Beyond the Empirical and Ethical Divide: Ibn Khaldun's Multiplex Philosophy of Politics and Education

Why is there a tension between the empirical and the ethical approaches in political and educational theory? This tension is often traced back to David Hume’s demarcation between “is” and “ought” claims. This distinction was further solidified by the principles of logical positivism, which made a clear separation between facts and values, thereby further distancing empirical from normative modes of inquiry. This philosophical stance has contributed to an indecision in the field of political theory over the last century, oscillating between empirical-positive and ethicalnormative approaches, or in other words, descriptive and prescriptive perspectives, as scholars have struggled to balance these two frameworks. There was a division of labor: empirical political theorists focused on the empirical “is” of politics, while normative political theorists concerned themselves with the ethical “ought” of politics. Empirical approaches to political theory are concerned with discovering the causal laws that explain why society is the way it is. Normative approach to political theory, on the other hand, is concerned with ethical considerations, values, and prescriptions about how societies ought to be organized and governed.