Shelly Wilcox
Shelly Wilcox Lecture Notes:
Ideal and nonideal theories of justice
They both develop normative frameworks that enable us to make principled moral judgements about social institutions:
However, they differ with respect to the nature and scope of the normative prescriptions they enable
Ideal
Perfect justice: it aims to design ideal principles that would secure fully just social arrangements
Idealized and abstract theoretical assumptions: it constructs these principles under idealized assumptions about human capacities and the social world
a. an idealized social ontology populated by abstract, atomistic, and independent individuals
b. An idealized account of human capacities that represents agents as significantly more rational, self aware, or independent than they actually are
c. An idealized model of fundamental social institutions, such as the family, legal system, or the economy
Nonideal
Imperfect justice: justice improvements
Rejects the use of idealized assumptions on the desirable features of a social and political issue
Descriptive : Provides a schematic representation of a given phenomenon as it actually exists: simplifies a phenomenon inclusive only to features that are most important to it
Immigration justice
Normative methodologies on immigration justice formulated around a key question on the debates of open borders : that is, whether liberal states may justifiably restrict immigration
The mainstream responses to this debate:
A. Liberal states have broad discretion over immigration policy; they are morally free to restrict immigration (freedom of association)
B. Immigration restrictions are inconsistent with basic liberal egalitarian ideals, such as freedom, equality and democracy. Liberal states should maintain open borders (freedom of movement)
Ethics of migration and open borders debate
The Freedom of movement argument by Joseph Carens”
Freedom of International movement is a basic human right that includes moving freely between and within nations is a basic right of citizenship
Grounded on the liberal commitment to individual autonomy and freedom to move across national and international borders
However, limitations on immigration can sometimes be justified: Liberal - illiberal contrast
The freedom of association argument by Kit Wellman
Liberal right to freedom of association includes presumptive rights to regulate immigration, excluding prospective immigrants, refuges etc.
States have a right to self-determination, which includes a right to freedom of association
1. Both arguments aims at constructing ideal principles of justice (identification of fully just immigration arrangements)
e.g. States would maintain open borders in a fully just world (Carens)
e.g. States are free to close their borders (Wellman)
2. Both arguments presuppose a number of idealized assumptions about human capacities and the social world
Wilcox’s 3 criticisms to the ideal approach on immigration justice
1. Ideal approaches to immigration justice abstract away from actual real-world migration processes and bears idealized assumptions about the migrant subjectivity.
They are not viable to expose injustices accurately or they tell us very little about the nature of existing migration-related injustices
Such as the militarization of borders, gender-biased admission policies
They represent the phenomena as simpler and better than they actually are, and abstracts away from the background conditions of these individuals
2. Ideal approach to immigration justice is not action guiding
Since ideal approach cannot adequately theories injustices, normative standards by which they evaluate real-world migration arrangements falls short
Action-guiding in a broad sense: actual migration processes be made to conform with the standards they recommend
3. Ideal approach is potentially dangerous and counter-productive
Because they portray immigration as a primarily voluntary phenomenon and ignore the many background injustices that shape real-world migration
Because they rely on idealized social ontologies and they obscure the ways in which power relations mediate real-world migration
Wilcox’s nonideal approach on immigration justice aka nonideal immigration ethics
1. A “Bottom up” approach
A nonideal approach should take real-world migration, including the background conditions that contribute to it, as its starting point, and aim to identify what justice requires in this contexts
2. A descriptive model of real-world migration:
An adequate model should accurately capture the features of what migration is actually like rather than what it should be like
This means immigrations ethics should away idealized notions of human capacities, social institutions, and social relations in favor of realistic accounts
3. Develops normative resources for evaluating the real-world immigration arrangements
Normative resources should also enable us to make moral judgments about the given migration arrangement, identifying the ways in which existing policies, practices, and institutions engender or sustain injustice
4. Action-guiding
A nonideal approach to immigration justice should identify specific ways in which actual migration arrangements could be more just
Shelly Wilcox reading notes:
Critics argue that "ideal theory" is built on idealized assumptions and doesn’t apply to real-world situations.
