Abstract

Recent methodological debates about normative political theory have raised questions about the relation between facts and values and between empirical social science and normative political theory. Jonathan Floyd’s normative behaviorism and Tariq Modood’s normative sociology are two prominent views about these relations. The two approaches see different kinds of social science facts as relevant. Floyd argues that behavioral patterns involving insurrection and crime are especially relevant as grounds for normative principles, whereas Modood argues that discussions of principles of multicultural equality should pay special attention to the expressed views of members of the minorities in question. The two approaches, furthermore, have different views of the nature of normativity and of the type of social science that is relevant to normative political theory. These differences show how such methodological differences have implications for what political theorists should do and which methods they should employ.