When is Non-Ideal Theory Too Ideal? Adaptive Preferences, Children, and Ideal Theory

In Kevin Vallier & Michael Weber (eds.), Political Utopias: Contemporary Debates. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 233-252 (2017)

Rosa Terlazzo
University of Rochester
Political philosophers working on ideal and non-ideal theory sometimes seem to be stuck in a bind: while ideal theory risks being too ideal to be useful in the real world, non-ideal theory risks being so non-ideal that it stops far short of justice. In this paper, I highlight a third – and equally unappealing – possibility: that non-ideal theory, precisely because of its obvious engagement with real-world problems, might fail to recognize the unacceptable ways in which it is itself problematically idealized. I highlight this problem through the case-study of adaptive preferences. Although work in adaptive preferences obviously fits into non-ideal theory, the actual work being done in the literature is idealized in that it takes only the circumstances and needs of adults into account. In the best case, this means that the needs of one of our most vulnerable populations – that is, children – are ignored. In the worst case, where the needs of children and adults conflict, the needs of children will be actively frustrated. In this way, non-ideal theory can fail to approximate justice precisely because it fails to recognize the idealizations that it itself employs.
Keywords adaptive preference  ideal theory  children
Categories (categorize this paper)
Buy the book Find it on Amazon.com
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy

Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 71,290
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

No references found.

Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Must Adaptive Preferences Be Prudentially Bad for Us.Rosa Terlazzo - 2017 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 3 (4):412-429.

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Rawlsian Theory and the Circumstances of Politics.Andrew Mason - 2010 - Political Theory 38 (5):658-683.
Ideal Vs. Non‐Ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map.Laura Valentini - 2012 - Philosophy Compass 7 (9):654-664.
Tragedies of Non-Ideal Theory.Robert Jubb - 2012 - European Journal of Political Theory 11 (3):229-246.
Can Rawls’s Non-Ideal Theory Save His Ideal Theory?Hye-Ryoung Kang - 2016 - Social Theory and Practice 42 (1):32-56.
Can Rawls’s Nonideal Theory Save His Ideal Theory?Hye Ryoung Kang - 2016 - Social Theory and Practice 42 (1):32-56.
Debate: Ideal Theory—A Reply to Valentini.Holly Lawford-Smith - 2010 - Journal of Political Philosophy 18 (3):357-368.
Three Failed Charges Against Ideal Theory.Eva Erman & Niklas Möller - 2013 - Social Theory and Practice 39 (1):19-44.
Idealized Non-Ideal Justice Theory in Law of Peoples.Hye-Ryoung Kang - 2008 - Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 25:37-44.
Preferences and Paternalism.Christian F. Rostbøll - 2005 - Political Theory 33 (3):370-396.
Relativising the Ideal Observer Theory.Charles Taliaferro - 1988 - Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 49 (1):123-138.


Added to PP index

Total views
3 ( #1,362,558 of 2,518,734 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #408,070 of 2,518,734 )

How can I increase my downloads?


My notes