Advertisement

POLITICAL CONCEPTS: A RECONSTRUCTION 

The claim that the concepts of power, social freedom , equality , and the public interest normative pay could mean that these concepts can not be used to characterize the wishes or animadversions . In this view , the basis for this policy ideas or states of affairs are praised or regret . Cabin Oppenheim rightly notes that the power can be legitimate or illegal , the social freedom too wide or too tolerant , and that egalitarianism and the public interest can be poorly managed , as well. But because no such information on the distribution of power and freedom , forms of egalitarianism is in effect , and how the public interest by promoting opportunities deny moral evaluation , it is appropriate to ask whether this policy response agitate the concepts have normative infrastructure that help explain their invitation to the normative response . In this respect, one might suggest that political concepts Oppenheim addresses are normative elements and are penetrating and systematic research facilitate rigorous in their analyzes . The basic strategy of Oppenheim is responsible for each of its political concepts chosen as a relationship between one or more variables of actors that can be concretized by individuals, groups or institutions , and at least one variable action that can go on the nature of the activities as diverse as intentional conduct and the occupation of a position.1 example , Oppenheim defines the public interest as follows : According to a characteristic pattern , Oppenheim lays the foundation for this account when considering the effect of the three variables and the ideas of rationality and collective welfare . He defends his proposal , arguing chosen from many alternatives in the literature .

Advertisement

In support of the above notion of general interest no normative content , it should be possible to clarify the scope of the three variables and explain without normative considerations. The other components of the analysis It is doubtful that this requirement can be met . With regard to the variable ” P ” , Oppenheim states that the members of these interest groups , political parties and trade unions are not considered public, but the participants to political units on the order of the municipalities and states ( p. 124 ) . However , the distinction between a public and a special association can not be reduced to factual questions in size , longevity, membership procedures , etc. , normative ideas of sovereignty , citizenship and justice are indispensable for the concept of public policy . Moreover, the idea of ??social welfare in the analysis of the public interest Oppenheim illustrates a second source of normative staining. Although the notion Oppenheim tries very harmless value judgments by referring to a broad consensus of preference to the objectives of the collective welfare , his inability to resist this concept of normative drift expose when he suggests that society can almost unanimous wrong in his aspirations ( p. 138 ) . With two variables and terms of relationships so normative considerations determine the conclusion of the analysis of Oppenheim . Restrictions on the range of a variable in an analysis of the symptoms of the analysis limit concept can be used to categorize understandable. If the position of Oppenheim on the types of entities that count as public is correct, the proposition that a law in the public interest only because it increases the benefits of a society is necessarily false . Unless it can be demonstrated thai cited to see this benefit will be closed or will not be made ??. Eventually in other sectors of society , not a tenable explanation i he can support this policy in the public interest Where who experience a false statement saying the compass public interest policies to generate new benefits and distribute a statement claiming that in the general interest of a policy that is explicitly focused on limited objectives can be harmful or on the spot can be fired. The fact that some social welfare objectives aimed not qualify as potential targets of social security , public opinion , despite statements degrades adept pursuit of these objectives with regard to the public interest are not eligible class is required. Obviously , the normative elements of the analysis of Oppenheim limits on the proper use of the concepts he analyzed .

Now the relationship between political concepts and normative obligations can be marked . At first it seems like Oppenheim must admit that his notion of the public interest involving at least two positions normative tinted , namely the rejection of certain entities as potential instantiations of the variable P ‘ and the elimination of some candidates the purpose of welfare , but these normative foundations are not a problem because no one disagrees about them . Oppenheim himself seems to believe that makes something like this ( p. 156 ) However, the question is more complex than this argument . Although there are numerous statements in the public interest that everyone would fall to falsehood indisputable and others recognize that everyone clearly subject to empirical confirmation or refutation , there are also reports on this case that reasonable people can classify different. Although there are wide competition that Yellowstone National Park is not public , but the residential population of Los Angeles , disputes could arise if the idea of ??a public company were used to cover the population of the Sun Belt or the traditional political boundaries were completely ignored include human population of the world in a single public . As far as the use of an author of the concept of public interest and political concepts are similar to devices such issues , this use implies normative current controversy . Statements associating a policy with the public interest , power, social freedom , or egalitarianism must be assessed from three perspectives . First, the political concept used correctly ? ( Is that the statement regarding a true example of the public interest ? ) Secondly, the statement is true . ( Will the proposed policy had the desired effect ? ) And finally , that statement with a policy , all things considered ? ( As to the collective welfare of the public now moved this way. Oppenheim reason is believed the statements to which political concepts are answered denying the third question. Such statements do not necessarily reflect the final approval or rejection . But it is wrong ( automatically that the first question can be answered without the introduction of normative considerations or if it is advisable to limit . using these concepts to their core normative acceptation Since important debates about social management often sets the political concepts undecided border issues , the price to controversial normative obligations in the use of these concepts exist disconnected political philosophy and political science of critical policy choices .

Advertisement