Dispute Analysis Of Ideal Theory And Non-ideal Theory

The dispute between ideal theory and nonideal theory originated from Rawls.Rawls first put forward the distinction between ideal theory and nonideal theory in A Theory of Justice,and then discussed nonideal theory for the nonideal state in Law of Peoples.According to Rawls,the ideal theory should deal with a well-ordered society in which citizens are fully subject to the principle of justice,and the nonideal theory should deal with a society in which citizens are partially subject to justice.Rawls argued that we should give priority to the ideal theory and regard it as the target and ideal that must be determined in advance to understand nonideal societies.Rawls' s such distinction and his work on specific issues such as international distributive justice has aroused extensive and lasting discussions.The researchers involved in these discussions include those who sympathize with or support Rawls,which we call idealism,and those who oppose or even bitterly criticize Rawls,which we call realism or nonidealism.Idealism agrees with the priority and necessity of ideal theory,and holds that in order to solve injustice,we must first know what justice is and the principle of justice as a whole.nonidealist dissatisfies with theorists indulged in the construction of the system all day long,but turn a blind eye to the urgent injustice of reality.They stress that it is neither necessary nor possible to conceive or even plan an ideal theory beyond reality.It is not helpful to improve the situation of reality,but leaving injustice of reality alone.Therefore,the most urgent goal is to start thinking and dealing with the existing injustice.The core of these arguments lies in whether the moral desirability in line with some ideal idea is always prior to the feasibility constraint in reality.Through sorting out the related debates,we find that the key is to distinguish the evaluative function and the guiding function of normative theory.As far as the evaluation function is concerned,what is important is whether the desirability required by a certain normative theory is consistent with the general moral desirability.Practice that violates the desirability of an ideal theory does not necessarily violate the desirability of morality.The ideological criticism of ideal theory is precisely because ideal theory tries to represent general morality with the morality stipulated by theory.Rawls' theory of justice or some other ideal theory,due to the existence of this moral limitation,does not have the status of the ultimate political norm.The Moral Constitution put forward by Gauss tries to correct this ideal theory with moral limitations,while Zhao Tingyang's conception of the Tianxia System is a transcendence of the ideal theory with moral bias.As far as guiding function is concerned,second best theory shows that ideal theory faces cognitive limitations.Therefore,ideal theory cannot guide non-ideal theory and practice.In this regard,many theorists believe that seeking help from social sciences such as political science and economics is a theoretical way to transcend cognitive limitations.Turning to social science means that political philosophy cannot finally solve this dispute,and the consideration of a solution to this dispute has gone beyond the scope of political philosophy.