Intuitions in political theory: problems and alternatives

Abstract

How can we answer normative questions in political theory? A common answer in analytical political theory is by seeking a reflective equilibrium based on normative intuitions (or “considered judgements”). Is this a good method? This paper presents an established objection to the intuitionism that characterizes this method: It is hard to reconcile the origin of our normative intuitions in the evolutionary history of our species with their being of interest as points of departure for normative reflection. Normative political theory should therefore not be based on intuitions. A common reply is that there are no alternatives. The paper shows that this is a bad argument by presenting three alternatives: first one from Rawls, then consequentialism as an alternative, and finally, it sketches a new alternative based on metaethical subjectivism.