Three main criticisms are raised against ideal theory:
It cannot address current injustices in the actual, nonideal world.
It doesn’t provide practical, action-guiding principles.
It reflects and perpetuates unjust group privilege, which is counterproductive or even harmful.
This chapter examines recent philosophical work on immigration, particularly the open borders debate, in light of these criticisms.
The central question of the open borders debate is whether liberal states can justifiably restrict immigration.
The chapter argues that key arguments on both sides of the debate are susceptible to the criticisms of ideal theory.
A nonideal approach to migration justice is necessary, and the chapter proposes several methodological considerations for this approach.
The chapter begins by explaining the features of ideal theory and the objections to it.
It then shows how central arguments in the open borders debate face these criticisms.
Finally, the chapter suggests a nonideal approach as a more effective framework for addressing migration justice.
Ideal theory vs nonideal theory:
Ideal theory focuses on perfect justice and aims to design principles for fully just social arrangements, e.g., Rawls's theory of justice.
Nonideal theory seeks to improve justice without necessarily defining an ideal society, e.g., feminist political philosophy.
Ideal theory includes idealized assumptions (e.g., about human capacities and social arrangements) that assume a better, simpler world than actual conditions.
Nonideal theory rejects such idealizations, focusing on real-world complexities.
Idealization simplifies and attributes desirable features to phenomena that aren't present, while abstraction simplifies without making idealizing assumptions.
Types of idealizations in ideal theory:
Feasibility constraints: Ideal theory often disregards real-world constraints, whereas nonideal theory considers social, historical, and economic limitations.
Compliance assumptions: Ideal theory assumes full compliance with justice demands, while nonideal theory acknowledges noncompliance and provides responses.
Human agents and social world assumptions: Ideal theory presupposes an idealized social ontology (atomistic individuals), idealized human capacities (more rational, self-aware), and idealized social institutions.
Objections to ideal theory:
Inability to address real-world injustices: Ideal theory abstracts from undesirable features like domination and oppression, making it ineffective in understanding actual social injustices. Critics argue ideal theories can't describe the real nature of injustices, such as white supremacy, even if they show a deviation from the ideal.
Failure to provide action guidance: Ideal theory doesn't guide action in real-world injustices. Even if it provides normative standards, it offers little help in addressing unjust conditions or transitioning from unjust relations to just ones.
Counterproductive and dangerous: Ideal theory is criticized for obscuring existing power relations, particularly by reinforcing unjust privilege. The idealized assumptions tend to reflect the interests of the theorists (often white, middle-to-upper-class men), thus perpetuating group privilege and being ideological.
Call for nonideal theory: Critics argue that ideal theory is of little practical use for oppressed groups. They urge philosophers to focus on nonideal approaches that better address real-world injustices and offer actionable guidance.
Connection to immigration: The chapter will later argue that the open borders debate is also susceptible to the criticisms of ideal theory.
Open borders debate central question: Whether liberal states can justifiably restrict immigration.
Open borders side: Argues immigration restrictions violate liberal egalitarian ideals like freedom, equality, and democracy, advocating for open borders and welcoming nearly all immigrants.
Restricted immigration side: Argues liberal states have broad discretion over immigration, admitting immigrants based on perceived national interest but can morally restrict immigration with few exceptions.
Freedom of Movement Argument:
Developed by Joseph Carens, it claims individuals have a basic right to freedom of international movement, just like the right to free internal movement within a state.
This freedom is grounded in individual autonomy, enabling people to pursue life plans, find jobs, form relationships, or pursue cultural opportunities.
Carens argues this right applies equally to international borders, establishing a strong presumption for open borders.
He acknowledges that states may restrict immigration for reasons like public order, national security, or protecting liberal institutions.
Freedom of Association Argument:
Developed by Kit Wellman, it defends the right of states to regulate immigration based on the right to freedom of association.
First, it establishes that individuals and states have a right to self-determination and free association, including the right to exclude others.
