by Gerald Gaus
———. Collective Choice and Social Welfare. San Francisco: Holden-Day, 1970.
———. The Idea of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009.
———. “Liberty, Unanimity and Rights.” Economica, n.s., vol. 43 (August, 1976): 217–45.
———. “Maximization and the Act of Choice.” In Rationality and Freedom, by Sen. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002: 159–205.
———. On Ethics and Economics. Oxford: Blackwell, 1986.
———. “On Weights and Measures: Informational Constraints in Social Welfare Analysis.” Econometrica, vol. 45 (October 1977): 1539–72.
———. “The Possibility of Social Choice.” In Rationality and Freedom, by Sen. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002: 65–118.
———. “A Reply.” Rutgers Law Journal, vol. 43 (Spring/Summer 2012): 317–35.
Shikher, Serge. “Predicting the Effects of NAFTA: Now We Can Do It Better!” Journal of International and Global Economic Studies, vol. 5 (December 2012): 32–59.
Sidgwick, Henry. The Methods of Ethics, 7th ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962 [1907].
Simmons, A. John. “Ideal and Nonideal Theory.” Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 38 (January 2010): 5–36.
Smith, Adam. Theory of Moral Sentiments, edited by D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1984.
Smith, Peter. Explaining Chaos. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
Stemplowska, Zofia. “What’s Ideal about Ideal Theory?” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 34 (July 2008): 319–40.
Stemplowska, Zofia, and Adam Swift. “Ideal and Nonideal Theory.” In The Oxford Handbook of Political Philosophy, edited by David Estlund. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012: 373–89.
Strawson, Peter. “Freedom and Resentment,” Proceedings of the British Academy, vol. 48 (1962): 188–211.
Stuntz, W. “Self-Defeating Crimes.” Virginia Law Review, vol. 86 (2000): 1871–82.
Sugden, Robert. “Spontaneous Order.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 3 (Autumn 1989): 85–97.
Sunstein, Cass. Infotopia: How Many Minds Produce Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Surowiecki, James. The Wisdom of Crowds. New York: Anchor Books, 2005.
Swift, Adam. “The Value of Philosophy in Nonideal Circumstances.” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 34 (July 2008): 363–87.
Tanner, Edward. Why Things Bite Back. London: Fourth Estate, 1996.
Temkin, Larry S. Rethinking the Good: Moral Ideals and the Nature of Practical Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Tetlock, Philip. “Coping with Trade-Offs: Psychological Constraints and Political Implications.” In Elements of Reason: Cognition, Choice and the Bounds of Rationality, edited by Arthur Lupia, Matthew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000: 239–63.
Thompson, Abigail. “Does Diversity Trump Ability? An Example of the Misuse of Mathematics in Social Sciences.” Notices of the American Mathematical Society, vol. 61 (2014): 1024–30.
Thrasher, John. “Uniqueness and Symmetry in Bargaining Theories of Justice.” Philosophical Studies, vol. 167 (2014): 683–99.
Thrasher, John, and Gerald Gaus. “The Calculus of Consent.” In The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Contemporary Political Theory, edited by Jacob Levy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.
Tomasi, John. Free Market Fairness. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012.
Valentini, Laura. “Ideal vs. Non-ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map.” Philosophy Compass, vol. 7 (2012): 654–64.
———. “On the Apparent Paradox of Ideal Theory.” Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 17 (2009): 332–55.
Vallier, Kevin. “A Moral and Economic Critique of the New Property-Owning Democrats: On Behalf of a Rawlsian Welfare State.” Philosophical Studies, vol. 172 (2015): 283–304.
van Damme, Eric, Kenneth G. Binmore, Alvin E. Roth, Larry Samuelson, Eyal Winter, Gary E. Bolton, Axel Ockenfels, Martin Dufwenberg, Georg Kirchsteiger, Uri Gneezy, Martin G. Kocher, Matthias Sutter, Alan G. Sanfey, Hartmut Kliemt, Reinhard Selten, Rosemarie Nagel, and Ofer H. Azara. “How Werner Güth’s Ultimatum Game Shaped Our Understanding of Social Behavior.” Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, vol. 108 (2014): 292–318.
Vanderschraaf, Peter. “The Circumstances of Justice.” Politics, Philosophy and Economics, vol. 5 (2006): 321–51.
Van Schoelandt, Chad. “Justification, Coercion, and the Place of Public Reason.” Philosophical Studies. doi: 10.1007/s11098-014-0336-6.
