Startseite A Defence of Robust Idealism in Political Philosophy
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

A Defence of Robust Idealism in Political Philosophy

  • Stefano Bertea EMAIL logo
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 29. Juni 2022
Moral Philosophy and Politics
Aus der Zeitschrift Moral Philosophy and Politics Band 10 Heft 2

Abstract

In this contribution, I defend a robust model of political idealism, making the case for such an approach to both the theory and practice of politics. On this view, not only in framing a political philosophy but also in putting forward policy proposals and institutional designs, we need not think about feasibility as an overriding, make-or-break criterion for evaluating the soundness of that theory or proposal, neither of which loses its point simply because it is deemed to be unlikely to be implemented. Feasibility, in other terms, cannot be taken as the only standard, or even as the main standard, on which basis to assess the practical worth of a political strategy.

Keywords: political idealism; David Estlund; political theory and practice
Corresponding author: Stefano Bertea, Leicester Law School, University of Leicester, University Road, LE1 7RH, Leicester, UK, E-mail:

An earlier version of this argument was presented at the workshop on David Estlund’s Utopophobia, organised by Philip Schink and Achim Vesper at the Goethe Universität zu Frankfurt am Main. I would like to thank the participants in the workshop for insightful comments on my original argument. Needless to say, responsibility for the views expressed herein, as well as for any error of form or content, rests solely with me.

References

Bellamy, R. 2007. “Chapter 2.” In Political Questions: 5 Questions on Political Philosophy, edited by M. Nielsen. London: Automatic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Bellamy, R. 2010. “Dirty Hands and Clean Gloves: Liberal Ideals and Real Politics.” European Journal of Political Theory 9: 412–30, https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885110374002.Suche in Google Scholar

Brinn, G. 2020. “Smashing the State Gently: Radical Realism and Realist Anarchism.” European Journal of Political Theory 19: 206–27, https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885119865975.Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, G. A. 2003. “Facts and Principles.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 31: 211–45, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2003.00211.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Cohen, G. A. 2008. Rescuing Justice and Equality. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674262713Suche in Google Scholar

Cross, B. 2020. “Radicalizing Realist Legitimacy.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 46: 369–89, https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719857129.Suche in Google Scholar

Cross, B. 2021. “Apocalypticism as Radical Realism? On the Dangers and Benefits of Wishful Thinking in Prefigurative Politics.” Political Studies. Also available at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/00323217211018407.10.1177/00323217211018407Suche in Google Scholar

Cullity, G. 2004. The Moral Demands of Affluence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/0199258112.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 1985. A Matter of Principle. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 2000. Sovereign Virtue. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Dworkin, R. 2011. Justice for Hedgehogs. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674059337Suche in Google Scholar

Elkin, S. 2006. Reconstructing the Commercial Republic: Constitutional Design after Maddison. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226294650.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Enoch, D. 2018. “Against Utopianism: Noncompliance and Multiple Agents.” Philosophers’ Imprint 18: 1–20.Suche in Google Scholar

Estlund, D. 2019. Utopophobia: On the Limits (If Any) of Political Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.23943/princeton/9780691147161.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Farrelly, C. 2007. “Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation.” Political Studies 55: 844–64, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00656.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Feinberg, J. 1973. “Duty and Obligation in the Nonideal World.” Journal of Philosophy 70: 263–75, https://doi.org/10.2307/2025007.Suche in Google Scholar

Galston, W. 2010. “Realism in Political Theory.” European Journal of Political Theory 9: 385–411, https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885110374001.Suche in Google Scholar

Geuss, G. 2008. Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400835515Suche in Google Scholar

Goodin, R. 1995. “Political Ideals and Political Practice.” British Journal of Political Science 25: 37–56, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123400007055.Suche in Google Scholar

Hamlin, A., and Z. Stemplowska. 2012. “Theory, Ideal Theory, and Ideals of Theory.” Political Studies Review 10: 48–62, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2011.00244.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Honig, B. 1993. Political Theory and the Displacement of Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Jubb, R. 2015. “The Real Value of Equality.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 21: 243–59.10.1086/681262Suche in Google Scholar

Jubb, R. 2017. “Realism.” In Methods in Analytical Political Theory, edited by A. Blau, 112–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316162576.008Suche in Google Scholar

Mason, A. 2004. “Just Constraints.” British Journal of Political Science 34: 251–68, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123404000043.Suche in Google Scholar

McCarthy, T. 2004. “Political Philosophy and Racial Injustice: From Normative to Critical Theory.” In Pragmatism, Critique, Judgement, edited by S. Benhabib, and N. Fraser, 147–70. Cambridge: MIT Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Miller, D. 2008. “Political Philosophy for Earthlings.” In Political Theory: Methods and Approaches, edited by D. Leopold, and M. Stears, 29–48. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199230082.003.0003Suche in Google Scholar

Murphy, L. 2003. Moral Demands in Nonideal Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Nagel, T. 1991. Equality and Partiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Newey, G. 2010. “Two Dogmas of Liberalism.” European Journal of Political Theory 9: 449–65, https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885110374007.Suche in Google Scholar

Newey, G. 2013. Toleration in Political Conflict. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139628860Suche in Google Scholar