Analogizes this to personal freedom of association (e.g., marriage), asserting that states can choose whom to admit or exclude.
Wellman acknowledges moral duties (e.g., Samaritan duties and relational egalitarianism) but argues they can be satisfied by exporting justice (e.g., through aid or military intervention).
Concludes that states have the right to close borders at their discretion, as the right to exclude is a presumptive right that may only be outweighed by significant competing moral claims.
Both arguments share ideal theory features:
First feature: They aim to develop principles securing fully just immigration arrangements.
Second feature: They are based on idealized assumptions about human capacities and the social world.
Freedom of movement argument (Carens):
Aims for open borders in a fully just world but acknowledges exceptions in real-world circumstances (e.g., public goods protection).
This does not negate the ideal nature of the argument, as real-world exceptions are seen as adjustments to the ideal, not the starting point.
Assumes migrants are independent agents making migration decisions based on opportunities, but many are constrained by limited information and act as part of a family or community.
Oversimplifies migration causes, ignoring broader social, economic, and political factors, such as recruitment by private industries or neoliberal economic policies.
Portrays migration opportunities as abstract, ignoring the active role of industries and governments shaping these opportunities.
Freedom of association argument (Wellman):
States have a right to exclude immigrants based on the collective right to freedom of association.
Analogy between individual and collective decisions is based on an idealized view of political community, overstating agreement on membership decisions.
Assumes political communities speak in a unified voice, ignoring deep divisions in national immigration debates.
Portrays military intervention and aid provision as idealized solutions to fulfilling duties to outsiders, ignoring the practical complications and failures of such interventions (e.g., military missteps, aid distribution issues, and the political leverage used in aid negotiations).
Both arguments rely on idealized assumptions about the nature of political communities, migration processes, and interventions, aligning them with ideal theory rather than nonideal theory.
First criticism:
Freedom of movement and freedom of association arguments fail to address real-world migration injustices.
These arguments rely on idealized assumptions about migrants, migration circumstances, and social institutions, making them too simplistic and detached from actual migration issues.
They overlook critical injustices like militarized borders, privatized detention centers, or gender-biased admissions policies, only acknowledging that these issues deviate from the ideal of open borders.
Second criticism:
These arguments are not action-guiding because they fail to theorize real-world injustices effectively.
Even if they offer normative standards to evaluate real-world policies, they lack specific guidance on how to transition from current policies to ideal ones.
For example, if the U.S. were to evaluate its immigration policies against the open borders ideal, the freedom of movement argument would suggest opening all borders, but it provides no clear direction on how to transition to that ideal.
Third criticism:
These arguments are counterproductive by framing migration as a voluntary act while ignoring the underlying injustices shaping migration.
They rely on idealized views of social relations, obscuring the influence of power dynamics such as race, class, nationality, and gender in migration.
These arguments may be ideological, reflecting the experiences of academic philosophers who are disconnected from real-world migration issues.
Although they propose radical normative ideals, they indirectly support the status quo by portraying migration as isolated rather than tied to global injustices.
They fail to account for how affluent countries contribute to the conditions causing migration through policies like unfair trade practices, colonial legacies, and coercive economic systems, thus perpetuating these injustices.
First desideratum:
A nonideal approach to immigration justice should be “bottom up,” focusing on real-world migration and its background conditions.
Unlike ideal theories, which apply abstract moral values to idealized migration processes, nonideal approaches start with actual migration contexts and aim to determine what justice requires in those circumstances.
Second desideratum:
A nonideal approach should include a descriptive model of real-world migration.
This model simplifies real migration processes, focusing on crucial features like the demographic composition of migrants, reasons for migration, challenges faced, and historical relations between sending and receiving countries.
The model should select features based on their accuracy in describing actual migration, not idealized notions, and incorporate theoretical concepts (like "pull factors" or "militarization") as necessary.
The use of social concepts (e.g., gender, race) will be important in analyzing migration, but theorists must remain self-conscious of their perspective in using these concepts.