———. “Rawlsian Functionalism and the Problem of Coordination.” Paper delivered to the 2015 meeting of the Pacific Division of the American Philosophical Association, April, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Van Schoelandt, Chad, and Gerald Gaus. “Political and Distributive Justice.” In The Oxford Handbook of Distributive Justice, edited by Serena Olsaretti. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.
Wagner, Christian, Sesia Zhao, Christopher Schneider, and Huaping Chen. “The Wisdom of Reluctant Crowds,” Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, 2010, IEEE Computer Society. www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/hicss/2010/3869/00/01-12-06.pdf.
Waldrop, M. Mitchell. Complexity: The Emerging Science as the Edge of Order and Chaos. New York: Simon and Shuster, 1992.
Waldron, Jeremy. God, Locke and Equality: The Christian Foundations in Locke’s Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Wall, Steven. “On Justificatory Liberalism.” Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, vol. 9 (May 2010): 123–50.
Ward, Benjamin. The Ideal World of Economics: Liberal, Radical and Conservative Economic World Views. New York: Basic Books, 1979.
Watts, D. J., and S. H. Strogatz. “Collective Dynamics of ‘Small-World’ Networks.” Nature, vol. 393 (June 1998): 440–42. doi: 10.1038/30918.
Weber, Roberto A., and Colin F. Camerer. “Cultural Conflict and Merger Failure: An Experimental Approach.” In “Managing Knowledge in Organizations: Creating, Retaining, and Transferring Knowledge,” special issue of Management Science, vol. 49 (April 2003): 400–415.
Weisberg, Michael, and Ryan Muldoon. “Epistemic Landscapes and the Division of Cognitive Labor.” Philosophy of Science, vol. 76 (April 2009): 225–52.
Weithman, Paul. Why Political Liberalism? On John Rawls’s Political Turn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.
Weitzman, Martin L. “On Diversity.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 107 (May 1992): 363–405.
Wiens, David. “Against Ideal Guidance.” Journal of Politics, vol. 77 (April 2015): 433–46.
———. “Demands of Justice, Feasible Alternatives, and the Need for Causal Analysis.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, vol. 16 (2013): 325–38.
———. “Political Ideals and the Feasibility Frontier.” Economics and Philosophy, June 2015: 1–31, published online May 28, 2015. doi: 10.1017/S0266267115000164.
———. “Prescribing Institutions without Ideal Theory.” Journal of Political Philosophy, vol. 20 (2012): 45–70.
———. “Will the Real Principles of Justice Please Stand Up?” In Political Utopias: Contemporary Debates, edited by Michael Weber and Kevin Vallier. Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming.
Wilde, Oscar. The Soul of Man under Socialism. Portland, ME: Thomas B. Mosher, 1905.
Wiles, P.J.D. Economic Institutions Compared. New York: Wiley, 1977.
Wolff, Robert Paul. The Poverty of Liberalism. Boston: Beacon, 1968.
———. Understanding Rawls: A Reconstruction and Critique of a Theory of Justice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977.
Young, Iris Marion. Responsibility for Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.
Zhou, Xueguang. “Organizational Decision Making as Rule Following.” In Organizational Decision Making, edited by Zur Sahpira. Cambridge: Cambridge Universit
y Press, 2002: 257–81.
