Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-544b6db54f-rcd7l Total loading time: 0.272 Render date: 2021-10-24T02:49:57.847Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Unhinged Frames: Assessing Thought Experiments in Normative Political Theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

Abstract

This article develops a framework for assessing thought experiments in normative political theory. It argues that we should distinguish between relevant and irrelevant hypotheticals according to a criterion of modality. Relevant hypotheticals, while far-fetched, construct imaginary cases that are possible for us, here and now. Irrelevant hypotheticals conjure up imaginary cases that are barely conceivable at all. To establish this claim, the article interrogates, via a discussion of Susan Sontag and Judith Butler’s accounts of representations of violence, the frames through which hypotheticals construct possible worlds, and concludes that some frames are better than others at sustaining a link with the world as we know it. Frames that disrupt this link can be charged with failing to offer action-guidance.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Politics and International Relations, University of Edinburgh (email: mathias.thaler@ed.ac.uk). Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Political Theory Research Group meeting in Edinburgh (2015), the PSA General Conference in Sheffield (2015) and the APSA General Conference in San Francisco (2015). The author is grateful to the audiences of all these events for their excellent questions. Special thanks are due to Philip Cook, Liz Frazer, Dustin Howes, Kim Hutchings, Moya Lloyd, Mihaela Mihai, Kieran Oberman and Alan Wilson, who have read various/different versions of this article and proposed highly perceptive and helpful feedback. A debt of gratitude is also due to this Journal’s three referees for suggesting many improvements to the original manuscript. Finally, the author thanks the Editor, Rob Johns, for expertly navigating the article through the review process and for generously offering guidance throughout. The usual disclaimers apply. The research for this article has benefited from a Marie Curie Career Integration Grant (JUDGEPOL).

