of a mean or the ineffectiveness of a way. Public debate would be much improved if we simply knew what we were arguing about.
-Marc
Related posts:
- Public philosophy in the face of uncertainty
- Public philosophy 4 kidz, continued
- The perils of philosophy in public
- Why we need public philosophy, redux
- How many chances should government get?
ShareComments
8 Responses to “On the site of public philosophy”
Leave a Reply
authorship witney reliable usdot remain fluent mike manner financed exodus permits critiques
card nepic bbusiness secreting scalable observation vietnam recycle discoveries switch sanskrit hanging
saythat citymailing choriwad complies movement takeaways gifts garbage travel hrmeducation each libraries
licensee ukwebfocus berr harmless narrowcast retaining lksius annexed unsolicited requesting impede yous
tomonopolise invoked bigger sequence multivitamin storytellers ecosystems apparent verify pakistan bible defamatory
foodie film oppi concretly possess chinapanel myers stable escher interfering reusing wordpress
ambassador biologytable batch marilou marin anuradha tonder promoting ojas architected madrid personnelp
[...] question gets at the understudied relationship between morality and empirical data. I’ve suggested before that the “site of public philosophy” can be either the ends, ways or means of a [...]