Abstract
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.
Acknowledgements
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.
References
Armenia, A. and Troia, B. (2017). ‘Evolving Opinions: Evidence on Marriage Equality Attitudes from Panel Data’, Social Science Quarterly 98 (1): 185–195.10.1111/ssqu.12312Search in Google Scholar
Baunach, D.M. (2012). ‘Changing Same-Sex Marriage Attitudes in America from 1988 through 2010’, Public Opinion Quarterly 76 (2): 364–378.10.1093/poq/nfs022Search in Google Scholar
Brennan, G. and Sayre-McCord, G. (2016). ‘Do Normative Facts Matter… to What Is Feasible?’, Social Philosophy and Policy 33 (1–2): 434–456.10.1017/S0265052516000194Search in Google Scholar
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
Clarke, R. (2015). ‘Abilities to Act’, Philosophy Compass 10 (12): 893–904.10.1111/phc3.12299Search in Google Scholar
Estlund, D. (2011). ‘What Good Is It? Unrealistic Political Theory and the Value of Intellectual Work’, Analyse & Kritik 33 (2): 395–416.10.1515/auk-2011-0204Search in Google Scholar
Gaffney, A. (2018). ‘Health Insurance Reform in the United States—What, How, and Why?’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 37 (1): 188–195.10.1002/pam.22034Search 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
Gilabert, P. and Lawford-Smith, H. (2012). ‘Political Feasibility: A Conceptual Exploration’, Political Studies 60 (4): 809–825.10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00936.xSearch in Google Scholar
Hamlin, A. (2017). ‘Feasibility Four Ways’, Social Philosophy and Policy 34 (1): 209–231.10.1017/S0265052517000103Search 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
Lawford-Smith, H. (2013). ‘Understanding Political Feasibility’, Journal of Political Philosophy 21 (3): 243–259.10.1111/j.1467-9760.2012.00422.xSearch in Google Scholar
Lee, H.Y. and Mutz, D. (forthcoming). ‘Changing Attitudes toward Same-Sex Marriage: A Three-Wave Panel Study’, Political Behavior.10.1007/s11109-018-9463-7Search 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. 228–249.10.1017/CBO9781139236898.011Search in Google Scholar
Muir, T. (2017). ‘Financial Crises and Risk Premia’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 132 (2): 765–809.10.1093/qje/qjw045Search 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
Pickard, H. (2015). ‘Psychopathology and the Ability to Do Otherwise’, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 90 (1): 135–163.10.1111/phpr.12025Search in Google Scholar
Räikkä, J. (1998). ‘The Feasibility Condition in Political Theory’, Journal of Political Philosophy 6 (1): 27–40.10.1111/1467-9760.00044Search 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
Southwood, N. and Gilabert, P. (2016). ‘Ability and Volitional Incapacity’, Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 10 (3): 1–8.10.26556/jesp.v10i3.185Search in Google Scholar
Southwood, N. and Wiens, D. (2016). ‘“Actual” Does Not Imply “Feasible”’, Philosophical Studies 173 (11): 3037–3060.10.1007/s11098-016-0649-8Search in Google Scholar
Spencer, J. (2017). ‘Able to Do the Impossible’, Mind 126 (502): 466–497.10.1093/mind/fzv183Search in Google Scholar
Stemplowska, Z. (2016). ‘Feasibility: Individual and Collective’, Social Philosophy and Policy 33 (1–2): 273–291.10.1017/S0265052516000273Search in Google Scholar
Wiens, D. (2015). ‘Political Ideals and the Feasibility Frontier’, Economics & Philosophy 31 (3): 447–477.10.1017/S0266267115000164Search in Google Scholar
Wiens, D. (2016). ‘Motivational Limitations on the Demands of Justice’, European Journal of Political Theory 15 (3): 333–352.10.1177/1474885115578446Search 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
