Is ideal theory practical?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article examines how the exemplars of ideal theory have addressed what I term 'the problem of preservation'. The 'problem' in question is not so much that a political community must make provisions for its self-preservation, but rather that its provisions must correspond to the intentions and capabilities of its neighbours. This constraint implies that the ability of a political community to pursue ideals rather than power depends heavily on who its neighbours happen to be. This article shows how Aristotle, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls address this problem by recommending measures such as defensive fortification, collective security, and democratic peace, which, they claim, will dampen the anarchic nature of the international system. It argues that the implausibility of these measures renders the ability of political communities to heed the moral guidance offered by ideal theory contingent at best and impractical at worst. If proponents of ideal theory wish to resist this conclusion, then they must offer a more persuasive answer to the problem of preservation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1949-1965
Number of pages17
JournalReview of International Studies
Volume37
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2011

Fingerprint

collective security
community
international system
Aristotle
ability
peace

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

Is ideal theory practical? / Sagar, Rahul.

In: Review of International Studies, Vol. 37, No. 4, 01.10.2011, p. 1949-1965.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Sagar, Rahul. / Is ideal theory practical?. In: Review of International Studies. 2011 ; Vol. 37, No. 4. pp. 1949-1965.
@article{f49ba48506e24875b8719221a353a5a5,
title = "Is ideal theory practical?",
abstract = "This article examines how the exemplars of ideal theory have addressed what I term 'the problem of preservation'. The 'problem' in question is not so much that a political community must make provisions for its self-preservation, but rather that its provisions must correspond to the intentions and capabilities of its neighbours. This constraint implies that the ability of a political community to pursue ideals rather than power depends heavily on who its neighbours happen to be. This article shows how Aristotle, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls address this problem by recommending measures such as defensive fortification, collective security, and democratic peace, which, they claim, will dampen the anarchic nature of the international system. It argues that the implausibility of these measures renders the ability of political communities to heed the moral guidance offered by ideal theory contingent at best and impractical at worst. If proponents of ideal theory wish to resist this conclusion, then they must offer a more persuasive answer to the problem of preservation.",
author = "Rahul Sagar",
year = "2011",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1017/S0260210511000507",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "1949--1965",
journal = "Review of International Studies",
issn = "0260-2105",
publisher = "Cambridge University Press",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is ideal theory practical?

AU - Sagar, Rahul

PY - 2011/10/1

Y1 - 2011/10/1

N2 - This article examines how the exemplars of ideal theory have addressed what I term 'the problem of preservation'. The 'problem' in question is not so much that a political community must make provisions for its self-preservation, but rather that its provisions must correspond to the intentions and capabilities of its neighbours. This constraint implies that the ability of a political community to pursue ideals rather than power depends heavily on who its neighbours happen to be. This article shows how Aristotle, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls address this problem by recommending measures such as defensive fortification, collective security, and democratic peace, which, they claim, will dampen the anarchic nature of the international system. It argues that the implausibility of these measures renders the ability of political communities to heed the moral guidance offered by ideal theory contingent at best and impractical at worst. If proponents of ideal theory wish to resist this conclusion, then they must offer a more persuasive answer to the problem of preservation.

AB - This article examines how the exemplars of ideal theory have addressed what I term 'the problem of preservation'. The 'problem' in question is not so much that a political community must make provisions for its self-preservation, but rather that its provisions must correspond to the intentions and capabilities of its neighbours. This constraint implies that the ability of a political community to pursue ideals rather than power depends heavily on who its neighbours happen to be. This article shows how Aristotle, Rousseau, Kant, and Rawls address this problem by recommending measures such as defensive fortification, collective security, and democratic peace, which, they claim, will dampen the anarchic nature of the international system. It argues that the implausibility of these measures renders the ability of political communities to heed the moral guidance offered by ideal theory contingent at best and impractical at worst. If proponents of ideal theory wish to resist this conclusion, then they must offer a more persuasive answer to the problem of preservation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=82455162717&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=82455162717&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1017/S0260210511000507

DO - 10.1017/S0260210511000507

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:82455162717

VL - 37

SP - 1949

EP - 1965

JO - Review of International Studies

JF - Review of International Studies

SN - 0260-2105

IS - 4

ER -