Date: 3 June 2026
Time: 10:00-11:45
Venue: Institute for Futures Studies, Holländargatan 13 in Stockholm or online
Research seminar with Richard Arneson, distinguished Professor of Philosophy at University of California, San Diego. He is a holder of Valtz Family Chair in Philosophy. Arneson received his PhD in philosophy from the University of California, Berkeley in 1975. His work focuses on theories of social justice, as well as normative ethics including applied ethics topics.
Abstract
The instrumentalism of the title says roughly that the form of governance that would be feasibly best in any circumstances is any one whose establishment and operation would bring about consequences morally no worse than those of any other that might instead be put in place. I stipulate that the consequences to be assessed exclude any possible noninstrumental value that attaches to all members of the society having an equal vote or equal opportunity for political influence (EOPI). This allows, components of democratic institutions such as protection of freedom of speech and association do have such value that weighs on the scales. Authoritarians favoring nondemocracy might be reasonable liberals, social democrats, or conservatives. Does instrumentalism favor democracy always or almost always in our time? The stipulated exclusion is incorrect if all having equal vote or EOPI really in themselves have noninstrumental value. This exclusion applies only to political power, not power generally, but might be supported by a general claim: The distribution of power over others is normatively neutral in itself and matters only insofar as it gives rise to good or bad consequences. No person has a moral claim to power over others except on the basis, that person’s having the power will be fair in its effects on those affected. The discussion surveys relevant arguments advanced by Niko Kolodny, Daniel Viehoff, and Jeremy Waldron.
If you wish to receive our newsletters, and invitations to our seminars, subscribe here.
