Beyond "Ought Implies Feasible" : An Account of Feasibility Restrictions for a Practical Political Philosophy




Faculty/Professorship: Political Theory  
Author(s): Sirsch, Jürgen 
Publisher Information: Bamberg : Otto-Friedrich-Universität
Year of publication: 2022
Pages: 280-301
Source/Other editions: Metaphilosophy, 52 (2021), 2, S. 280-301 - ISSN: 1467-9973
is version of: 10.1111/meta.12485
Year of first publication: 2021
Language(s): English
Licence: Creative Commons - CC BY-NC-ND - Attribution - NonCommercial - NoDerivatives 4.0 International 
URN: urn:nbn:de:bvb:473-irb-548841
Abstract: 
What kinds of feasibility restrictions should be taken into account in practically relevant political philosophy? David Estlund argues that “ought” does not imply “can will,” and, hence, that we should be very cautious regarding the inclusion of motivational restrictions in political philosophy. As Nicholas Southwood and David Wiens point out, however, Estlund’s position clashes with the requirement that “ought” implies “feasible.” The present article argues that even though we must accept that “ought” implies “feasible,” this does not settle the question regarding the adequate set of feasibility restrictions to be included in applied normative thinking. Instead, we need to distinguish different kinds of normative theory that require different sets of feasibility restrictions. For this, the article provides a taxonomy of feasibility restrictions and a preliminary discussion of the adequate set of feasibility restrictions for different kinds of normative theory.
GND Keywords: Politische Philosophie; Sollen; Machbarkeit
Keywords: feasibility, ideal theory, institutional design, political philosophy, ought implies can, ought implies feasible
DDC Classification: 320 Political Science  
RVK Classification: MD 6000   
Type: Article
URI: https://fis.uni-bamberg.de/handle/uniba/54884
Release Date: 8. August 2022

File SizeFormat  
fisba54884.pdf260.64 kBPDFView/Open