Suchergebnisse

Reseña de: Huseyinzadegan, D., Kant's Nonideal Theory of Politics, Evanston, Illinois, Northwestern University Press, 2019, 204 pp. ISBN: 978-0-8101-3987-9.

Reseña de: Huseyinzadegan, D., Kant's Nonideal Theory of Politics, Evanston, Illinois, Northwestern University Press, 2019, 204 pp. ISBN: 978-0-8101-3987-9.

This dissertation is a contribution to the debate about 'climate justice', i.e. a call for a just and feasible distribution of responsibility for addressing climate change. The main argument is a proposal for a cautious, practicable, and necessary step in the right direction: given the set of theoretical and practical obstacles to climate justice, we must begin by making contemporary development practices sustainable. In times of climate change, this is done by recognising and responding to the fact that emissions of greenhouse gases, with climate change as their result, are an immanent threat to any reflectively embraced development project. In the universal pursuit of progress, the basic needs of both present and future people are put at risk. Even so, a political stalemate and a business- as-usual attitude prevail. The situation is paralysed by an uncertainty about the exact impacts of choices made and by the reasonable disagreement of modern societies. The result is passiveness, and the passing on of a slowly and indiscernibly growing problem to future generations. This dissertation conveys a crucial message about the need to make our development sustainable. Instead of delaying action through trying to resolve the intractable epistemic and normative uncertainty fully, the focus should be on vindicating already shared points of practical convergence. On the constructivist method here adopted, the task is to characterise the agent and the situation faced from a practical and first-person point of view. More specifically, to specify the practical problem climate change gives rise to; the moral importance of needs (chapter three); how a principled priority of basic needs can be defended (chapter four), intergenerationally (chapter five) and internationally (chapter six); and what natural and social limits there are to development (chapter seven). These conceptions narrow the practice of development in the present context: it can be concluded that development must not risk the basic needs of anyone implicated. This common ground brackets off disagreement irrelevant to the urgent need to act, and so brings together otherwise deeply divided agents. A sufficientarian basic needs-principle, as the focus of an overlapping consensus, is practicable and anticipatory in the disuniting moral conundrum of climate change.

Ideal theory, nonideal theory, and empirical political theory -- Law, government, and politics -- Ideal equality and real inequality -- The distribution of procedural justice -- Discourse, atmosphere, and prophecy -- The discourse of political activism -- Postscript : an invitation to the reader.

Abstract:In this essay, I argue against the bright-line distinction between ideal and nonideal normative political theory, a distinction used to distinguish "stages" of theorizing such that ideal political principles can be deduced and examined before compromises with the flawed political world are made. The distinction took on its familiar form in Rawls and has enjoyed a resurgence of interest in the past few years. I argue that the idea of a categorical distinction — the kind that could allow for a sequencing of stages of theorizing — is misconceived, because wholly "ideal" normative political theory is a conceptual mistake, the equivalent of taking the simplifying models of introductory physics ("frictionless movement in a vacuum") and trying to develop an ideal theory of aerodynamics. Political organization and justice are about moral friction in the first instance. I examine both logical and epistemological arguments for the position that we need the uniquely idealizing assumptions of ideal theory in order to arrive at, or to know, a genuine theory of justice or political morality; and I find them wanting. Such assumptions as full compliance, consensus, and the publicity principle of universal knowledge about consensus can sometimes be useful, if used carefully and with justification; but they are not categorically different from other idealizing and abstracting assumptions in generating normative theory. What is referred to as "nonideal" theory is all that there is, and it is many kinds of theory, not one — the many ways in which we learn about justice and injustice, and seek to answer questions of practical reason about what ought to be done in our political world.

Proposes a strategy of global distributive justice which requires that the "major seven" countries of the OECD transfer one percent of their GDP to worse-off states; examines how this money could help improve health, using life expectancy as the measure. Includes the role of ideal theory and nonideal theory.

