Tragedies of non-ideal theory

Abstract

This paper has three aims. First, it argues that the present use of 'ideal theory' is unhelpful, and that an earlier and apparently more natural use focusing on perfection would be preferable. Second, it has tried to show that revision of the use of the term would better expose two distinctive normative issues, and illustrated that claim by showing how some contributors to debates about ideal theory have gone wrong partly through not distinguishing them. Third, in exposing those two distinct normative issues, it has revealed a particular way in which ideal theory even under the more specific, revisionary definition will often be central to working out what to do in non-ideal circumstances. By clarifying the terms on which debates over ideal and non-ideal theory should take place, and highlighting the particular problems each deals with, it tries to clear the ground for turning to the actual problem, which is what to do in our non-ideal and often tragic circumstances.

Ideal vs. Non‐ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map

“…If this hypothesis is broadly correct, a crucial task for participants in the debate on ideal/non‐ideal theory in this first sense is to flesh out more concretely what the ‘reasonableness’ constraint amounts to, especially in complex cases involving the injustice of entire societies and their institutions (cf. Schapiro 2003; Simmons 2010: 26–7; Jubb forthcoming; Stemplowska forthcoming). 10…”

Normative behaviourism as a solution to four problems in realism and non-ideal theory

“…This complaint exposes two difficulties: (1) under-determinationif abstract principles are too indeterminate to generate specific institutional prescriptions, then they fail to offer guidance; and (2) feasibilityif those principles entail unfeasible institutions, and ought-implies-can, then this might invalidate them altogether, assuming that cannot-impliesought-not. Of course, we might respond to that second challenge by saying that impossible ideals can still guide us, if only by providing a measure of the second-best (Jubb, 2012), but we discussed that earlier. As noted with the ranking problem, if different possibilities deviate from the ideal in different ways, what counts as second best?…”

Ideal and Nonideal Theory: Untangling the Debate

“…Additionally, the authors advise a shift in focus from the vocabulary difficulties to the 'territory' which ideal and non-ideal theory should cover (Stemplowska & Hamlin, 2010;Swift, 2008;Valentini, 2009;Sreenivasan, 2012).both theories are useful: 'the use of ideal theory techniques contributes to the use of nonideal theory techniques and vice versa' (Stemplowska, 2008). Similarly shifting the debate from the vocabulary problems to solving problems, Robert Jubb (2012), in Tragedies of Nonideal Theory, highlights the need for 're-categorization.' Recognizing the debate '…departs from a more sensible use which would categorize the two according to the problems they deal with and so obscures the distinctive character of their problems' (Jubb, 2012), he ultimately sees a role for both theories.…”

“…Similarly shifting the debate from the vocabulary problems to solving problems, Robert Jubb (2012), in Tragedies of Nonideal Theory, highlights the need for 're-categorization.' Recognizing the debate '…departs from a more sensible use which would categorize the two according to the problems they deal with and so obscures the distinctive character of their problems' (Jubb, 2012), he ultimately sees a role for both theories. Like Stemplowska.…”

“…Like Stemplowska. who argues there is no conflict between ideal and non-ideal theory, Jubb (2012) suggests, …my account of the difference between ideal and non-ideal theory… [describes] dividing the field up into distinctive problems…In doing so, I hope it has cleared and prepared the ground for turning to what is surely the most pressing problem, that of what to do in our non-ideal circumstances (Jubb, 2012).…”