IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/polstu/v55y2007i4p844-864.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation

Author

Listed:
  • Colin Farrelly

Abstract

In this article I argue that theorizing about justice at the level of ideal theory is inherently flawed and thus has impoverished liberal egalitarianism. Ideal theorists (falsely) assume that a political philosopher can easily determine (or has privileged access to) what constitutes the ‘best foreseeable conditions’. Furthermore, by assuming full compliance, ideal theorists violate the constraints of a realistic utopia. More specifically I argue that liberal egalitarians who function at the level of ideal theory adopt a cost‐blind approach to rights and a narrow view of possible human misfortune. The former issue leads liberal egalitarians to give priority to a serially ordered principle of equal basic liberties or to treat rights as ‘trumps’; and the latter to a stringent prioritarian principle (Rawls' difference principle) or luck egalitarianism. Taken together, the cost‐blind approach to rights, coupled with the narrow view of human misfortune, mean the liberal egalitarian theories of justice cannot address the issue of trade‐offs that inevitably arises in real non‐ideal societies that face the fact of scarcity. This makes liberal egalitarianism an ineffective theory of social justice.

Suggested Citation

  • Colin Farrelly, 2007. "Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 55(4), pages 844-864, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:55:y:2007:i:4:p:844-864
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00656.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00656.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00656.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Harsanyi, John C., 1975. "Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls's Theory," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 69(2), pages 594-606, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David Wiens, 2016. "Assessing ideal theories," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 15(2), pages 132-149, May.
    2. Brian Kogelmann, 2020. "The future of political philosophy: Non-ideal and west of babel," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 33(1), pages 237-252, March.
    3. Peter Jones & Ian O’Flynn, 2013. "Can a compromise be fair?," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 12(2), pages 115-135, May.
    4. Christmas Billy, 2020. "The Neoliberal Turn: Libertarian Justice and Public Policy," Journal des Economistes et des Etudes Humaines, De Gruyter, vol. 26(1), pages 1-031, June.
    5. Aviezer Tucker, 2012. "Scarce justice," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 11(1), pages 76-96, February.
    6. Mohammed Hossain & Yasean A. Tahat & Naser AbuGhazaleh, 2024. "Unlocking the Sustainable Workplace Equality Policy (SWEP): Evidence from an Emerging Country," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-22, January.
    7. Lea Ypi, 2010. "On the Confusion between Ideal and Non‐ideal in Recent Debates on Global Justice," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 58(3), pages 536-555, June.
    8. Naima Chahboun, 2024. "The moral benefits of coercion: A defense of ideal statism," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 23(1), pages 47-66, February.
    9. Åsbjørn Melkevik, 2019. "A Theory of Business Eunomics: The Means–Ends Relation in Business Ethics," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 160(1), pages 293-305, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Che-Yuan Liang, 2017. "Optimal inequality behind the veil of ignorance," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 83(3), pages 431-455, October.
    2. Rosenthal, Howard & Zame, William R., 2022. "Sequential referenda with sophisticated voters," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 212(C).
    3. Lara Buchak, 2023. "Philosophical foundations for worst-case arguments," Politics, Philosophy & Economics, , vol. 22(3), pages 215-242, August.
    4. Grzegorz Lissowski & Tadeusz Tyszka & Wlodzimierz Okrasa, 1991. "Principles of Distributive Justice," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 35(1), pages 98-119, March.
    5. Ertl, Antal, 2022. "Méltányos és méltánytalan különbségek az egyéni döntéshozatalban [Fair and unfair differences in individual decision making]," Közgazdasági Szemle (Economic Review - monthly of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences), Közgazdasági Szemle Alapítvány (Economic Review Foundation), vol. 0(10), pages 1170-1194.
    6. Jorge Iván González, 2016. "Sentimientos y racionalidad en economía," Books, Universidad Externado de Colombia, Facultad de Economía, edition 1, number 75, August.
    7. Herrade Igersheim, 2022. "Rawls and the Economists: The (Im)possible Dialogue," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 73(6), pages 1013-1037.
    8. Daniel J. Rozell, 2018. "The Ethical Foundations of Risk Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(8), pages 1529-1533, August.
    9. Songtao Wang & Bin Li & Tristan Kenderdine, 2019. "Towards a Utilitarian Social Welfare Function¡ªIncome Inequality and National Welfare Growth in China," Research in World Economy, Research in World Economy, Sciedu Press, vol. 10(3), pages 344-358, December.
    10. Oded Stark, 2020. "An Economics-Based Rationale for the Rawlsian Social Welfare Program," Research on Economic Inequality, in: Inequality, Redistribution and Mobility, volume 28, pages 179-186, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    11. Lionel Page, 2020. "The ethics of social choices and the role of economists in a pandemic," Journal of Behavioral Economics for Policy, Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), vol. 4(S), pages 17-22, June.
    12. C.Y. Chu & Wen–Fang Liu, 2001. "A Dynamic Characterization of Rawls's Maximin Principle: Theory and Implications," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 255-272, September.
    13. Roberto M. Samaniego & Juliana Yu Sun, 2019. "Entrepreneurship, College, and Credit: The Golden Triangle," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 51(7), pages 1765-1813, October.
    14. Claude Gamel, 2021. "The pathway of an economist throughout John Rawls' works [Cheminement d'un économiste dans l’œuvre de John Rawls]," Working Papers halshs-03554221, HAL.
    15. Guo, Peijun, 2019. "Focus theory of choice and its application to resolving the St. Petersburg, Allais, and Ellsberg paradoxes and other anomalies," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 276(3), pages 1034-1043.
    16. Mouter, Niek & Cabral, Manuel Ojeda & Dekker, Thijs & van Cranenburgh, Sander, 2019. "The value of travel time, noise pollution, recreation and biodiversity: A social choice valuation perspective," Research in Transportation Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(C).
    17. repec:cup:judgdm:v:16:y:2021:i:1:p:1-19 is not listed on IDEAS
    18. Bairoliya, Neha & Miller, Ray, 2021. "Social insurance, demographics, and rural-urban migration in China," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    19. Brian J. Cohen, 1996. "Assigning Values to Intermediate Health States for Cost-Utility Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 16(4), pages 376-385, October.
    20. Pietro Navarra & Giuseppe Sobbrio, 2001. "Election Re-Running and the Nature of Constitutional Choices: The Case of Italian Electoral Reform," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 31-50, March.
    21. Mihail Arandarenko & Dušan Pavlović, 2023. "Egalitarianism And Redistributive Reform In Serbia After 2000," Economic Annals, Faculty of Economics and Business, University of Belgrade, vol. 68(237), pages 7-36, April – J.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:polstu:v:55:y:2007:i:4:p:844-864. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0032-3217 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.