ABSTRACT
I argue in Part 1, Chapters 1 and 2, that social policy recommendation usually has, either implicitly or explicitly, a number of objectives, many of which relate to normative debate. Consequently, political philosophers define and debate values which also often represent the social policy aims (and aversions) of Governments and other policy recommenders. However, social policy makers and analysts use normative concepts in part to clarify what is recommended, but often as a rhetorical device. For example, individual autonomy and equality are terms used in political rhetoric to evoke a response to particular positions, irrespective of the internal coherence of the use of these terms. Political philosophers, on the other hand, analyse what these concepts mean in a more systematic fashion, but often find it very difficult to move from the level of philosophical generalities to specific social policy.
