Description

The purpose of this dissertation is to explore three dichotomies that can be said to characterize several debates in political philosophy: realism vs. utopianism, ideal vs. nonideal theory, and fact-sensitivity vs. fact-insensitivity. Each of these dichotomies involves interrelated issues surrounding the methods of political philosophy, the nature of justice, and the proper goals and aspirations we should have when constructing a theory of justice. The claim that I defend is as follows: the idea of a realistic utopia-an important idea that appears in the work of John Rawls-is the most appropriate framework for resolving these three dichotomies and will yield important insights about the goals and methods of political philosophy. In developing the idea, I argue that Rawls's understanding of justice represents a position that (a) establishes the importance of ideal theory, (b) requires a sensitivity to empirical facts, and (c) provides a vision of society that is utopian, yet is still realistically achievable.