References

Alfano, Mark, and Loeb, Don. 2014. Experimental Moral Philosophy. In Edward N. Zalta, ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/experimental-moral/, accessed 20 November 2014.Google Scholar
Allhoff, Fritz. 2005. A Defense of Torture: Separation of Cases, Ticking Time-Bombs, and Moral Justification. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 19:243264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anscombe, G. E. M. 1958. Modern Moral Philosophy. Philosophy 33:119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boltanski, Luc. 1999. Distant Suffering: Morality, Media, and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2000. Pascalian Meditations. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Brand-Ballard, Jeffrey. 2007. F. M. Kamm: Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Available from https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/25299-intricate-ethics-rights-responsibilities-and-permissible-harm/, accessed 14 November 2014.Google Scholar
Brecher, Robert. 2007. Torture and the Ticking Bomb. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brendel, Elke. 2004. Intuition Pumps and the Proper Use of Thought Experiments. Dialectica 58:89108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, James Robert, and Yiftach, Fehige. 2016. “Thought Experiments”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL=<http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2016/entries/thought-experiment/>..>Google Scholar
Bufacchi, Vittorio, and Arrigo, Jean Maria. 2006. Torture, Terrorism and the State: A Refutation of the Ticking-Bomb Argument. Journal of Applied Philosophy 23:355373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith. 2004. Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence. London/New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Butler, Judith. 2007. Torture and the Ethics of Photography. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space 25:951966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith. 2009. Frames of War: When Is Life Grievable? London/New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Carroll, Noël. 2002. The Wheel of Virtue: Art, Literature, and Moral Knowledge. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 60:326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chambers, Samuel A., and Carver, Terrell, eds. 2008. Judith Butler and Political Theory: Troubling Politics. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chappell, Timothy. 2014. Knowing What to Do: Imagination, Virtue, and Platonism in Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, G. A. 2008. Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Stanley. 2001. States of Denial: Knowing about Atrocities and Suffering. Cambridge/Malden, Mass.: Polity.Google Scholar
Cova, Florian, and Naar, Hichem. 2011. Side-Effect Effect without Side Effects: The Pervasive Impact of Moral Considerations on Judgments of Intentionality. Philosophical Psychology 25:837854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. 1991. Consciousness Explained. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown and Co.Google Scholar
Dershowitz, Alan M. 2002. Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge. New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Edmonds, David. 2013. Would You Kill the Fat Man? The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us about Right and Wrong. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, Jakob. 2011. How Outlandish Can Imaginary Cases Be? Journal of Applied Philosophy 28:241258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrell, Michelle. 2013. The Ticking Bomb Scenario: Origins, Usages and the Contemporary Discourse. Pp. 82146 in The Prohibition of Torture in Exceptional Circumstances. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farrelly, Colin. 2007. Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation. Political Studies 55:844864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foot, Philippa. 1967. The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Oxford Review 5:515.Google Scholar
Fried, Gregory. 2014. Review of Uwe Steinhoff, On the Ethics of Torture, SUNY Press 2013. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Available from http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/48412-on-the-ethics-of-torture/, accessed 19 May 2014.Google Scholar
Geuss, Raymond. 2008. Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilabert, Pablo. 2011. Comparative Assessments of Justice, Political Feasibility, and Ideal Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15:3956.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gourevitch, Philip. 2008. Exposure: The woman behind the camera at Abu Ghraib. 24 March. Available from http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2008/03/24/exposure-5, accessed 26 November 2014.Google Scholar
Gross, Oren. 2004. The Prohibition on Torture and the Limits of the Law. Pp. 229251 in Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kamm, Frances M. 2006. Terrorism and Several Moral Distinctions. Legal Theory 12:1969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamm, Frances M. 2008. Intricate Ethics: Rights, Responsibilities, and Permissible Harm. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knobe, Joshua Michael, and Nichols, Shaun, eds. 2008. Experimental Philosophy. Oxford/New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Laden, Anthony Simon. 2011. The Key to/of Public Philosophy. Political Theory 39:112117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebow, Richard Ned. 2010. Forbidden Fruit: Counterfactuals and International Relations. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luban, David. 2009. Human Dignity, Humiliation, and Torture. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 19:211230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luban, David. 2014. Torture, Power, and Law. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahan, Jeff. 2002. The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahan, Jeff. 2008. Torture in Principle and in Practice. Public Affairs Quarterly 22:91108.Google Scholar
McMahan, Jeff. 2009. Killing in War. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMahan, Jeff. Forthcoming. Torture and Method in Moral Philosophy. In Torture and the Rule of Law, edited by Scott Anderson and Martha Nussbaum. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Mills, Charles W. 2005. ‘Ideal Theory’ as Ideology. Hypatia 20:165183.Google Scholar
Miščević, Nenad. 2013. Political Thought Experiments from Plato to Rawls. Pp. 191206 in Melanie Frappier, Letitia Meynell and Robert Brown, eds, Thought Experiments in Science, Philosophy, and the Arts. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Morris, Errol. 2008. The Most Curious Thing. New York Times blog. Available from http://morris.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/19/the-most-curious-thing/?, accessed 26 November 2014.Google Scholar
Nozick, Robert. 1974. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1999. A Theory of Justice, Revised Edition. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Rejali, Darius M. 2007. Torture and Democracy. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Scheppele, Kim Lane. 2005. Hypothetical Torture in the War on Terrorism. Journal of National Security Law & Policy 1:285340.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2005. The Flight from Reality in the Human Sciences. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Shue, Henry. 1978. Torture. Philosophy and Public Affairs 7:124143.Google Scholar
Shue, Henry. 2006. Torture in Dreamland: Disposing of the Ticking Bomb. Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law 37:231239.Google Scholar
Sontag, Susan. 1977. On Photography. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Sontag, Susan. 2003. Regarding the Pain of Others. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Sontag, Susan. 2004. Regarding the Torture of Others. New York Times, 23 May. Available from http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/23/magazine/regarding-the-torture-of-others.html, accessed 9 October 2014.Google Scholar
Sorensen, Roy A. 1992. Thought Experiments. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Standard Operating Procedure, directed by Errol Morris (2008), available at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0896866/ Google Scholar
Steinhoff, Uwe. 2010. Defusing the Ticking Social Bomb Argument: The Right to Self-Defensive Torture. Global Dialogue 12:1 Winter/Spring. Available from http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=457, accessed 19 November 2014.Google Scholar
Steinhoff, Uwe. 2013. On the Ethics of Torture. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Stone, Alison. 2005. Towards a Genealogical Feminism: A Reading of Judith Butler’s Political Thought. Contemporary Political Theory 4:424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, Philip E., and Belkin, Aaron, eds. 1996. Counterfactual Thought Experiments in World Politics: Logical, Methodological, and Psychological Perspectives. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, Judith Jarvis. 1971. A Defense of Abortion. Philosophy and Public Affairs 1:4766.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 2008. Public Philosophy in a New Key. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Vaidya, Anand. 2015. The Epistemology of Modality. In Edward N. Zalta ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2015/entries/modality-epistemology/, accessed 6 October 2015.Google Scholar
Valentini, Laura. 2012. Ideal vs. Non-Ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map. Philosophy Compass 7:654664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2011. What Are Moral Absolutes Like? Rochester, N.Y.: Social Science Research Network. Available from http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1906850, accessed 26 September 2013.Google Scholar
Walsh, Adrian. 2011. A Moderate Defence of the Use of Thought Experiments in Applied Ethics. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14:467481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walzer, Michael. 2006. Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 4th edn. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Williams, Bernard. 2005. In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Wisnewski, J. Jeremy. 2008. It’s About Time: Defusing the Ticking Bomb Argument. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22:103116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wisnewski, J. Jeremy. 2014. Review of F. M. Kamm, Ethics for Enemies: Terror, Torture, and War, Oxford University Press, 2011, in Journal of Moral Philosophy 11:657660.Google Scholar
Zehfuss, Maja. 2009. Hierarchies of Grief and the Possibility of War: Remembering UK Fatalities in Iraq. Millennium: Journal of International Studies 38:419440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Unhinged Frames: Assessing Thought Experiments in Normative Political Theory
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Unhinged Frames: Assessing Thought Experiments in Normative Political Theory
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Unhinged Frames: Assessing Thought Experiments in Normative Political Theory
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *