Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

THE PRACTICALITY OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY*

  • Justin Weinberg (a1)
Abstract
Abstract

Must principles of justice be practical? Some political philosophers, the “implementers,” say yes. Others, the “idealists,” say no. Despite this disagreement, the implementers and idealists agree on what “practical” means, subscribing to the “implementation-prediction” (IP) conception of practicality. They also seem to agree that principles of so-called “ideal theory” need not be (and often are not) IP-practical. The implementers take this as a reason to reject ideal theory as an approach to principles of justice, while the idealists do not. In this paper, I argue that we should reject the IP conception of practicality. The implementers make a mistake, then, by requiring principles of justice to be IP-practical. But the idealists make a mistake, too, by rejecting in general the requirement that principles of justice be practical. For there is a plausible alternative conception of practicality that political philosophers should accept: the “experimentation-learning” (EL) conception. EL-practicality makes for a more realistic and epistemically accessible standard of practicality, and thus should be welcomed by the realistically-inclined implementers. It also preserves a crucial role for ideal theory, so should be welcomed by the idealists, too.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

I would like to thank David Schmidtz, Carmen Pavel, Rosie Johnson, and several anonymous referees for helpful written comments on an earlier draft of this essay. I am also grateful to the other contributors to this volume for their critical comments and discussion of these ideas. A version of the essay was delivered at the Midsouth Philosophy Conference in Memphis, Tennessee in February of 2013, and I would like to thank my audience there and my commentator, Ashley Acosta-Fox, for their questions and comments.

Footnotes
References
Hide All

1 Rawls John, The Law of Peoples (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 7. Also see the discussion of “optimization” as the “confrontation of desirability with feasibility considerations” in Brennan Geoffrey, “Feasibility in Optimizing Ethics,” Social Philosophy and Policy 30, nos. 1-2 (2013): 314.

2 In Section III, I explain how G. A. Cohen and David Estlund are idealists in this sense.

3 The views of specific implementers are described in Section II.

4 For a similar spectrum, see Farrelly Colin, “Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation,” Political Theory 55, no. 4 (2007): 844–64.

5 The reader should assume that subsequent references to practicality are to substantive practicality, unless otherwise noted.

6 The distinction between formal and substantive practicality is important because it clears up a vagueness that can be confusing. See, for example, the discussion in Section III.

7 For some general discussions of the distinction, see Valentini Laura, “Ideal vs. Non-Ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map,” Philosophy Compass 7, no. 9 (2012): 654–64; Simmons A. John., “Ideal and Nonideal Theory,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 38, no. 1 (2010): 536; Schmidtz David, “Nonideal Theory: What It Is and What It Needs To Be,” Ethics 121, no. 4 (2011): 772–96.

8 My conception of ideal theory is based largely on what I take to be Rawls's view. See Rawls John, A Theory of Justice, rev. ed. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999), 78. See also p. 4 on well-ordered society; p. 125, on strict compliance; and pp. 215ff on nonideal theory.

9 Justin Weinberg, “A Little Reality is a Dangerous Thing” (unpublished manuscript).

10 See Farrelly, “Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation.”

11 Mills Charles W., “Rawls on Race/Race in Rawls,” Southern Journal of Philosophy 47, no. 1 (2009): 161–84. Also see Mills, “‘Ideal Theory’ as Ideology,” Hypatia 20 (2005): 165–84.

12 Murphy Liam, “Institutions and the Demands of Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 27, no. 4 (1998): 251–91.

13 Sandel Michael, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).

14 Robeyns Ingrid, “Ideal Theory in Theory and Practice,” Social Theory and Practice 34 no. 3 (2008): 341–62, at 361.

15 Sen Amartya, The Idea of Justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009).

16 Wiens David, “Prescribing Institutions without Ideal Theory,” Journal of Political Philosophy 20, no. 1 (2012): 4570, at 67.

17 Cohen G. A., Rescuing Justice and Equality (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008), 84.

18 Ibid., 86.

19 Estlund David, “Human Nature and the Limits (if any) of Political Philosophy,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 39, no. 3 (2011): 207–37, at 226.

20 “The content of justice … might … precede any facts about what humans or any beings happen to be like” (Estlund, “Human Nature,” 229), including facts about their altruistic tendencies or abilities to comply with particular laws or support particular institutions.

21 Estlund David, Democratic Authority (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 264–67.

22 Cohen, Rescuing Justice, 271.

23 Ibid., 301.

24 Fundamental principles of justice, according to Cohen, are “in no way dependent on the character of any facts.” Ibid., 281.

25 Ibid., 272.

26 Estlund, Democratic Authority, 268.

28 Ibid., 266.

31 Cohen, Rescuing Justice, 268.

32 As a reminder, unless otherwise noted, “practical” refers to “substantively practical.”

33 If you object to using the term “correct” to describe principles of justice, substitute “most acceptable” for it.

34 Again, this point is neutral between realist and constructivist accounts of evaluative standards. We could be revising our standards in an attempt to achieve mere reflective equilibrium, or we could think that it is only through investigation that we have a chance of properly identifying the mind-independently true evaluative standards. If we are constructivists of some sort, then of course we would need to try them out to agree on them in any informed way. But if we are realists, that the principles seemed right to us when we tried them would merely be good evidence that we have discovered the right principles. Given that we are often wrong in our predictions about what works, we should not trust our armchair judgments.

35 Sen Amartya, Inequality Reexamined (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press 1992) chap. 1.

36 My view on these matters is influenced by Millgram Elijah, Practical Induction (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997) and Richardson Henry, Practical Reasoning about Final Ends (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

37 Discussed in Weinberg, “A Little Reality is a Dangerous Thing.”

38 Note that changing the language from “impossible” to “unlikely” does not help the implementers, as likelihood is going to be prospectively judged, based on an interpretation of the facts—an interpretation we have reason to distrust.

39 Derek Parfit famously says of nonreligious ethics, that, because it is so young a science, “it is not irrational to have high hopes” for its success. Parfit, Reasons and Persons (New York: Oxford University Press, 1984), 453–54. I add here that because it is so young, it might be unreasonable to think that it has already succeeded.

40 Brandeis Louis J.. New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (dissenting), 285 U.S. 311 (1932).

41 This version of the objection was put to me by Chris Bertram.

* I would like to thank David Schmidtz, Carmen Pavel, Rosie Johnson, and several anonymous referees for helpful written comments on an earlier draft of this essay. I am also grateful to the other contributors to this volume for their critical comments and discussion of these ideas. A version of the essay was delivered at the Midsouth Philosophy Conference in Memphis, Tennessee in February of 2013, and I would like to thank my audience there and my commentator, Ashley Acosta-Fox, for their questions and comments.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Social Philosophy and Policy
  • ISSN: 0265-0525
  • EISSN: 1471-6437
  • URL: /core/journals/social-philosophy-and-policy
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 40 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 371 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 22nd October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.