Suchergebnisse

Abstract:This essay discusses the relation between ideal theory and two forms of political
moralism identified by Bernard Williams, structural and enactment views. It
argues that ideal theory, at least in the sense Rawls used that term, only makes
sense for structural forms of moralism. These theories see their task as
describing the constraints that properly apply to political agents and
institutions. As a result, they are primarily concerned with norms that govern
action. In contrast, many critiques of ideal theory are structured and motivated
by their commitment to an enactment model of political theorizing. This instead
sees political agents and institutions as instruments for producing or promoting
better states of affairs. Enactment models treat the evaluations that rank
different states of affairs as justificatorily basic, rather than norms
governing action on which structural models focus. This reveals an important
feature of debates about ideal theory. Whether ideal theory is capable of
appropriately guiding action will depend on what the criteria for appropriately
guiding action are, about which different theorists have importantly different
views. For example, some popular strategies for defending ideal theory fail,
while it may be much less clear that some alternatives to ideal theory can
provide action guidance than their advocates claim.

Abstract:This essay discusses and criticizes the claim that normative political theory can be (justifiably and fruitfully) divided into two parts—a part having to do with ideal theory which assumes full compliance and abstracts away from issues having to do with implementation and, contrasting with this, a nonideal part having to do with implementation and with rules and institutions appropriate for conditions of partial compliance. On this conception of ideal theory, empirical facts about human behavior and motivation, connected to issues surrounding compliance and implementation, are irrelevant to ideal theory, although such facts can be relevant to the nonideal part of normative theory. I argue against this conception, holding instead that such empirical facts are relevant to most or all of normative political theory, including "fundamental" normative principles.

Part 1. Nonidealized Methodologies -- Chapter 1. Feminist Approaches to Bioethics -- Chapter 2. Decolonial and/or Postcolonial Approaches to Bioethics -- Chapter 3. Queer Approaches to Bioethics -- Chapter 4. Narrative Methodology as a Nonideal Approach to Bioethics -- Part 2. Nonidealized Applications to Bioethical Research & Practice -- Chapter 5. Epistemology and Knowing in Bioethics -- Chapter 6. Conceptualizing Concepts of Autonomy, Rationality, Risk/Benefit -- Chapter 7. Clinical Ethics Consultation and Moral Stress/Hazard -- Part 3. Policy Implications of Nonidealized Theory in Bioethics -- Chapter 8. U.S. Policy -- Chapter 9. Specific Other Policy Analysis/Recommendations -- Part 4. Global Bioethics Through a Nonidealized Lens -- Chapter 10. Justice and Fairness in Global Research and Medical Practices -- Chapter 11. Priorities in Global Research and Medical Practices -- Chapter 12. Topical Issues.

In the past decade, the value of so-called ideal theory has become a major point of dispute among political theorists. While critics of ideal theory accuse this approach of "idle utopianism", its advocates fault the critics for conceding to "cynical realism". This dissertation examines two charges against ideal theory. The demandingness charge states that ideal theory fails to acknowledge the constraints on justice set by the empirical conditions that prevail in our world, and that it therefore produces invalid principles. The uselessness charge states that ideal theory, even if it tells us what justice would require under exceptionally favorable circumstances, offers no information valuable for guiding action in the nonideal circumstances characteristic of today's societies. The two charges target the idealized assumptions made in ideal theory, in particular the assumption of full compliance. By assuming full compliance, the critics argue, ideal theory ignores the way real-world agents' motivational limitations render the pursuit of its proposed principles infeasible or undesirable. In four free-standing articles, I examine when and why noncompliance due to motivational limitations puts constraints on justice, and how this affects the status and usefulness of ideal theory. I argue that motivational limitations constrain justice in ideal theory if we hold that justice is action-guiding in the sense that it confers actual duties on individual agents, and that the distribution of collective duties to individuals requires reasonable expectations of others' compliance. In nonideal theory, adopting an actualist standpoint will lead us to conclude that not only the noncompliance of others, but also our own foreseeable noncompliance constrains what justice can demand. I further argue that how this affects the usefulness of ideal theory depends, on the one hand, on how we interpret crucial concepts such as "action-guidance", and, on the other, on which task we expect political theory to perform. My findings shed new light over the complex conflict lines that underlie the current dispute, and urge debaters to render explicit and argue for the assumptions upon which they rest their judgments about ideal theory.

The article gives conceptual clarification on a distinction between ideal and nonideal theory by analyzing John Rawls´ theory as presented in his books "A Theory of Justice" and "The Law of Peoples." The article tries to show the importance of ideal theory, while at the same time pointing out that the distinction, ideal and nonideal, needs further qualification. Further, the article also introduces the distinction of normative and descriptive into ideal and consequently nonideal theory. Through this four-fold distinction it is easier to establish the function of each theory and the separation of work-fields between philosophers, politicians and lawyers.

Community members seek benefits-sharing planning agreements to advance their own distributive justice goals by directing benefits to communities. Nonideal theory does much to explain the context and possibilities for these agreements. The agreements forged between communities and development interests seek to address, but not completely achieve, distributive justice via consensus about incremental changes in project benefit distribution. However, implementation and outcomes can vary widely. This article develops theory to conceptualize a practical framework for these planning agreements using nonideal justice theories, granted the triple concerns of inaction, tokenism, and rhetorical trickery posed by ineffective implementation. The Crenshaw Light Rail Project in Los Angeles illustrates the issues in play.

Even though social engineering has gained a bad reputation, due to new possibilities in the information age, it may be time to reconsider Karl Popper's conception of "piecemeal social engineering." Piecemeal social engineering is not only an element within Popper's open society. It also connects his political philosophy to his philosophy of science and his evolutionary epistemology. Furthermore, it seems to fit well into the search for implementation strategies for policies and social actions in the context of nonideal theory. Nevertheless, this does not necessarily undermine the need for political ideals and first-order principles, which are inhabitants of "World 3."