Intuitively I agreed with Adams when I was reading his paper his contention that “Metaphysical assumptions frame our everyday thinking.” (The inevitability of political metaphysics Page 269 and “The world of fact is defined in terms of the world of value.” (‘The Inevitability Of Political metaphysics.’ Ian Adams Page 270) was compelling but are our values intrinsically metaphysical? Has Adams ignored the possibility that values could be something that we have created ourselves because we have faculties such as reason emotions imagination and a shared human history and that all our moral notions come from our experiences and empirical observation; and if we look at humanity from an historical and psychological aspect will we recognise the growth of our moral sensibilities through the consequences of our actions?

The question that I am trying to work out in my mind is whether metaphysical notions are like those notions of Plato and his form of the good. Is there a moral reality apart from this world (spiritually) and does that mean that moral values are absolute eternal truths? I find a problem with this proposition because I believe that moral values can change from culture to culture or from different time periods in history. If on the other hand they are the grounding principles on which we make our moral judgements then I would have to agree with Ian Adams conclusion that metaphysics are pervasive in political ideology and a necessary part of political life.

Adams asserts that “throughout the history of Western political thought, metaphysics has had a recognised role in providing foundations upon which a great many normative or ideological theories rest” (‘The inevitability of Political Metaphysics’ Adams Ian Page 269). That role could be in a dialogue with other schools of thought such as the sceptic. This could be how the grounding principles of morality are discovered. (Rather than expecting them to be floating about in some other spiritual plane of existence)

To show the importance of the role of metaphysics he first has to discuss metaphysics. Metaphysics is “Factual claims about the nature of reality that cannot in principle be investigated or tested by physical science.” (‘The inevitability of political metaphysics’ Adams, Ian Page 269) Adams believes that metaphysics is not just the study of ‘being’ of the nature of things but also is about how we make sense of the world on a moral basis. “Any theory that makes the morally good and bad, right and wrong, superior and inferior, part of its conception of objective reality in a systematic way is necessarily a metaphysics.” (‘The Inevitability Of Political Metaphysics’ Adams Ian Page 271) Kant considered metaphysics as being twofold the study of nature and the study of morals “We may call all philosophy empirical, so far as it is based on grounds of experience: on the other hand, that which delivers its doctrines from à priori principles alone we may call pure philosophy. When the latter is merely formal it is logic; if it is restricted to definite objects of the understanding it is metaphysics” (Fundamental Principles of The metaphysics of Morals). It is “the human will as it is affected by nature” that Kant is interested in The Metaphysics of Morals.  We have ideas about how we ought to live this is why all moral questions should be investigated a priori because he argued if morals are investigated a posteriori they will be tainted. He puts forward the idea of the categorical imperative (for example don’t kill) that any rational being will always do the moral thing. The categorical imperative is a command and to disobey it would be irrational.  Adams argues that we make value judgements part of external reality and that they become objective truths because “The world of fact is defined in terms of the world of value.” (‘The Inevitability Of Political metaphysics.’ Ian Adams Page 270).

Adams argues that when it comes to political theories they all ask a moral question, “What is ultimately good for society or for the individual” as their starting point. To ask, “what is good?” Is a metaphysical question. Therefore Adams asserts that all political philosophers or analysts such as Marx and Rawls have their foundation in metaphysical theory. The question they ask and the base line for their theory such as Rawls ideal society wherein “that by nature we are all free and equal and rational” (|The inevitability of Political Metaphysics Adams Ian Page 278) Is Adams argues metaphysical because it cannot be proven or tested empirically.

“Metaphysical assumptions frame our everyday thinking.” (The inevitability of political metaphysics Page 269) Adams argues that rationalist and theological theories of the world are underpinned by the same metaphysical elements so that both theories are in fact the same. Rationalist and theological theories aim to make sense of the world through reason. One difference is that theological theories have God at the centre of their explanations but both are concerned with explaining the world within an ethical and rational structure. They are both concerned with the way humans should live and ideas such as goodness and justice. Aristotle believed that what made man different from other animals was that he had reason he was a rational being, he could work things out and discover what is good and what is bad. He puts forward the idea of making virtues good habits (virtue ethics). Adams is saying that our worldview is always coloured by judgements that stem from a moralised and therefore metaphysical worldview He argues, “religions moralise reality. They infuse the world with values but insist upon their objectivity”. (‘The Inevitability of Political Metaphysics.’ Adams, Ian Page 270). Secular rationalists do not fill the gaps in their knowledge with an idea of a god but they to are looking for answers from a reality infused by values but also a reality based firmly in empirical observations. Both rationalist and theological theories are trying to make sense of the world but I don’t think you have to have a faith or have underlying metaphysical beliefs to have a moral code. Common sense and compassion are just two good attributes that people have to help them reach a right decision.

