Although at individual level there is a trade-off between our personal preferences and the general interest, when we talk about “political philosophy”, we have to abstract (in the Rawlsian way) from our particular interests: the legislator is expected to impartially represent the demos. The formal translation of that demand requires building a social utility function that describes the collective preferences for each possible “state of the world”. This function must be individualistic and impartial.
You’re engaging in political philosophy right now! Or you would be, if you were attempting to defend this brand of technocratic liberalism instead of simply taking it as given.
I would say in philosophy, but not very much in political philosophy. The “Social welfare” definition is more Ethical than political, the rest is purely “game theoretical”. But of course, at the bottom everything has metaphysical hypotheses. The less and more general, the better!
You’re engaging in political philosophy right now! Or you would be, if you were attempting to defend this brand of technocratic liberalism instead of simply taking it as given.
I would say in philosophy, but not very much in political philosophy. The “Social welfare” definition is more Ethical than political, the rest is purely “game theoretical”. But of course, at the bottom everything has metaphysical hypotheses. The less and more general, the better!