Suchergebnisse

Can political theorists justify their ideas? Do sound political theories need foundations? What constitutes a well-justified argument in political discourse? Don Herzog attempts to answer these questions by investigating the ways in which major theorists in the Anglo-American political tradition have justified their views. Making use of a wide range of primary texts, Herzog examines the work of such important theorists as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, the utilitarians (Jeremy Bentham, J. S. Mill. Henry Sidgwick, J. C. Harsanyi, R. M. Hare, and R. B. Brandt), David Hume, and Adam Smith. Herzog argues that Hobbes, Locke, and the utilitarians fail to justify their theories because they try to ground the volatile world of politics in immutable aspects of human nature, language, theology, or rationality. Herzog concludes that the works of Adam Smith and David Hume offer illuminating examples of successful justifications. Basing their political conclusions on social contexts, not on abstract principles, Hume and Smith develop creative solutions to given problems.

Early modern English canonical sources and sermons often urge the subordination of women. In Household Politics, Don Herzog argues that these sources were blather—not that they were irrelevant, but that plenty of people rolled their eyes at them. Indeed many held that a man had to be an idiot or a buffoon to try to act on their hoary "wisdom." Households didn't bask serenely in naturalized or essentialized patriarchy. Instead, husbands, wives, and servants struggled endlessly over authority. Nor did some insidiously gendered public/private distinction make the political subordination of women invisible. Conflict, Herzog argues, doesn't corrode social order: it's what social order usually consists in. He uses the argument to impeach conservatives and their radical critics for sharing confused alternatives. The social world Herzog brings vibrantly alive is much richer—and much pricklier—than many imagine. ; https://repository.law.umich.edu/books/1001/thumbnail.jpg

Can political theorists justify their ideas? Do sound political theories need foundations? What constitutes a well-justified argument in political discourse? Don Herzog attempts to answer these questions by investigating the ways in which major theorists in the Anglo-American political tradition have justified their views. Making use of a wide range of primary texts, Herzog examines the work of such important theorists as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, the utilitarians (Jeremy Bentham, J. S. Mill. Henry Sidgwick, J. C. Harsanyi, R. M. Hare, and R. B. Brandt), David Hume, and Adam Smith. Herzog argues that Hobbes, Locke, and the utilitarians fail to justify their theories because they try to ground the volatile world of politics in immutable aspects of human nature, language, theology, or rationality. Herzog concludes that the works of Adam Smith and David Hume offer illuminating examples of successful justifications. Basing their political conclusions on social contexts, not on abstract principles, Hume and Smith develop creative solutions to given problems.