Ideal and non-ideal theories: the challenges of decision-making in an imperfect world

Abstract

We live in a non-ideal world: people fall short of complying with their obligations and respecting basic human rights. Oppression, corruption and prejudice are widespread. Because of this, ideal theories cannot always help with the challenges our life poses. Yet, sometimes, the second best option or the morally suboptimal alternative not only leaves moral residues and emotional aftermaths (Tessman, 2010) but prevents better options. Since Rawls distinction of what nonideal theories (NITs) are, some political philosophers, bioethicists and theorists have been trying to develop and use NITs to solve our nonideal problems. In addition, sometimes ideal theories (ITs) or more idealized theories seem to be useful, too. If we consider this variety of possibilities seriously, then we should ask several questions: When should we use NITs and when should we opt for ITs? Are there appropriate criteria for making these kinds of decisions What are valid uses or justifications for NITs Is there a way to guide decision-making in real world contexts This paper will try to answer the above questions. It has two parts. The first is theoretical. I make some distinctions to present the area and debate. I will then specify how I think ITs and NITs relate to each other. Finally, I will address a yet to be explored area and will suggest five criteria to help in the decision-making process to select between NITs and ITs.The second part introduces two cases and applies the decision-making process developed in the first part. In one case I argue that we ought to follow an NIT, while we should follow an IT in the other. I focus on reproductive rights-related problems. The first case examines conscientious objection in the case of legal abortion in Argentina. The second case analyzes research with pregnant women in countries where abortion is illegal. The cases show the practical value of combining NIT and IT to address real world concerns.