What are we to make of the fact that world leaders, such as Canada's Justin Trudeau, have, within the last few decades, offered official apologies for a whole host of past injustices? Scholars have largely dealt with this phenomenon as a moral question, seeing in these expressions of contrition a radical disruption of contemporary neoliberal individualism, a promise of a more humane world. Focusing on Canadian apology politics, this essay instead proposes a nonideal approach to state apologies, sidestepping questions of what they ought to do and focusing instead on their actual functioning as political acts. Through a sociologically informed speech act theory and Foucault's work on power, apology is conceptualized as a speech act with an essentially relational nature. The state, through apologizing, reaffirms the norms governing its relationship to its subjects at a moment when a past transgression threatens to destabilize this relation. From a Foucauldian point of view, the state's power inheres in the very stability of the state–citizen relation, and we should therefore see apologies as defensive moves to protect state hegemony. In the context of Western liberal democracies, such as Canada, apologies embody, rather than challenge, the logic of neoliberal governmentality by suggesting that everything, including resentment against the state, can be managed within the current status quo. Nevertheless, total cynicism about apology politics is not warranted. In many indigenous apology campaigners' demands for contrition we see another side of apologies: their potential to bring about change by enacting counterhegemonic relations to the state.

Cover -- 1. Introduction -- Outline of the course of the argument -- 2. Ideal theory and idealization -- 2.1 The output of ideal theory: ideal principles and ideal institutions -- 2.2 The input of ideal theory: empirical and moral construction assumptions -- The first type: conceptions of the person -- The second type: idealized assumptions in thought experiments -- The third type: idealization regarding the range of outcomes being considered -- The fourth type: idealization in the sense of assuming moral ideals -- The fifth type: Idealization as assuming away feasibility restrictions -- Part I: Empirical restrictions in political philosophy -- 3. Nonideal theory and the ideal guidance approach -- 3.1 The practical relevance of ideal theory -- 3.1.1 "Clinical theory" as an alternative to the ideal guidance approach -- 3.1.2 The critique of the ideal guidance approach -- The problem of the second-best -- The legitimacy critique -- 3.2 A reasonable compromise? -- 4. Dimensions of feasibility -- 4.1 Institutional design -- 4.2 Dimensions of feasibility -- 4.2.1 Technical feasibility and accessibility -- 4.2.2 Modal dimensions of feasibility restrictions -- 4.2.3 Ontological dimensions of feasibility restrictions -- 4.3 Mapping different approaches to normative theory -- 5. Constructing ideal institutions for the ideal guidance approach -- 5.1 Principles for designing institutions and the status quo bias -- 5.2 The importance of long-term consequences for evaluating incremental reform options -- 5.3 Do we need ideal theory? -- 5.4 Feasibility in the construction of ideal institutions -- Part II: Moral ideals in political philosophy -- 6. Geuss' critique of ideal theory: moral construction assumptions in the focus -- 6.1 Geuss' conception of critical political philosophy -- 6.2 Geuss' critique of ideal theory.

Tommie Shelby articulates a nonideal theory of black US ghettos that casts them as consequences of an intolerably unjust institutional structure. I argue that, despite some of its significant merits, Shelby's theory is weakened by his rejection of integration as a principle for reforming disadvantaged ghettos and correcting structural injustices in the US. In particular, I argue that Shelby unwarrantedly downplays the socio-economic efficiency of integrationist policies and fails to consider some of the ways in which integration might count as a duty of (corrective) justice.

Tessman points out a tendency to not acknowledge the difficulties that impossible moral requirements and unavoidable moral failures create in moral life, and traces this tendency through several different literatures, from scholarship on Holocaust testimony to discussions of ideal and nonideal theory, from theories of supererogation to debates about moral demandingness, and to feminist care ethics

This article discusses the adequacy of Rawls' theory of justice as a tool for racial justice. It is argued that critics like Charles W Mills fail to appreciate both the insights and limits of the Rawlsian framework. The article has two main parts spread out over several different sections. The first is concerned with whether the Rawlsian framework suffices to prevent racial injustice. It is argued that there are reasons to doubt whether it does. The second part is concerned with whether a Rawlsian framework has the resources to rectify past racial injustice. It is argued that it has more resources to do this than Mills allows. This second part of the article centers on two Rawlsian ideas: ideal theory and the fair equality of opportunity (FEO) principle. It is argued that ideal theory is essential for the kind of rectificatory work that Mills wants nonideal theory to do, and that where there is a socioeconomic legacy of past injustice, it is hard to see how FEO could be implemented if it did no rectificatory work, a result which means that there is less need to turn to nonideal theory at all.

