# How to Do Empirical Political Philosophy: A Case Study of Miller’s Argument for Needs-Based Justice

## TL;DR

This paper examines how political philosophers can use empirical evidence, using David Miller's argument for needs-based justice as a case study.

## Contribution

It provides four recommendations for improving the methodology of empirical political philosophy.

## Key findings

- Miller's argument for needs-based justice is analyzed for its empirical grounding.
- Four methodological issues are identified in applying empirical evidence to philosophical arguments.
- Recommendations are given to improve the integration of empirical data in political philosophy.

## Abstract

In recent years an increasing number of political philosophers have begun to ground their arguments in empirical evidence. I investigate this novel approach by way of example. The object of my case study is David Miller’s renewed empirical argument for a needs-based principle of justice. First, I introduce Miller’s argument. Then I raise four worries about the application of his methodology that give rise to corresponding general recommendations for how to do empirical political philosophy. Proponents of this approach should take care to (1) check for inappropriately narrow (and broad) samples, (2) verify studies’ relevance for their empirical hypotheses, (3) adjust their confidence to the available empirical evidence, and (4) properly integrate their hypotheses into their philosophical theorizing.