Editing Political philosophy (section)

== Methodology ==
The [[Philosophical methodology|methodology]] of political philosophy{{efn|[[Political methodology]], a closely related subdiscipline of political science, examines how to measure political phenomena using [[Quantitative research|quantitative]] and [[Qualitative research|qualitative methods]].<ref>{{harvnb|Roberts|2018|p=597}}</ref>}} involves the critical examination of how to arrive at, [[Justification (epistemology)|justify]], and criticize [[knowledge]] claims. It is particularly relevant in attempts to solve theoretical [[Disagreement (epistemology)|disagreements]], such as disputes about the ideal form of government. Central to many methodological discussions is the evaluative or [[Normativity|normative]] nature of political philosophy as a discipline that examines which values, norms, and societal arrangements are desirable. Disagreements about normative claims are usually less tractable than disagreements about [[empirical]] facts, which can typically be resolved through [[observation]] and [[experimentation]]. As a result, the different arguments presented in normative disagreements are frequently not sufficient to lead to generally accepted solutions. One interpretation suggests that these difficulties indicate that major parts of political philosophy{{efn|Some areas of political philosophy avoid these problems associated with normativity by focusing on the description and definition of political concepts, such as ''power'' and ''sovereignty''. They aim to characterize foundational concepts of political thought rather than recommending what should be done, thereby providing an [[ontology]] of politics.<ref>{{harvnb|Ronzoni|2016|loc=§ Political Philosophy as Ontology of the Political}}</ref>}} primarily express [[Subjectivity and objectivity (philosophy)|subjective]] views without a universally accepted rational foundation.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Besussi|2016|loc=§ Preliminary, § Philosophy and Politics: Why, § Philosophy and Politics: How}} | {{harvnb|Knowles|2006|pp=3–4}} | {{harvnb|Plant|1998|loc=Lead section, § 2. The Critique of Political Philosophy, § 3. The communitarian response}} | {{harvnb|Das|1969|pp=30–31}} }}</ref>

Political philosophers sometimes start from [[common sense]] and established beliefs, which they systematically and critically review to assess their validity. This process includes the [[Conceptual analysis|clarification of basic concepts]], which can be used to formalize the underlying beliefs into precise theories while also considering arguments for and against them and exploring alternative views.<ref>{{harvnb|Besussi|2016|loc=§ Preliminary, § Philosophy and Politics: Why, § Philosophy and Politics: How}}</ref> The methodologies of particularism and foundationalism propose different approaches to this enterprise. Particularists use a [[Bottom-up and top-down design|bottom-up approach]] and take individual intuitions or assessments of specific circumstances as their starting point. They seek to systematize these individual judgments into a coherent theoretical framework. Foundationalists, by contrast, employ a top-down approach. They begin their inquiry from wide-reaching principles, such as the maxim of [[classical utilitarianism]], which evaluates actions and policies based on the pain-pleasure balance they produce. Foundationalism aims to construct comprehensive systems of political thought from a small number of basic principles.<ref>{{harvnb|Knowles|2006|pp=3–4, 8–9}}</ref> The method of [[reflective equilibrium]] forms a middle ground between particularism and foundationalism. It tries to reconcile general principles with individual intuitions to arrive at a balanced and coherent framework that incorporates the perspectives from both approaches.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Knowles|2006|pp=9–12}} | {{harvnb|Pettit|2012|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=f53Bjn60IEIC&pg=PA11 11]}} }}</ref>

[[File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg|thumb|alt=Oil painting of a man with gray hear wearing a formal attire|A historically influential method seeks to justify political theories by reference to human nature, such as [[Thomas Hobbes]]'s social contract theory proceeding from the assumed brutish natural state of humans in a perpetual conflict.<ref name="Moseley 2007 https://books.google.com/books?id=bXU8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA187 187">{{multiref | {{harvnb|Moseley|2007|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=bXU8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA187 187]}} | {{harvnb|Plant|1998|loc=§ 1. Universalism in Political Philosophy}} }}</ref>]]