“The critical concept is human nature” (The Inevitability Of political Metaphysics Adams Ian Page 271). Human nature seems to be central to an understanding of moral issues and moral thoughts. Humans and their relations to each other and to the natural world is what give us moral insights. Adams points out How Locke’s “ethical and political thought” contrasts with his empirical position in his epistemological philosophical enquiries. His justification for liberty equality and justice are God given rights. Adams points out that we cannot empirically prove that anyone has any God given rights. Locke’s ideas are “purely metaphysical” He goes on to state that conceptions of normative political theories that are non-religious are also metaphysical.  Any theory that is looking at what is wrong or right is going to have to use moral language to explain its position so it will be metaphysical. 

   Political Ideologies are about ideas (not of the mind or consciousness) but ideas that have a material basis. They are about issues that are of concern to particular groups of people. Thomas Hobbes would be a normative political theorist. His maxim would be “Do not that to another, which thou wouldest not have done to thy self” (Leviathan Hobbes T 214). It is a golden rule and a classic example of a normative principle. Hobbes may have argued that the only reason that people follow a moral code is because it is in their best interest because men are selfish and self centred by nature.  I think people like Hobbes and Marx had a common sense approach to political philosophy. They used their observation insights and judgements in developing their theories they come from a materialist background. Marx wrote a socio-economic treatise ‘The German Ideology’ and he approached it from an historical perspective to show how countries had developed into their present political systems and how they should naturally progress. “The first premise of all human history is, of course, the existence of living human individuals. Thus the first fact to be established is the physical organisation of these individuals and their consequent relation to the rest of nature.”(The German ideology Marx Engels page42). The work is founded in empirical observations of society’s historical development. What Marx was saying to other philosophers in Germany at that time was that in the first instance people are concerned with the practical material necessities such as getting enough food and shelter. Things like ideologies arts and science come later in humanities development.  He argues “Men are the producers of their conceptions” because “life is not determined by consciousness but consciousness by life.” The German Ideology Marx Engels Page 47. His work is loaded with moral language and when he talks about the essence of man as being productive it does sound metaphysical. Though Marx was writing in opposition to philosophers who believed in the reality of metaphysical absolutes.

People Like Rawls and Marx may use moral principles to guide them but there is nothing to prove to me that moral principles are metaphysical by nature. It is I think more reasonable to agree with Marx assessment that Life is not determined by consciousness but consciousness by life” And moral principles are not universal or absolute. What people think of as right changes from time period to time period and culture to culture.

In summing up I think morality developed as humanity developed and ethical theories such as normative ethics, virtue ethics and utilitarian ethics have a commonsense approach to the practical problems that we face everyday in living our lives I also think Kant’s categorical imperative has also a common sense element to it. (Although Kant’s idea that moral principles should be established a priori seems odd as how can we know right or wrong if we do not experience it)? I believe morals appeal to our rational judgement; Political theorists use moral language as a tool to describe their position. Does this make their theories intrinsically metaphysical? We may not be able to test or measure empirically aspects of being human such as ‘happiness’ but I think we can observe the consequences of our actions and consider figure out (Or reason) the best course of action for our future I do not think that this view of humanity can be considered as metaphysical. Therefore I do not agree with Ian Adams that Metaphysics pervade all political theories and is a necessary part of political life. I think that perhaps we have interpreted the knowledge we have acquired down through our history as metaphysical. As faith in an omniscient God/Gods (religions) was so important in explaining phenomenon that we could not rationally explain faith was central and critical to our understanding of the world. Concepts of value that could not easily be explained where naturally interpreted on a metaphysical level. That is why I believe we can recognise metaphysical explanations in thinkers’ writings because it is rooted in our language in how we interpret and explain the world.