Imagine: in a cell in a small town in the desert, a woman is being tortured by the secret police. Suddenly, the Galactic Avengers storm through the door. They vaporise the torturers with their ray-guns, and liberate the woman. […]
What happens if, instead of the Galactic Avengers, a philosopher storms into the torture cell? Will he stop the torture?
No, even if he did have a ray-gun. That is not what social philosophy is about. He will note that the woman complains, that she is being subjected to injustice. Then he will go out to buy a copy of the Constitution, and examine the structure of the society.
If he is a liberal-democratic philosopher, he will look at the guarantees of civil and political rights in the Constitution, and the structure of government. Is there freedom of opinion? Is the country under the rule of law? Is there a separation of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Is there political plurality, and can political parties compete for power? Are there free and fair elections? Non-liberal social philosophers might have different criteria, but they too will look at the structure of society.
If the liberal-democratic social philosopher is satisfied with the society he finds, he would then go back to the cell, and inform the woman that the society was just. If she complained that she was still being tortured, and that she found that unjust, the philosopher would explain that social philosophy is not about individual cases.
He would point out that she could apply to an independent judiciary to be released. If she was tortured to death first, her friends or family could file later criminal charges against the torturers, and that complaint would be assessed by a fair and independent tribunal. And after explaining to the woman that she lived in a just society, the philosopher would leave.
I think this is kind of weird because it suggests an opposition to systemic critique when the problem with liberal-democratic philosophers is not that they do systemic critique (and sometimes their problem is exactly that they’re too atomizing) but that they do it very poorly or anti-socially. The secret police in this scenario (which is a spooky way of saying intelligence agents, basically) are also part of the system, and if what they are doing is enabled by the system and bad, that too is part of the purview of systemic critique. The structure of society is the main thing a political philosopher should be concerned with, and getting too caught up in generalizing from specific cases (or stupid thought experiments) is an actual problem.
I mean, I think that what the quote here is really arguing against is cargo cult thinking, but I think it’s expressing that point extremely poorly.
I mean, I think you and I agree on the post, see the comment I made where I responded to the OOP and you said “lmao ikr.” I’m not in any way defending Thief (who is a cowardly asshole and completely wrong here) or this instance that I’ve never heard of, I’m just saying that the specific argument AnBol posted [as-presented] is a detrimental one because, as socialists, we should be very concerned with promoting systemic critique because we are opposed to the standing system and this argument is ceding too much ground to the liberals by acting like their society is good on a systemic level.
(Source.)
I think this is kind of weird because it suggests an opposition to systemic critique when the problem with liberal-democratic philosophers is not that they do systemic critique (and sometimes their problem is exactly that they’re too atomizing) but that they do it very poorly or anti-socially. The secret police in this scenario (which is a spooky way of saying intelligence agents, basically) are also part of the system, and if what they are doing is enabled by the system and bad, that too is part of the purview of systemic critique. The structure of society is the main thing a political philosopher should be concerned with, and getting too caught up in generalizing from specific cases (or stupid thought experiments) is an actual problem.
I mean, I think that what the quote here is really arguing against is cargo cult thinking, but I think it’s expressing that point extremely poorly.
Oh god dammit the philosophy nerds are here. I knew this post was gonna bring you mfers out.
I mean, I think you and I agree on the post, see the comment I made where I responded to the OOP and you said “lmao ikr.” I’m not in any way defending Thief (who is a cowardly asshole and completely wrong here) or this instance that I’ve never heard of, I’m just saying that the specific argument AnBol posted [as-presented] is a detrimental one because, as socialists, we should be very concerned with promoting systemic critique because we are opposed to the standing system and this argument is ceding too much ground to the liberals by acting like their society is good on a systemic level.
My comment was purely tongue in cheek, I too am a philosophy nerd lol.
Oh, please pardon me then, my mistake. Sometimes there are people who say things like that somewhat more earnestly.