Social philosophy debates the notion of “social justice” and “social progress” and what we are speaking of in case we speak of “healthy” and “rotten” societies. Would we call Nazi-German a “healthy society” — or Trump-USA? If not — why not? On the other hand, social sciences try to keep all moral evaluations out and strictly keep to “observable facts and mechanisms”.
But any human society is at the same time a practical and a moral order — just as a family or any community. There are practical tasks and there are moral obligations and moral standards. It would be meaningless to apply those concepts to a society of chimps. Animals as chimps may be smart, but we don’t think that animals are moral beings. But humans cannot avoid being moral beings. Thus philosophy has to ask what that means, what is asked of us as moral members of a society. For Aristotle, but for Plato and Socrates too, the study of humans in a society was always a study in morals and ethics. But it was not necessarily a study in “social justice” as it is for Marxists mainly. And the notion of “social progress” was alien to Antiquity and to all of Asia. It was created during the times of “Western Enlightenment”.
Sociology is established as a science. Auguste Comte, the inventor of the term, called it a “social physics”. His idea was to study the mechanisms of human social behavior as if it could be done without morals taken into account in the same way as Adam Smith tried to study the mechanisms of economic behavior. Marx too tried to study society as a scientist and explicitly rejecting moral arguments if possible. Of course, all three knew that this was impossible, but they tried their best. Ironically, they all three were moralists. But they wanted the moralizing not to spoil the scientific insights.
Thus the conflict of being objective and “true to the facts” and being moral, asking for “social justice” and “a better society” is a constant trouble of all social science and philosophy alike and it cannot be resolved since humans are moral beings and not robots or apes.
Thus there are always two dangers: To over-moralize and to under-moralize our study of human social behavior. Once more think of Nazi-Germany: Hitler was very effective, he delivered, the economy was humming, most people felt a great upswing, he could be the envy of Trump. Thus from a technical point of view, the Nazi-regime was a big success. But from a moral point of view? Not so much.
Answers & Comments
Explanation:
Social philosophy debates the notion of “social justice” and “social progress” and what we are speaking of in case we speak of “healthy” and “rotten” societies. Would we call Nazi-German a “healthy society” — or Trump-USA? If not — why not? On the other hand, social sciences try to keep all moral evaluations out and strictly keep to “observable facts and mechanisms”.
But any human society is at the same time a practical and a moral order — just as a family or any community. There are practical tasks and there are moral obligations and moral standards. It would be meaningless to apply those concepts to a society of chimps. Animals as chimps may be smart, but we don’t think that animals are moral beings. But humans cannot avoid being moral beings. Thus philosophy has to ask what that means, what is asked of us as moral members of a society. For Aristotle, but for Plato and Socrates too, the study of humans in a society was always a study in morals and ethics. But it was not necessarily a study in “social justice” as it is for Marxists mainly. And the notion of “social progress” was alien to Antiquity and to all of Asia. It was created during the times of “Western Enlightenment”.
Sociology is established as a science. Auguste Comte, the inventor of the term, called it a “social physics”. His idea was to study the mechanisms of human social behavior as if it could be done without morals taken into account in the same way as Adam Smith tried to study the mechanisms of economic behavior. Marx too tried to study society as a scientist and explicitly rejecting moral arguments if possible. Of course, all three knew that this was impossible, but they tried their best. Ironically, they all three were moralists. But they wanted the moralizing not to spoil the scientific insights.
Thus the conflict of being objective and “true to the facts” and being moral, asking for “social justice” and “a better society” is a constant trouble of all social science and philosophy alike and it cannot be resolved since humans are moral beings and not robots or apes.
Thus there are always two dangers: To over-moralize and to under-moralize our study of human social behavior. Once more think of Nazi-Germany: Hitler was very effective, he delivered, the economy was humming, most people felt a great upswing, he could be the envy of Trump. Thus from a technical point of view, the Nazi-regime was a big success. But from a moral point of view? Not so much.