Abstract
In reviewing some of the literature, ideal and non-ideal theories are presented as opposing or at least competing theories, in the same manner as are liberal and progressive theories of education. Some scholars suggest that ideal theory ought to precede non-ideal theory, while others suggest just the opposite. This is referred to in the literature as ‘the priority objection.’ Some suggest we don’t need ideal theory at all and should exclusively use non-ideal theory. Others focus on how this scholar misses the point, that scholar leaves something out, or this scholar has it right and here’s why. My objective in this paper is to argue that aside from important and scholarly discussions, ideal theory and non-ideal theory are artificially polarized. Further, and more radically, characterizing ideal and non-ideal theories as two separate enterprises and as ‘theories’ are category mistakes. Not surprisingly, because of the artificial polarization and category mistakes, the debate is rather confused and stuck. This paper attempts to untangle the confusion and open up the dialogue.
Highlights
How might John Rawls view the current debate regarding ideal theory and non-ideal theory? Coining the terms, ‘ideal theory’ and ‘non-ideal theory’ as Rawls did, Valentini’s (2012) paper, Ideal vs. Non-Ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map appropriately defines and gives context to the debate
Some scholars suggest that ideal theory ought to precede non-ideal theory, while others suggest just the opposite
My objective in this paper is to argue that aside from important and scholarly discussions, ideal theory and non-ideal theory are artificially polarized
Summary
How might John Rawls view the current debate regarding ideal theory and non-ideal theory? Coining the terms, ‘ideal theory’ and ‘non-ideal theory’ as Rawls did, Valentini’s (2012) paper, Ideal vs. Non-Ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map appropriately defines and gives context to the debate. Coining the terms, ‘ideal theory’ and ‘non-ideal theory’ as Rawls did, Valentini’s (2012) paper, Ideal vs Non-Ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map appropriately defines and gives context to the debate. In the untangling of ideal and non-ideal theory, three terms used in a similar debate in education are useful. As will be discussed in detail, the substantive and the procedural distinctions help to clarify the so-called conflict in the ideal/non-ideal theory debate. My objective in this paper is to argue that aside from important and scholarly discussions, ideal theory and non-ideal theory are (as Hirst and Peters might describe) artificially polarized. Artificially polarized terms and confused, stuck debates are not exclusive to political and moral theory - with Philosophy and Education, for example, suffering from these same maladies. New eyes can offer a naïve lens through which to examine an important issue
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
