Pablo Gilabert and Holly Lawford-Smith have, both in collaboration and individually, provided a compelling account of feasibility, which states that feasibility is both ‘binary’ and ‘scalar’, and both ‘synchronic’ and ‘diachronic’. This two-dimensional analysis, however, has been the subject of four major criticisms: it has been argued that it rests upon a false distinction between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ constraints, that it ignores the importance of intentional action, and that diachronic feasibility is incoherent and insensitive to the existence of epistemic limitations. In this paper, I will argue that such objections do not undermine the persuasiveness of Gilabert and Lawford-Smith’s analysis. Nevertheless, I will contend that the latter is susceptible to two other challenges. First, it mistakenly appeals to morality, and, second, it lacks an analysis of ability. I will maintain, however, that such criticisms can be addressed and that a revised version of the account should be adopted.
For their very helpful comments, I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers of this journal. I am also grateful to Laura Brace for her feedback on the original dissertation upon which this article is based. Finally, I would like to thank Veronica Silva, Marcelo Silva and Vanessa Nogueira for their support.
Brill, S. (2015). America’s Bitter Pill: Money, Politics, Backroom Deals, and the Fight to Fix Our Broken Healthcare System (New York: Random House).Search in Google Scholar
Chrisafis, A. and Vaughan, A. (2017). ‘France to Ban Sales of Petrol and Diesel Cars by 2040’, The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/06/france-ban-petrol-diesel-cars-2040-emmanuel-macron-volvo (accessed on 15 March 2018).Search in Google Scholar
Gilabert, P. (2017). ‘Justice and Feasibility: A Dynamic Approach’, in M. Weber and K. Vallier (eds.). Political Utopias: Contemporary Debates (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 95–126.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190280598.003.0006Search in Google Scholar
Herz-Roiphe, D. and Grewal, D. (2015). ‘Make Me Democratic, but Not Yet: Sunrise Lawmaking and Democratic Constitutionalism’, New York University Law Review 90 (6): 1975–2028.Search in Google Scholar
Jennings, M.K. and Niemi, R. (2014/1981). Generations and Politics: A Panel Study of Young Adults and Their Parents (Princeton: Princeton University Press).10.1515/9781400854264Search in Google Scholar
Maier, J. (2014). ‘Abilities’, in E.N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Fall 2014 Editionhttps://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2014/entries/abilities/ (accessed on 15 March 2018).Search in Google Scholar
Miller, D. (2013). ‘A Tale of Two Cities; Or, Political Philosophy as Lamentation’, in D. Miller (ed.). Justice for Earthlings: Essays in Political Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), pp. 228–249.Search in Google Scholar
Pew Research Center. (2018). ‘The Generation Gap in American Politics’ http://www.people-press.org/2018/03/01/the-generation-gap-in-american-politics/ (accessed on 15 March 2018)Search in Google Scholar
Silva, R. (2018). ‘Abilities and Political Theorizing: a Modest Defense of the Conditional Analysis of Ability’, Unpublished Manuscript.Search in Google Scholar
Wintle, B., Boehm, C., Rhodes, C. et al. (2017). ‘A Transatlantic Perspective on 20 Emerging Issues in Biological Engineering’, eLife. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.30247 (accessed on 15 March 2018).Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston