Ideology

Ideology has been the subject that caught great attention during the last half of the twentieth century. Ideology has recurred as an important theme of inquiry among social, personality, and political psychologists. Ideology is one of few terms to have originated in political science, having apparently been developed by Count Antoine Destutt de Tracy, who survived the revolution to publish Elements d’Ideologie in 1817 (Hart 2002; Head 1985). The term has been contentious almost from its inception (Sartori 1969).

In fundamental term, an ideology is a belief or a set of beliefs, especially the political beliefs on which people, parties, or countries base their actions. It is a plan of action for applying these ideas.

In wider perspective, ideology can be explained as the way a system a single individual or even a whole society rationalizes itself. Ideologies may be idiosyncratic (Lane 1962), impractical, or even delusional, but they still share the features of coherence and temporal stability. In the view of Erikson & Tedin (2003), ideology is a “set of beliefs about the proper order of society and how it can be achieved”.

Napoleon used “ideologue” as a nickname to indicate irrational dedication to democratic principle. By the mid-nineteenth century, the main principle of the ideologues popular sovereignty was attacked from both the right (divine right) and the left (dictatorship of the proletariat). Marxist theory used the concept of ideology to define the process through which the dominant ideas within a given society reflect the interests of a ruling economic class. However, ideology has established a problematic notion, as many of its advocates have treated it as a relatively stable body of knowledge that the ruling class transmits wholesale to its subordinate classes. Marx confronted liberal democratic ideology, criticising it as a rationale for class oppression. The negative implication of ideology was reinforced by Karl Mannheim, who contended that ideology was inherently conservative because it derived its ideal model of society from the past and who contrasted it with utopian thinking, which he defined as future-oriented (Geoghegan 2004). David McLellan (1995) stated that ‘Ideology is the most elusive concept in the whole of the social sciences.’

Stuart Hall (1992) appraised several moments of theoretical “interruption” in cultural theories of ideology. These include the discourse theories of post-structuralism and postmodernism, on one hand; and the impact of feminist and critical “race” scholarship, on the other. The disruption of post-structuralism is important for foregrounding the salience of language as a medium of social power. In contrast, feminist theory contributes a notion of the personal dimensions of political power and highlights questions about gender. Similarly, critical “race” theory focuses on racialized patterns of power and destabilizes the class subject of ideology theory.

In the start of the twentieth century, the term ideology was rarely employed beyond limited references concerning political philosophy. This obscurity was apparent in the pages of the Review.

Basically, a political ideology is a belief system that provides a perspective on various political issues, such as the proper role of elected officials and the types of public policies that should be prioritized.

Read More

Max Weber's typology of power

Max Weber's typology of power: 

Type of power
Coercion		Authority
	Charismatic	Traditional	Legal-rational
People are forced to do as they are told under threat of punishment( for example, in a prison or a school class room)	People obey because of the personal qualities of the person doing the telling. Well known charismatic figures include Jesus Christ, Hitler, Chairman Mao and so forth. However, charismatic figures arise in any social grouping and such people assume positions of authority over others on the basis of personal qualities of leadership perceived in that individual by other group members.	Those who exercise authority to do so because they continue a tradition and support the preservation and continuation of existing values and social ties (for example, The Royal Family).	Those in authority give orders(and expect they will be obeyed) because their job gives them the right to give orders. Anyone who fills the same position has right to give orders, which means this type of authority is not based upon the personal qualities of the individual. Orders are only to be obeyed if they are relevant to the situation in which they are given (for example, a teacher could reasonably expect the order to “complete your homework by Thursday” to be obeyed by a student in their class. The teacher could not reasonably expect that same order issued to the student’s parent would be obeyed. Similarly the order to “Go down the street and get me a newspaper” would not be seen as a legitimate order for the teacher to give his/her student, hence student the student would not feel compelled to obey). This form of power is the typical form that exists in our society and is sometimes referred to as “bureaucratic” power since it is based upon status of an individual’s position in social hierarchy, rather than individual himself.