Implicit in feminist and other critiques of ideal theorizing is a particular view of what normative theory should be like. Although I agree with the rejection of ideal theorizing that oppression theorists (and other theorists of justice) have advocated, the proposed alternative of nonideal theorizing is also problematic. Nonideal theorizing permits one to address oppression by first describing (nonideal) oppressive conditions, and then prescribing the best action that is possible or feasible given the conditions. Borrowing an insight from the "moral dilemmas debate"—namely that moral wrongdoing or failure can be unavoidable—I suggest that offering (only) action-guidance under nonideal conditions obscures the presence and significance of unavoidable moral failure. An adequate normative theory should be able to issue a further, non-action-guiding evaluative claim, namely that the best that is possible under oppressive conditions is not good enough, and may constitute a moral failure. I find exclusively action-guiding nonideal theory to be both insufficiently nonidealizing (because it idealizes the moral agent by falsely characterizing the agent as always able to avoid moral wrongdoing) and meanwhile too strongly adapted to the nonideal (because normative expectations are lowered and detrimentally adapted to options that, while the best possible, are still unacceptable).

The main goal of this dissertation is to present an interpretation of what it should mean for a society to fulfil the ideals of freedom and equality. I argue that society should equalise levels of individual freedom. I defend this thesis in three stages, which are associated to the three parts of the dissertation. Part (A) is devoted to the elaboration of a new conception of freedom. The objective is to rehabilitate the intuitive idea that associates individual freedom with the ability to do or be what one wants. In chapter 1, I engage with the analytical literature on freedom and develop a conception of freedom according to which individuals are free overall to the extent that they have the specific freedoms they authentically prefer, where a specific freedom is defined by the probability that the agent will realise a phenomenon. The extent of one's freedom is thus made to depend on how reality relates to what one authentically wants it to be. In chapter 2, I offer a method for the measurement of freedom so conceived. According to this method, a person's level of overall freedom is obtained by multiplying the physical extent of her actual specific freedoms by the evaluative extent to which these actual specific freedoms correspond to her authentically preferred ones. In part (B), I defend the claim that a strictly and continuously equal distribution of this individual freedom is the best embodiment of moral equality. Firstly, in chapter 3, I argue that freedom is a better egalitarian currency than welfare, resources, capabilities and pluralist alternatives because freedom's anti-perfectionism, anti-fetishism and flexibility make it an optimal tool for the pursuit of any life plan. Freedom supports equally moral persons regardless of the ends they require, the means they need or the relative value they assign to these means. Secondly, in chapter 4, I defend strict and continuous equality as a distributive criterion over time. I show that efficiency-based and responsibility-based arguments in favour of inequalities are incompatible with the equal respect owed to moral persons. As long as individuals qualify as moral persons, they are owed equal respect and hence equal amounts of overall freedom. Thirdly, I address the famous claim according to which freedom and equality are conflicting ideals. I argue that this claim either stems from mistaking a conceptual distinction between a currency and a distributive criterion as a conflict of ideals, or expresses deeper disagreement over the meaning of freedom or the role of aggregative considerations in moral distributions. In any case, the claim is seriously weakened if not entirely destroyed. Parts (A) and (B) form the ideal theory of Equal Freedom. In part (C), which is constituted by chapter 5, I try to show how this ideal theory can guide us in nonideal circumstances. Firstly, I suggest a model to understand the relation between ideal and nonideal theory. I argue that nonideal theory is best understood as involving the maximisation of the realisation of the ideal under feasibility constraints and moral constraints imposed by the very nature of the ideal. Secondly, I apply this model to Equal Freedom. The main result is a radically egalitarian balance between concerns for feasibility, relative and absolute levels of overall freedom. Thirdly, I discuss in more detail policy strategies and proposals to equalise freedom in nonideal circumstances. As an example, I