Third desideratum:
The nonideal approach should provide normative resources to evaluate real-world migration arrangements.
These resources should help identify moral issues in current practices, and guide moral judgments about unjust policies and practices.
The approach should use moral values or principles that allow for principled evaluations of the complex realities of migration, considering social, structural, and institutional injustices.
In addition to liberal values, relational principles of justice and nuanced accounts of exploitation will likely be necessary to understand and assess real-world migration policies.
Fourth desideratum:
A nonideal approach should be action-guiding, offering concrete recommendations for improving real-world migration justice.
While it need not provide a blueprint for ideal migration arrangements, it should identify specific ways to move toward more just migration policies.
Pluralistic approach:
The desiderata allow for a variety of nonideal approaches to immigration justice, and existing work on specific issues (like undocumented migrants) is valuable.
However, few nonideal theorists address the foundational question of whether liberal states may justifiably restrict immigration.
The chapter aims to take a step toward exploring this question and motivating further development in nonideal theory.
Shelly Wilcox reading summary:
Introduction to Immigration Justice
Critique of Ideal Theory: The chapter critiques prevailing liberal egalitarian principles derived from ideal theory, which critics argue are:
Inapplicable to real-world scenarios.
Not sufficiently action-guiding.
Reflective of unjust group privileges.
Importance of Nonideal Theory: The author argues for a nonideal approach to immigration justice, emphasizing the need for more practical methods to address contemporary issues.
Defining Ideal and Nonideal Theory
Ideal Theory:
Focuses on designing principles of perfect justice for fully just social arrangements.
Example: Rawls's theory of justice.
Nonideal Theory:
Seeks justice improvements within the constraints of real-world conditions.
Rejects idealized assumptions about social institutions and human behavior.
Key Features of Ideal Theory
Normative Prescriptions:
Aims for fully just societies under ideal conditions.
Idealized Assumptions:
Assumptions often overstate human capacities and social interactions.
Includes assumptions like:
Full compliance with justice demands.
An idealized view of society as composed of independent individuals.
Critique of Ideal Theory
Three Major Objections:
Understanding Injustice:
Ideal theory is ineffective at understanding actual injustices due to the gap between idealized models and real situations.
Action-Guidance:
Lacks guidance on responding to injustices.
Normative standards cannot guide real-world transitions from injustice to ideal justice.
Counterproductive:
Can perpetuate existing privileges as it reflects the perspectives of a limited demographic (e.g., middle-to-upper-class white men).
The Open Borders Debate
Central Question: Whether liberal states can justify immigration restrictions.
Arguments For Restriction:
States should have broad discretion over immigration.
Opposing Argument:
Immigration restrictions contradict liberal ideals of freedom and equality.
Freedom of Movement Argument (Joseph Carens)
Core Claim: Individuals have a human right to freedom of international movement, paralleling internal movement rights.
Justifications for Limiting Immigration: Can be warranted if aligned with public order and national security.
Freedom of Association Argument (Kit Wellman)
Core Claim: States have a right to control immigration based on self-determination.
Balancing Duties: States must navigate sanctity of borders with moral duties to outsiders.
Shortcomings of Current Arguments
Ideal Theory Characteristics:
Both arguments pursue ideal immigration solutions that may ignore practicalities and complexities of real-world issues.
Assumptions on Agency and Structures:
Over-reliance on the notion of migrants as independent decision-makers.
Ignores coercive factors (economic, social, political) influencing migration.
Towards a Non-Ideal Approach
Methodological Desiderata:
Bottom-Up Approach: Start from real-world conditions rather than abstract principles.
Descriptive Modeling: Create models that accurately reflect the dynamics of migration.
Normative Resources: Engage moral values suited for real-world context, recognizing justice complexities.
Action-Guiding Framework: Propose concrete ways to enhance justice in immigration policies without adhering to idealized benchmarks.
Conclusion
Nonideal theories are essential for developing practical responses to immigration injustices.
Future work must delve into the justifiability of immigration restrictions from a nonideal perspective, addressing complexities overlooked by ideal theory.