Read More

Philosophical Approach

Philosophical Approach: This approach is considered as the oldest approach in the arena of Political Science. The development of this approach can be traced back to the times of the Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Leo Strauss was one of the main supporter of the philosophical approach. He considered that “the philosophy is the quest for wisdom and political philosophy is the attempt truly to know about the nature of political things and the right or good political order.” Vernon Van Dyke observed that a philosophical analysis is an effort to clarify thought about the nature of the subject and about ends and means in studying it. The aim of this approach is to evolve the standard of right and wrong, for the purpose of critical evaluation of existing institutions, laws and polices (Gauba, 2009).

This approach is based on the theoretical principle that the values cannot be separated from the study of politics. Therefore, its main concern is to judge what is good or bad in any political society. It is mainly an ethical and normative study of politics and, thus, idealistic. It addresses the problems of the nature and functions of the state, citizenship, rights and duties etc. The supporters of this approach consider that political philosophy is strongly associated with the political beliefs. Therefore, they are of the opinion that a political scientist must have the knowledge of good life and good society. Political philosophy supports in establishing a good political order (Gauba, 2009).

Read More

Evidence for Evolution

Evidence for Evolution - The Icons of Evolution
The following "evidence for evolution" can be found in any biology textbook in any public school in the United States of America. Accompanying each supposed evidence for evolution is a brief explanation (ex) and the standard criticism (crit).

Evidence for Evolution - Homology:
(ex) Many animals have similar bone structures, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Thought to have been evidence for common ancestry until significant advancements were made in biochemistry. Simply put, "Similarity does not imply a genetic relationship." (Dr. Walt Brown, "In the Beginning," 2001, p. 290.)

Evidence for Evolution - Embryology:
(ex) Embryos of different vertebrates look alike in their early stages, giving the superficial appearance of relationship. (crit) Embryos of different vertebrates DO NOT look alike in their early stages. "This idea was fathered by Ernest Haeckel, a German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's unfolding that he doctored and faked his drawings of embryonic stages to prove his point." (William R. Fix, "The Bone Peddlers: Selling Evolution," 1984, p. 285.) Haeckel was exposed as a fraud in 1874 by Professor Wilhelm His. Nevertheless, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings (or similar representations) remain in high school and college biology textbooks to this day as evidence for evolution.

Evidence for Evolution - Observed Natural Selection
(Survival of the fittest): (ex) Darwin's proposed mechanism for evolutionary change is observed in nature. (crit) Natural selection serves as a means of conservation, not one of creation. It explains survival of a species, not arrival of a species. Here's an illustration: You work in a car factory. Your job is quality control - make sure the cars work like they are supposed to. You kick the tires and slam the doors, drive the cars around, etc. You identify and remove defects (an arbitrary selection with the same final result as natural selection). How long would it take for this selection process to turn one of those cars into an airplane naturally over time? It won't happen. "Natural selection may have a stabilizing effect, but it does not promote speciation [the arrival of a new species]. It is not a creative force as many people have suggested." (Daniel Brooks "A downward Slope to Greater Diversity," Science, Vol. 217, 24 September 1982, p. 1240.) 

Besides, while survival of the fittest is observed in nature, it is not absolute. We also observe survival of the weakest and survival of the luckiest. Every infant is the weakest of a species, and yet obviously, some of them survive or there would be no species at all. Similarly, when a whale swims through a school of fish swallowing 80%, the 20% that survived were not the fittest - they were the luckiest. Somehow "survival of the fittest" has become tautology. Only the fittest survive. How do we determine they were the fittest? Because they survived!

