Why an ideal theory of justice?
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179378671026Keywords:
Normative political theory, Rawlsian justice, Ideal theory, Non-ideal theoryAbstract
Why the normative political theory focused on questions of social and political justice should devote itself to principles in the ambit which John Rawls denominated “ideal theory”, in contrast to “non-ideal theory” of justice? Are we to develop and refine an ideal theory of justice if what we want is to specify what justice require from us in the non ideal circumstances we face? Is the “ideal theory” of justice capable to offer guidance to action – political decisions and institutional choices – in non-ideal conditions? If the answer to these questions is “no”, then we should above all devote our efforts to the formulation of a non-ideal theory of justice. In the strongest versions of this objection, such as Amartya Sen’s in The Idea of Justice, we may entirely do without an ideal theory of justice. To rebut Sen’s objection, which is also shared, in different ways, by authors such as Onora O’Neill, Colin Farrelly, and Charles Mills, this article develops a two-step argument. Firstly, it is argued that there are reasons to value ideal theorization that are independent to the relations it may have to non-ideal theory. Secondly, it is argued that the ideal theory of justice, notwithstanding all the normative and empirical work that remains to be done, is essential to determinate what justice requires from us here and now.
Downloads
References
ALVAREDO, F.; CHANCEL, L.; PIKETTY, T.; SAEZ, E.; ZUCMAN, G. World Inequality Report, 2018. Disponível em: https://wir2018.wid.world/files/download/wir2018-summary-english.pdf.
BARRY, B. Theories of Justice. Londres: Harvester-Wheatsheaf, 1989.
BARRY, B. Why Social Justice Matters. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005.
BRASIL. MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE. SECRETARIA DE GESTÃO ESTRATÉGICA E PARTICIPATIVA. A construção do SUS: histórias da Reforma Sanitária e do processo participativo. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde, 2006.
CASE, A.; DEATON, A.; “Rising Morbity and Mortality in Midlife Among White Non-Hispanic Americans in the 21st Century”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, v. 112, n. 49, p. 15078-15083, 2015.
DWORKIN, R. Taking Rights Seriously. Cambridge-Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977.
DWORKIN, R. Law’s Empire. Cambridge-Mass.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 1986.
DWORKIN, R. Sovereign Virtue. Cambridge-MA: Harvard University Press, 2002.
ESTLUND, D. Democratic Authority. A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
ESTLUND, D. Utopophobia: On the Limits (If Any) of Political Philosophy. Princeton & Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2020.
FARRELLY, C. “Justice in Ideal Theory: A Refutation”. Political Studies 55, n. 4, p. 844-64, 2007.
FORST, R. “Two Pictures of Justice”. In: Justification and Critique. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2014, p. 18-37.
FREEMAN, S. “Ideal Theory and the Justice of Institutions vs. Comprehensive Outcomes”. Rutgers Law Review, v. 43, n. 2, p. 169-209, 2012.
FREEMAN, S. Liberalism and Distributive Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
GAUS, G. The Tyranny of the Ideal: Justice in a Diverse Society. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2016.
GEUSS, R. Philosophy and Real Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2008.
HAMLIN, A.; STEMPLOWSKA, Z. “Theory, Ideal Theory and the Theory of Ideals”. Political Studies Review, v. 10, p. 48-62, 2012.
HARSANYI, J. “Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Base for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls’s Theory”. American Political Science Review, v. 69, p. 594-606, 1975.
HOBBES, T. Leviathan. Middlesex-Nova York: Penguin Books, 1968.
KERSTENETZKY, C. L. O estado de bem-estar social na era da razão: A reinvenção do estado social no mundo contemporâneo. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier, 2012.
MEADE, J. E. Liberty, Equality and Efficiency. New York: New York University Press, 1993.
MILL, J. S. “On Liberty”. In: Marshall Cohen (ed.). The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill: Ethical, Political and Religious. New York: The Modern Library, 1961[1859], p. 185-319.
MILLS, C. W. “’Ideal Theory’ as Ideology”. Hypatia, v. 20, n. 3, p. 165-184, 2005.
NOZICK, R. Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books, 1974.
NUSSBAUM, M. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Kindle Edition. Cambridge-MA: Harvard University Press, 2007.
O’NEILL, M.; WILLIANSON, T. Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2012.
