On Metaphysical Cases against Political Theories

This paper considers some arguments that argue against particular political theories on metaphysical grounds. These arguments contain the implicit premise that political theories are only viable if they are grounded in a plausible metaphysical theory. This thesis was called the Posteriority Thesis by Kang (2003). While the truth of this premise is often trivially assumed, I argue that this is uncalled for. Applying the Posteriority Thesis consistently has undesirable consequences that are counterintuitive and risks paralyzing political theory as a discipline. Furthermore, I use the example of Rawls to show that a political theory need not depend on metaphysical premises if it takes moral beliefs as its starting point.