Index
abortion, 162
abstraction, xvii, 1, 36ff
accountability, 20, 180ff, 208, 211–12, 216–18, 230, 233, 243, 246
Ahn, W., 252
Aligica, P., xxii, 184, 186
All Liberal Liberties Are Specifically Justified Principle, 191
ambiguity of rules, 226–34
American Civil War, 57
animal rights, 164
Archimedean perspective, 150–51, 210
Arneson, R., 216
Arrow, K., xv, 225, 257–58
Ashby, F., 252
autonomy, 109, 126, 162
Auyang, S., 69
Bacon, F., 4, 13, 51, 87–88
Baier, K., 215, 232
Bajaj, S., xxi
Barrett, J., xxi
Barry, B., xx, 230
Barry, C., 23, 26
Bellamy, E., 51, 77, 86, 88, 121
Benn, S., 188–89, 191–92, 196
Berlin, I., 148, 220, 222, 241, 244
Berretty, P., 252
Bicchieri, C., xv, 77, 179, 185–86, 205–6, 212–13, 227–29
Binmore, K., xv
bleeding-heart libertarian, 63–65, 138. See also libertarianism
Boettke, P., 184
Borgida, M., 147, 219
Bowles, S., 181
Boyd, R., xvii, 186, 235
Brennan, G., xvi, 51, 56, 60
Bringhurst, P., xxi, 182
Broome, J., 46
Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, 17
Buchanan, J., xv, 171, 179–80
Buck-Morss, S., 13
Buridan’s ass, 210–11
Camerer, F., 131
Canini, K., 252
capitalism, 100, 125, 135. See also welfare state capitalism
Carey, B., 31–32
Carroll, L., 42
Castelli, I., 228
categorical judgments of justice, 45ff
categorizations, 43, 164, 166, 195. See also world features
Chapman, J., 125
Chavez, A., 227–28
Chen, H., 97, 261
Choice, The, 82–84, 87, 105, 121, 139, 142–44, 242, 246–47
Chow, J., xxi
Christians/Christianity, 149, 161–63, 172, 185, 200. See also religious perspectives
Christiano, T., xxi
Chwe, M., 183
Cialdini, R., 212
CI-procedure, 22ff
circumstances of justice, 223
classical liberalism, 108, 138.
climbing model, 5ff, 51–52, 56, 62, 78–83, 101, 113, 140, 143
Cohen, G., xvi, xix, 18–19, 25–27, 30, 77, 89, 102, 138, 143, 230, 248
common projection of perspectives, 159ff, 166, 203
comparative judgments of justice, 46ff
complexity, 68–69, 199, 236, 255
complexity catastrophe, 68–69
complexity reducing, 198ff
Comprehensive Knowledge Assumption, 76, 79, 106
conservatism/conservative, 10, 134–38, 146, 198, 235–39
constitutional political economy, 179
Coons, C., xx
Copernicus, N., 35
Cuffaro, M., 147, 219
Cummins, D., 192
D’Agostino, F., xv, xxi, 35, 47, 64, 72, 79, 93, 96–97, 127, 133–6, 145, 199, 200–202, 221, 253
Dale, D., 90
de Waal, F., 249
decisiveness, 189–97
democracy, 35, 72, 112, 136, 143, 202, 225, 261
deontology, 21, 23, 158
descriptive norms, 212–3, 227. See also norms
desert, 155, 158, 242
determinate solution, the, 226, 239
Dewey, J., 138
difference principle, 20, 24–25, 74–75
distance of social worlds, 9, 11, 41, 52–6, 60, 62, 75, 78, 92, 99–103, 107–8, 123, 138, 145, 173, 258. See also proximity of social worlds
diversity, xxi, 20, 54, 55, 90, 95–6, 103, 106, 110, 112, 114, 236, 259; accommodating per se, 176; benefits of, 133ff; contagion, 132ff, 139, 146; deep, 144ff; as deep disagreements about the nature of the social world, 165; dilemmas of, 114ff; and distance contracting metrics, 99; Hong-Page Theorem about the benefits of, 116; and the liberal approach, 97; management of, 132, 145; maximized under liberal inquiry, 145; meaningful theory of, 53; measures of, 256; minimal, between perspectives, 98; and miscommunication, 98–100; in the Open Society, 149; of perspectives, 131; within perspectives 93ff; of perspectives can solve rugged optimization problems, 243; among perspectives expanding neighborhood, 99; predictive 261ff; of reasonable views, 157; as resource of Open Society, 230ff; seen as a threat to stability, 231; and small world networks, 148; and social welfare functions, 201; suppressed in social choice approach, 174; and the work of Ostroms, 184
Diversity Prediction Theorem, 94, 118, 261–63
Diversity Trumps Ability Theorem. See Hong-Page Theorem
domain of worlds evaluated, 6, 40–55, 66–71, 76–78, 89, 92, 99–100, 107, 113, 121–23, 129, 158, 174, 251–52, 255–58
