Provisional Sufficientarianism: Distributive Feasibility in Non-ideal Theory
- PDF / 624,466 Bytes
- 18 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 17 Downloads / 168 Views
Provisional Sufficientarianism: Distributive Feasibility in Non‑ideal Theory Brian Carey1
© Springer Nature B.V. 2020
1 Introduction A scheme of distributive justice determines how benefits and burdens ought to be distributed via political institutions, among whom, and to what end. If such a scheme is to be implemented in the real world, it requires particular resources, capacities, knowledge, and motivations, in order to implement the scheme effectively and efficiently. Not every form of theorising aims to describe what distributive justice would look like in the real world, however. Indeed, most theories of distributive justice tend to operate at the level of ‘ideal theory’, traditionally defined by the assumptions that (1) we all know what the principles of distributive justice are, and (2) we are all motivated to adhere to these principles.1 Removing these assumptions brings us to the realm of ‘non-ideal theory’, at least according to the traditional view. In recent years, philosophers have argued persuasively that the relationship between ideal and non-ideal theory is more usefully understood in terms of a ‘multidimensional continuum’, such that any particular approach may be more or less ideal or non-ideal in different respects, depending on the pre-theoretical assumptions that are taken as inputs to the theory.2 So, for example, a theory may be ideal insofar as we assume that we have access to the resources necessary to solve some particular problem of distributive justice, but non-ideal insofar as we assume that many people will not be 1 This marks the distinction between what John Rawls calls “strict compliance” and “partial compliance” (Rawls, 1999, p. 8) 2 For an influential account of this conception see Hamlin & Stemplowska (2012). The idea of ideal theory being defined by a theory’s ‘inputs’ is borrowed from Stemplowska (2008). For a general overview of the difference between, and recent controversy surrounding the distinction between ideal and non-ideal theory, see Valentini (2012). For critics of ideal theory, see Mills (2005) and Farrelly (2007). For defenders, see Stemplowska (2008) and Simmons (2010)
* Brian Carey [email protected]; [email protected] 1
Department of Philosophy, Trinity College Dublin, 47 Wheatfields, Clonmel, Co. Tipperary, Dublin, Ireland
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
B. Carey
motivated to solve it. It is this conception of ideal and non-ideal theory as a multidimensional continuum that shall inform the analysis to follow. According to this conception, a world may be non-ideal in many different ways. We may have access to fewer resources than we would under more ideal circumstances, we may lack important knowledge about how to use those resources fairly, effectively and efficiently, or we may lack the motivation to do what we ought to do. However, different distributive schemes require different types or degrees of resources/knowledge/motivations etc., which means that some schemes may turn out to be more demanding than others, depending on the non-ideal constraints that
Data Loading...