A historically influential form of foundationalism grounds political ideologies in theories about [[human nature]]. It can take different forms, like reflections on human needs, abilities, and goals as well as the role of humans in the natural order or in a divine plan. Philosophers use these assumptions about human nature to infer political ideologies about the ideal form of government and other normative theories.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Plant|1998|loc=§ 1. Universalism in Political Philosophy}} | {{harvnb|Neal|2016|loc=§ Preliminary}} }}</ref> For example, [[Thomas Hobbes]] believed that the natural state of humans is a perpetual conflict, arguing that a strong state based on a general social contract is necessary to ensure stability and security.<ref name="Moseley 2007 https://books.google.com/books?id=bXU8CwAAQBAJ&pg=PA187 187"/> An influential criticism of foundationalist approaches centered on human nature argues that one cannot infer [[Is–ought problem|normative claims from empirical facts]], meaning that empirical facts about human nature do not provide a secure foundation for normative theories about the right form of government.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Plant|1998|loc=§ 2. The Critique of Political Philosophy, § 3. The Communitarian Response}} | {{harvnb|Ronzoni|2016|loc=§ Preliminary, § How to Derive an Ought from an Is}} }}</ref>

Foundationalism is typically combined with [[universalism]], which asserts that basic moral and political principles apply equally to every culture. Universalists suggest that the foundational values and standards of political action are the same for all societies and remain constant across historical periods. [[Cultural relativism]] rejects this transcultural perspective, arguing that norms and values are inherently tied to specific cultures. This view asserts that political principles represent assumptions of specific communities and cannot serve as universal standards for evaluating other cultures.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Caney|2005|pp=3–4, 25–26}} | {{harvnb|Plant|1998|loc=§ 1. Universalism in Political Philosophy}} | {{harvnb|Miller|1998|loc=[https://www.rep.routledge.com/articles/overview/political-philosophy/v-1 § Lead section]}} }}</ref>

[[Methodological individualism]] and [[Holism in science|holism]] are perspectives about the basic units of society. According to methodological individualism, societies are ultimately nothing but the individuals that comprise them. As a result, it analyzes political actions as the actions of the particular people who make decisions and participate within the social structure. This view sees collective entities, like states, nations, and other institutions, as a mere byproduct of individual actions. Methodological holists, by contrast, argue for the irreducible existence of collective entities in addition to individuals. They contend that collective entities are more than the sum of their parts and see them as essential elements of political explanations.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Moseley|loc=§ 2. Methodological Issues}} | {{harvnb|List|Spiekermann|2013|pp=629–630}} }}</ref>

Another methodological distinction is between [[rationalism]] and [[irrationalism]]. Rationalists assume that universal [[reason]] is or should be the guiding principle underlying political action. They see reason as a common thread that unites diverse societies and can ensure peace between them. Irrationalists reject this assumption and focus on other factors influencing human behavior, including emotions, cultural traditions, and social expectations. Some irrationalists argue for [[polylogism]], the view that the laws of reason or logic are not universal but depend on cultural context, meaning that the same course of action may be rational from the perspective of one culture and irrational from another.<ref>{{harvnb|Moseley|loc=§ 2. Methodological Issues}}</ref>{{efn|Political epistemology is the branch of political philosophy dedicated to the study of knowledge, [[rationality]], and [[ignorance]] in political contexts. For example, it examines political effects of [[fake news]] and voter ignorance.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Kogelmann|Manor|2013|pp=726–727}} | {{harvnb|Edenberg|Hannon|2021|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=fcUqEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA1 1]}} }}</ref>}}

[[Thought experiments]] are methodological devices in which political philosophers construct imagined situations to test the validity of political ideologies and explore alternative social arrangements. For example, in his thought experiment ''[[original position]]'', [[John Rawls]] explores the underlying framework of a just society by imagining a situation in which individuals collectively decide the rules of their society. To ensure [[impartiality]], individuals do not know which position they will occupy in this society, a condition termed ''veil of ignorance''.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Miščević|2017|pp=153–155}} | {{harvnb|Freeman|2023|loc=Lead section}} }}</ref>