assess the desirability and feasibility of a 'right to be heard', which is an enforceable right given to employees that provides them with a capacity to alter their workplace environment in accordance with their life plans. This evaluation concludes my defence of Equal Freedom as the core of a theory of social justice. ; Le principal objectif de cette thèse est de présenter une interprétation de ce que devrait être une société qui réalise les idéaux de liberté et d'égalité. J'y défends l'idée selon laquelle une telle société devrait égaliser la liberté individuelle. Cette défense s'articule en trois moments, qui correspondent aux trois parties de la thèse. La partie (A) est consacrée à l'élaboration d'une nouvelle conception de la liberté. Il s'agit de réhabiliter l'intuition qui associe la liberté individuelle à la capacité de faire ou d'être ce que l'on veut. Dans le chapitre 1, je me sers de la littérature analytique portant sur la liberté pour développer une conception de la liberté selon laquelle les individus sont libres dans la mesure où ils possèdent les libertés spécifiques qu'ils préfèrent authentiquement, considérant qu'une liberté spécifique se définit par la probabilité qu'un agent réalisera un phénomène. L'étendue de la liberté d'une personne dépend donc du degré de correspondance entre la réalité et ses préférences authentiques portant sur la réalité. Dans le chapitre 2, je propose une méthode pour mesurer cette liberté. Selon cette méthode, le niveau de liberté globale d'une personne s'obtient en multipliant l'étendue physique de ses libertés spécifiques actuelles par le degré de correspondance entre la valeur de ces libertés spécifiques et celle des libertés qu'elle préfère authentiquement. Dans la partie (B), je défends l'idée qu'une égalisation stricte et continue de cette liberté individuelle est la meilleure interprétation de l'égalité morale. Premièrement, dans le chapitre 3, je suggère que la liberté est une meilleure unité de comparaison pour l'égalitarisme que le bien-être, les ressources, les capabilités et les alternatives pluralistes car son anti-perfectionnisme, son anti-fétichisme et sa flexibilité en font un outil optimal pour la poursuite de tout plan de vie. La liberté offre en effet un soutien égal aux personnes morales sans égard aux fins qu'elles poursuivent, aux moyens qu'elles requièrent ou à la valeur relative qu'elles accordent à ces moyens. Deuxièmement, au chapitre 4, je propose l'égalité stricte et continue comme critère s'appliquant aux distributions ayant une dimension temporelle. Je montre que les arguments qui justifient des inégalités en se fondant sur des considérations d'efficacité ou de responsabilité sont incompatibles avec l'égal respect qui est dû aux personnes morales. Tant et aussi longtemps que des individus se qualifient comme personnes morales, on leur doit un égal respect et par conséquent, des quantités égales de liberté globale. Troisièmement, je traite de la fameuse idée selon laquelle la liberté et l'égalité sont des idéaux qui s'opposent. Je soutiens que cette idée découle soit d'une méprise concernant la distinction conceptuelle entre une unité de comparaison et un critère distributif, ou d'un désaccord plus profond portant sur le sens de la liberté ou le rôle de considérations agrégatives dans la détermination des distributions morales. Dans tous les cas, cette idée en sort sérieusement affaiblie sinon complètement anéantie. Les parties (A) et (B) constituent la théorie idéale d'Égale liberté. Dans la partie (C), qui est formée du chapitre 5, je tente de montrer comment cette théorie idéale peut nous guider dans des circonstances non-idéales. Premièrement, je suggère un modèle pour comprendre la relation entre la théorie idéale et la théorie non-idéale. Je soutiens que la théorie non-idéale doit être comprise comme impliquant la maximisation de la réalisation de l'idéal moyennant le respect des contraintes de faisabilité ainsi que des contraintes morales imposées par la nature même de l'idéal. Deuxièmement, j'applique ce modèle à l'idéal d'Égale liberté. Le résultat principal de cette application est un équilibre radicalement égalitaire entre l'importance à accorder à la faisabilité, aux niveaux relatifs ainsi qu'aux niveaux absolus de liberté globale. Troisièmement, je discute plus en détail de stratégies et de propositions de politiques publiques pouvant égaliser la liberté dans des circonstances non-idéales. En guise d'exemple, j'évalue la désirabilité et la faisabilité d'un « droit d'être entendu », qui est un droit destiné aux employés afin de leur offrir une capacité de modifier leur environnement de travail en conformité avec leur plan de vie. Cette évaluation conclut ma défense d'Égale liberté en tant que composante essentielle d'une théorie de la justice sociale. ; (ISP 3) -- UCL, 2012