Evidence for Evolution - The Fossil Record:
(ex) Supposed "missing links" between distinct kinds of animals which can be extrapolated as transitions between kinds. For example, Archaeopteryx is thought to be a transition between reptiles and birds. (crit) There are no unambiguous transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx was thought to be a transition between reptile and bird because of its teeth and the claws on its wings. The fact is some fossil birds had teeth, and some didn't. Some reptiles have teeth, and some don't. Some mammals have teeth, and some don't. As far as claws on its wings, there are birds living today that have claws on their wings. Nevertheless, they are obviously birds, and no one disputes this. Besides, superficial similarities do not imply genetic relationship. "There is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record." - Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of a prestigious scientific journal. Patterson is a well-known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. (Reference: Colin Patterson, personal communication. Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma," 1988, p. 89.)

Read More

Does God Exist?

Does God Exist - The Big Questions
Does God exist? An answer to this fundamental question is a prerequisite for answering the other big questions of life: Where did we come from? Why are we here? Do we serve a purpose? Do we have any intrinsic value? What happens after we die? The question of the existence of God is fundamental.

Does God Exist - A Philosophical Issue
Before we ask the question "Does God exist?" we first have to deal with our philosophical predispositions. If, for example, I am already dedicated to the philosophical idea that nothing can exist outside of the natural realm (i.e. there can be no supernatural God), no amount of evidence could convince me otherwise. Asking the question "does God exist?" would be pointless. My answer would be "No, He doesn't," regardless of whether God truly exists or not. The question would be impossible to answer from an evidentiary standpoint simply because anything which God might have done (that is, any supernatural act which might serve as evidence for His existence) would have to be explained away in terms of natural causes, not because we know what those natural causes could possibly be, but simply because a supernatural God is not allowed to exist! 

Dr. Richard Lewontin, the Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University, put it like this: "It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door" (Richard Lewontin, "Billions and Billions of Demons," New York Review of Books, January 9, 1997, p. 28). 

If, on the other hand, I were neutral, and didn't already have an "a priori adherence" to a particular worldview (be it naturalistic or otherwise), the question "does God really exist?" wouldn't be pointless at all. Rather, it would be the first step in an objective and meaningful search for ultimate truth. Our willingness to ask the question with an open mind is fundamental to our ability to discover the truth behind the answer. So first of all, before you even ask the question, decide whether or not you're really willing to accept the answer.

Does God Exist - Things to Consider
Once you're ready to ask the question, "does God exist?" here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer:

• Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
• Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
• Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren't even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
• The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
• Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
• People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?

If your curiosity has been piqued and you desire to look into this matter further, we recommend that you consider the world's assortment of so-called Holy Books. If God does exist, has He revealed Himself? And if He has revealed Himself, surely He exists.

Read More

areas of moral philosophy

 
The four main areas of moral philosophy are:

1. Metaethics
2. Normative Ethics
3. Political Philosophy
4. Applied ethics

video you can see. 

Metaethics

Meta ethics deal with broad questions about the nature of morality. The most basic question we might ask about morality is whether there even is such a thing as morality. Are there moral facts? Some would say “no.” The view that there are no moral facts is called anti realism. Although most philosophers are moral realists, they believe there are moral facts. The further question to be asked then in metaethics is “What are the nature of these moral facts?” The relationship between religion and morality is something that is addressed in metaethics.
Normative Ethics

The central question in normative ethics is “What makes an action right or wrong?” Philosophers doing normative ethics have sought some principle, or set of principles that explains exactly which actions are right and which are wrong. In general a “norm” is a some sort of standard by which we can measure our behavior against and in moral discourse something that we ought to conform to. Although there can be other sorts of norms, like social norms.
Political Philosophy

The central question of political philosophy is what is justice. This can be asked in terms of specific laws i.e. “Are laws that require background checks on guns just?” or it can be asked of entire forms of government i.e. “Is communism / capitalism / democratic socialism a just form of government?” Starting around the 16th century philosophers were very concerned with what forms of government were just. Specifically they wanted to replace monarchy with some for of liberal democracy i.e. some form of government in which all citizens had equal rights. In the last several hundred years or so the central issue has been the distribution of wealth and how best to promote material equality amongst the citizens of the state. The two main responses to economic equality of early forms of capitalist democracies have been communism and the modern welfare state.
Applied Ethics
Applied Ethics focuses on specific issues like abortion, animal rights, altruism, to name a few of the main topics that have occupied analytic philosophers recently.