Philp, M. 2007. Political Conduct. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674276802Suche in Google Scholar

Philp, M. 2010. “What Is to Be Done? Political Theory and Political Realism.” European Journal of Political Theory 9: 466–84, https://doi.org/10.1177/1474885110374010.Suche in Google Scholar

Philp, M. 2012. “Realism without Illusion.” Political Theory 40: 629–49, https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591712451723.Suche in Google Scholar

Prinz, J., and E. Rossi. 2017. “Political Realism as Ideology Critique.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 20: 334–48, https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2017.1293908.Suche in Google Scholar

Prinz, J. 2015. “Raymond Geuss’ Radicalization of Realism in Political Theory.” Philosophy & Social Criticism 8: 777–95.10.1177/0191453715583711Suche in Google Scholar

Raekstad, P. 2018. “Realism, Utopianism, and Radical Values.” European Journal of Philosophy 26: 145–68, https://doi.org/10.1111/ejop.12193.Suche in Google Scholar

Raekstad, P. 2021. “The Radical Realist Critique of Rawls.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2021.1891377.Suche in Google Scholar

Räikkä, J. 1998. “The Feasibility Condition in Political Theory.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 6: 27–40.10.1111/1467-9760.00044Suche in Google Scholar

Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674042605Suche in Google Scholar

Rossi, E., and M. Sleat. 2014. “Realism in Normative Political Theory.” Philosophy Compass 9: 689–701, https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12148.Suche in Google Scholar

Rossi, E. 2012. “Justice, Legitimacy and (Normative) Authority for Political Realists.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 15: 149–64, https://doi.org/10.1080/13698230.2012.651016.Suche in Google Scholar

Rossi, E. 2019. “Being Realistic and Demanding the Impossible.” Constellations 26: 638–52, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8675.12446.Suche in Google Scholar

Runciman, D. 2012. “What Is Realistic Political Philosophy?” Metaphilosophy 43: 58–70, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9973.2011.01730.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Sangiovanni, A. 2008. “Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 16: 137–64, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9760.2007.00291.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Schapiro, T. 2003. “Compliance, Complicity, and the Nature of Nonideal Conditions.” Journal of Philosophy 100: 329–55, https://doi.org/10.5840/jphil2003100727.Suche in Google Scholar

Sher, G. 1997. Approximate Justice. Studies in Non-ideal Theory. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Suche in Google Scholar

Sleat, M. 2014. “Legitimacy in Realist Thought: Between Realism and Realpolitik.” Political Theory 42: 314–37, https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591714522250.Suche in Google Scholar

Sleat, M. 2016. “Realism, Liberalism and Non-ideal Theory: Or Are There Two Ways to Do Realistic Political Theory?” Political Studies 64: 27–41, https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12152.Suche in Google Scholar

Stemplowska, Z. 2008. “What’s Ideal about Ideal Theory?” Social Theory and Practice 34: 319–40, https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract200834320.Suche in Google Scholar

Waldron, J. 1999. Law and Disagreement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198262138.001.0001Suche in Google Scholar

Waldron, J. 2013. “Political Political Theory: An Inaugural Lecture.” The Journal of Political Philosophy 21: 1–23, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12007.Suche in Google Scholar

Williams, B. 2009. In the Beginning Was the Deed: Realism and Moralism in Political Argument. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.1515/9781400826735Suche in Google Scholar
Published Online: 2022-06-29
Published in Print: 2023-10-26

© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Special Issue: Utopophobia; Guest Editors: Achim Vesper & Philipp Schink
  3. Editorial
  4. Introduction to the Symposium on David Estlund’s Utopophobia
  5. Articles
  6. Which Limitations Block Requirements?
  7. A Defence of Robust Idealism in Political Philosophy
  8. Bad Facts and Principles: Finding the Right Kind of Fact-Insensitivity
  9. How Do You Like Your Justice, Bent or Unbent?
  10. In Defense of Wishful Thinking
  11. Replies to Critics
  12. Regular Articles
  13. A More Liberal Public Reason Liberalism
  14. Refugee-based Reasons in Refugee Resettlement – The Case of LGBTIQ+
  15. The Irrationality of Stand Your Ground: Game Theory on Self-Defense
https://doi.org/10.1515/mopp-2021-0035
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
political idealism; David Estlund; political theory and practice

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Special Issue: Utopophobia; Guest Editors: Achim Vesper & Philipp Schink
  3. Editorial
  4. Introduction to the Symposium on David Estlund’s Utopophobia
  5. Articles
  6. Which Limitations Block Requirements?
  7. A Defence of Robust Idealism in Political Philosophy
  8. Bad Facts and Principles: Finding the Right Kind of Fact-Insensitivity
  9. How Do You Like Your Justice, Bent or Unbent?
  10. In Defense of Wishful Thinking
  11. Replies to Critics
  12. Regular Articles
  13. A More Liberal Public Reason Liberalism
  14. Refugee-based Reasons in Refugee Resettlement – The Case of LGBTIQ+
  15. The Irrationality of Stand Your Ground: Game Theory on Self-Defense
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 26.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/mopp-2021-0035/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen