The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Tens of arguments

This is the 4th post inspired by Jonathan Floyd’s book, Is political philosophy impossible? that started a new methodology (paradigm, revolution?) called normative behaviourism (NB). The posts so far:

Open Lifespan and Green political philosophy as single-trend approaches; reading Jonathan Floyd

The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Preparations

Blind spot of academic political philosophy: not recognising health as a political incentive and healthy longevity as a political goal

Floyd has used NB in his book to argue for social-liberal-democracy (SLD) as the (only) convincing and meaningful answer to the organising question of political philosophy: how should we live?

Our post today is the most relevant one concerning Open Lifespan, the main reason I studied Floyd’s book in the first place. Today, I’m going to demonstrate through a series of arguments that Open Lifespan as a political philosophy also picks out social-liberal-democracy as a compelling (convincing) and politically determinate (meaningful) answer to the foundational question of political philosophy, Floyd poses: how should we live?

Briefly put, the Open Lifespan answer to the question of how should we live: We should live indefinitely longer and healthier as by doing so we ‘exponentially’ enhance all the core elements of social-liberal-democracy (SLD): making it more democratic, more liberal, and more social (egalitarian). Continue reading “The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Tens of arguments”

Blind spot of academic political philosophy: not recognising health as a political incentive and healthy longevity as a political goal

This post is the continuation of The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Preparations post and takes up the story where the earlier one ended.

On the other hand, the reason I gave it a separate, focused title is that this is also a standalone, and I think quite relevant, piece in terms of the political philosophy Open Lifespan is aspiring for.

Introducing Health as a political incentive NB style, examples

As mentioned earlier, Floyd introduces 2 behaviourist measures to judge, justify success of existing (or past) political systems: plainly put, the more disincentives to political insurgence and crime a system enables the more successful it’s going to be.

‘minimising inequality, by way of a more social or egalitarian set of policies, minimises crime’

p169, Is political philosophy impossible? Jonathan Floyd

So less crime according to Floyd is the behavioural expression of the political preferences of people who do not commit crime due to the egalitarian policies implemented by the institutions of the political system they live in. Notice the negative, indirect aspect here, the inference is that if you do not commit crime it means you approve the system more.

My main suggestion is that ‘public and personal’ health considerations are as much a political incentive (or disincentive, see later) already today and due to increasing life expectancy are increasingly become so in the near future. Continue reading “Blind spot of academic political philosophy: not recognising health as a political incentive and healthy longevity as a political goal”

The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Preparations

Introduction

This is my second, and far more relevant mini-study, that takes inspiration from Jonathan Floyd’s book ‘Is political philosophy impossible?’. In the first one, called Open Lifespan and Green political philosophy as single-trend approaches; reading Jonathan Floyd I tried to carve out some space within political philosophy to single trend approaches, like the philosophy of longevity and green political philosophy. 

With the current study, I’m going to put Floyd’s study to a much better and more detailed use. My final aim is to demonstrate through a series of arguments that Open Lifespan as a political philosophy picks out and relies on social-liberal-democracy as a compelling (convincing) and politically determinate (meaningful) answer to the foundational question of political philosophy, Floyd poses: how should we live?

Briefly put, the Open Lifespan answer to the question of ‘How should we live?’: indefinitely longer and healthier and an Open Life Society would ‘exponentially’ enhance all the core elements of social-liberal-democracy (SLD): it makes it more democratic, more liberal, and more social (egalitarian).  Continue reading “The Open Lifespan answer to Jonathan Floyd’s political philosophy organising question: how should we live? Preparations”

Open Lifespan and Green political philosophy as single-trend approaches; reading Jonathan Floyd

Jonathan Floyd’s book ‘Is political philosophy impossible?’, published in 2017, is trying to break the current, mainstream mentalist deadlock within political philosophy by offering a normative behaviourist approach. No, am not going to tell you now what are these things, as I will deal with Floyd’s study in a series of posts (just like I did with Nussbaum’s First capability). Floyd’s approach is relevant enough for Open Lifespan to criticise it and use its concept, and frame our topic within its thoroughly argumented, well defined and conveniently narrow world.

The book’s starting point is a criticism of ways political philosophy can be defined to make way for Floyds’ own convincing suggestion to define the same topic with 3 well-formed questions. Today I only care about the ways of definitions he offers as mainstream starting points to make a critical remark about another approach missing from this inventory. This is the approach that opens the door for Open Lifespan and Green political philosophy to qualify as political theories. Continue reading “Open Lifespan and Green political philosophy as single-trend approaches; reading Jonathan Floyd”