O’NEILL, M. “Philosophy and Public Policy after Piketty”. The Journal of Political Philosophy, v. 25, n. 3, p. 347-375, 2017.
O’NEILL, O. Towards Justice and Virtue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
PIKETTY, T. O capital no século XXI. Tradução de Mônica Baumgarten. São Paulo: Intrínseca, 2014.
RAWLS, J. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge-MA.: Harvard University Press, 1999a.
RAWLS, J. “The Law of Peoples”. In: Stephen Shute e Susan Hurley (org.). On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures, 1993, p. 41-82.
RAWLS, J. The Law of Peoples. Cambridge-MA.: Harvard University Press, 1999b.
RAWLS, J. A justiça como equidade: Uma reformulação. São Paulo: Martins Fontes, 2003.
RAWLS, J. Lectures on the History of Political Philosophy. Edited by Samuel Freeman. Cambridge-MA.: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007.
RAWLS, J. O liberalismo político. Tradução de Álvaro de Vita. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes, 2011.
SANTOS, W. G. Cidadania e justiça: A política social na ordem brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Campus, 1979.
SATZ, D. “The Idea of Justice by Amartya Sen”. Political Theory v. 39, n. 4, p. 560-565, 2011.
SATZ, D. “Amartya Sen’s The Idea of Justice: What Approach, Which Capabilities? Rutgers Law Journal, v. 43, p. 277-293, 2015.
SCANLON, T. “Contractualism and Utilitarianism”. In: Amartya Sen e Bernard Williams (org.). Utilitarianism and Beyond. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982.
SCANLON, T. Why Does Inequality Matter? Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.
SCHEFFLER, S. “The Rawlsian Diagnosis of Donald Trump”. Boston Review, February 12, 2019.
SEN, A. Development as Freedom. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1999.
SEN, A. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge-MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009.
SHELBY, T. Dark Ghettos: Injustice, Dissent, and Reform. Cambridge-Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2016.
SHKLAR, J. N. “The Liberalism of Fear”. In: Nancy L. Rosenblum (org.). Liberalism and the Moral Life. Cambridge-Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989, p. 19-38.
SIMMONS, J. “Ideal and Nonideal Theory”. Philosophy and Public Affairs v. 38, n. 1, p. 5-36, 2010.
SOUZA, P. H. G. F. Uma história de desigualdade: A concentração de renda entre os ricos no Brasil, 1926-2013. São Paulo: Hucitec-ANPOCS, 2018.
STEMPLOWSKA, Z.; SWIFT, A. “Rawls on Ideal and Nonideal Theory”. In: Jon Mandle and David A. Reidy (eds.). A Companion to Rawls. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 2014, p. 112-127.
VALENTINI, L. “On the Apparent Paradox of Ideal Theory”. The Journal of Political Philosophy, v. 17, n. 3, p. 332-355, 2009.
VITA, A. A justiça igualitária e seus críticos. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes, 2007.
VITA, A. O liberalismo igualitário: Sociedade democrática e justiça internacional. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes, 2008a.
VITA, A. “Apresentação da Edição Brasileira”. In: RAWLS, J. Uma teoria da justiça. São Paulo: WMF Martins Fontes, 2008b.
VITA, A. “Liberalismo, justiça social e responsabilidade individual”. Dados. Revista de Ciências Sociais, v. 54, n. 4, p. 569-608, 2011.
VITA, A. “Critical Theory and Social Justice”. Brazilian Political Science Review, v. 8, n. 1, p. 109-127, 2014a.
VITA, A. “La justicia internacional entre el humanitarismo y el igualitarismo global”. Andamios, v. 11, n. 25, mayo-agosto, p. 13-49, 2014b.
VITA, A. “Teoria política normativa e justiça rawlsiana”. Lua Nova, 102, 2017, p. 93-135.
WALZER, M. Spheres of Justice: A Defence of Pluralism and Equality. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1983.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2022 Álvaro de Vita
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The submission of original manuscripts to this journal implies the transference, by the authors, of the copyrights for printed and digital publication. The copyrights of a published manuscript belong ultimately to the author, and only the copyright for its first publication is reserved to the journal. Authors may only use the same results in other publications explicitly indicating this journal as the medium of the original publication.
Licence
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) - This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.
