Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory

Abstract

Abstract This chapter argues that epistemology needs to have a debate about idealization. Moreover, it argues that the existing debate between traditional and social epistemology is not a good surrogate for such a debate. The chapter also sketches the contours of the debate by identifying the epistemological analogues of positions that have been taken on the role of idealization in political philosophy by John Rawls and Charles Mills, among others. The result is a way of distinguishing between ideal and non-ideal epistemology that is based on the way that Mills has distinguished between ideal and non-ideal theory in political philosophy. Along the way, the chapter clarifies what is and is not at issue in the debate between ideal and non-ideal epistemology and addresses some objections to the book as a whole.