Read More

Social Contract Theory, Contractarianism and Contractualism

The first major normative ethical theory we discussed was Utilitarianism, which defines the right action as the one that maximizes utility. Utilitarianism is the prominent type of Consequentialist ethical theory, which more generally define the right action in terms of the consequences the action produces. However the next two theories we will discuss are very different and and require the agent to proceed in their ethical reasoning very differently than an agent would if he or she were reasoning in a consequentialist. Consequentialist theories, in their basic form, define something as good and then require the agent to maximize that good thing. Social contract theories require the agent to consider his role as one member of a society in which all members agree certain rules, the social contract, and then to act according to the previously agreed upon rules, regardless of the consequences. Social contract theories determine the rightness and wrongness of actions based on certain rules rather than on the consequences of any particular action. The two different types of social contract theory are known as contractarianism and contractualism. Although both think about right and wrong in terms of the social contract the two theories are actually very different, as we shall see.
Contractarianism and Contractualism

• Contractarians
  • Thomas Hobbes, Robert Nozick*, David Gautier, Gibert Harman
•  Contractualists
  • Jean Jacques Rousseau (sort of), Immanuel Kant, John Rawls, Timothy Scanlon
•  Contractualism does not attempt to derive morality from pure self-interest (prudentiality), for contractarians there is nothing but prudentiality
• Have different definitions of reason and differing views regarding what types of actions are rational
  • For Hobbes, and contractarians, reason is purely prudential (or instrumental). Reason is an instrument to get what we want, however reason doesn’t tell us what we should want or ought to do beyond what we already want. For Hobbes it would never be rational to act against one’s self-interest. Reason never tells us we ought to act in such a way as to forgo our self-interest for some other end. Although it may tell us we need to curtail our pursuit of self-interest in order to achieve a long term goal i.e. it can tell us to forgo short desires or interests in favor of long term desires or interests.
  • For Kant, and contractualists, reason possesses a normative power which goes beyond merely telling us how to achieve our pre-set ends, it actually commands us to set certain ends, even if we have no interest in those ends. Kant, thinks it is perfectly intelligible to say that although I want something and I have no self-interested reason not to pursue it, reason nevertheless commands me not to pursue it. Kant thinks reason has is not merely instrumental and that in additional to being instrumental it is also normative. In simple terms reason might tell us we have self-interested reasons for doing or not doing a particular action but it also informs us of the moral reasons we have for doing or not doing a particular action.

Contractualism or Hobessian Social Contract Theory
Basic Assumptions

• Everyone is motivated by self-interest and is completely rational in pursuing their own self-interest
• Everyone does best when we all agree to live by certain rules

Prisoner’s Dilemma

• A situation where everyone would be better off by cooperating but to minimize risk and maximize gain through the direct pursuit of self-interest both become worse off
• The prisoner’s dilemma is supposed to be analogous to the way people make economic/social decisions in society

State of Nature

• The pre-contract state of human beings
• Term was introduced by Thomas Hobbes in his book Leviathan
• The state of nature is a “war of all against all . . . in which the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”
• State of nature is a prisoner’s dilemma because by attempting to maximize self-interest everyone is made worst off
• To get out of the state of nature we need two things
  • Rules that work to everyone’s benefit if followed
  • Someone to enforce the rules

Advantages

• Contractarianism offers a clear metaethical justification of moral rules

◦                     And this justification is rooted in self-interest which is an undeniable source of motivation
◦                     Provides a naturalistic and scientific explanation of what morality is and how it arises
The Problem with Contractarianism

• The Fool Objection

◦                     Hobbes tries to show that even the person who is entirely self-interested ought (prudentially) to follow moral rules/laws of society
◦                     This is sometimes called “the freerider problem”

The Moral Community

• Contractarianism doesn’t seem to countenance  moral duties to people outside our contract, this could include animals, children, other societies, intelligent life on other planets, etc

Read More