dreaming, 4, 11–16, 39, 41, 103, 140
Dworkin, R., 191
dystopias, 51
Edison, T., 91
eligible set, 211–15, 220ff; change of equilibrium in, 245; choice from, 225; coordinating on specific members of, 223ff; coordination on rules within, 229; disagreements in, 232–35; when equilibrium is outside of, 236; as locus of moral change, 230
Ellison, S., 247
Elster, J., 45, 60, 85–86, 134
empirical expectations, 179–80, 183, 190, 197, 212, 218, 227, 230. See also expectations
Engels, F., 19
Enlightenment, 148, 154
Enoch, D., 15
environmentalism, 138, 164
Eriksson, L., 60
error inflation, 80, 102
Estlund, D., xix, xx, 13–16, 18, 21, 27, 36, 38, 45, 68, 157, 164, 218, 230
ethics of creation, 30–31
evaluation normalized perspectives, 107ff, 122, 145
evaluative perspectives, 43–47, 55, 61–3, 76, 142–55, 155, 210. See also perspectives
evaluative standards/criteria, 24–25, 40, 43–49, 53–56, 63, 90–92, 99, 107–8, 114–16, 122, 126, 130–32, 145
existence requirement, 183, 224
expectations, 171, 182, 213, 229, 244; at heart of moral constitution, 181; importance of in normative behavior, 186; shared, 180; stability of required, 235. See also empirical expectations; normative expectations
exploitation, 126, 160
Farrelly, C., 15, 18
feasibility, xvi, 10, 14, 18, 26, 29, 49, 56–62, 67, 75, 81, 106, 141; and hard constraints 32ff; and ideal justice, 30; internal, 51; senses of, 30; space of, 56ff
Fehr, E., 181, 212
Feinberg, J., 188
feminism, 134, 138, 164
Fischbacher, U., 181, 212
Fleming, A., 197
Forst, R., 191
Foucault, M., 164
foundationalism, 27
Fourier, C., 90
freedom, 109, 122, 125–26, 137, 143, 162, 187, 191. See also liberty; natural liberty
Freeman, S., 153
Friedman, D., 77
Friedman, M., 38
functionalism/functions, 92, 183ff, 197, 224
Fundamental Diversity Dilemma, 130ff
Fundamental Diversity Insight, 133ff,
Galton, F., 261
Gaus, K., xxi
Gauthier, D., xv, 150–51, 168
Gavrilets, S., 69
General Conception of Justice, 24, 49, 50
general will, 42
Gilabert, P., 10, 26, 31, 49, 57, 60, 81
Gintis, H., xv, 181
Gjesdal, A., xxi
Glasnost, 133
global optimum (ideal), 6, 10, 50–51, 55, 65–67, 81–87, 102–3, 111–13, 117, 128, 131, 140
Godwin, W., 32–3
Goldwater, B., 137
Goodin, R., 60
/> Goodwin, B., 2, 4, 45, 60, 82, 85
Gray, J., 201
Guillot, J., xx
guilt, 181
Güth, W., 205
Habermas, J., 19
Hadfield, G., 207
Haidt, J., 164, 169, 237–9
Hamlin, A., xx, 1, 4–5, 30, 33, 37, 48–49, 59
Hampson, S., 252
Hampton, J., xv
handing-off-the-baton dynamic, 111–16, 134–35
Hankins, K., xx–xxi, 98, 259
Hardin, R., xv
harm, 163, 237
Harman, G., 189
Harsanyi, J., xv
Haworth, A., 91–92
Hayek, F. A., 137, 170–72, 187, 198, 221, 229, 250
Hazelhurst, B., 131
Henrich, J., 205
high-dimensional landscapes, 67ff, 123. See also NK optimization; rugged landscapes
Hillinger, C., 188
Hobbes, T., xvi, 198
Hobhouse, L.T., 138
holism, 68, 72, 123, 199
homophobia, 164
Hong, L., 99, 106–7, 111–17, 119–20, 123, 126, 130, 133–35, 146
Hong-Page theorem, 111ff, 116ff, 126, 134ff,
Hutchins, E., 131
ideal justice, 1, 4, 7, 13–20, 43, 56, 102; assumed to have practical value, 15; cannot be insulated from social realizations, 26; as a central evaluative concern, 26; elements of theory of, 44; feasibility of ideal social worlds, 30; identifies institutional structures, 4; mirage of, 246; must be sensitive to social realizations, 23, 40; must model social worlds, 29; normalized approach to, 150; not to be identified with perfect conformity to moral principles, 18ff; as optimal, 39; as useless, 17; revisability of, 87; why better understand it when one cannot impose it?, 218. See also global optimum; justice
ideal theory; aims of 34ff; as dreaming set aside, 16; as guiding reform, 4; as institutional, 4; based on multidimensional analysis, 11; cannot specify necessary and sufficient conditions of, 241; classifications of, 1; concerned with recommendations, 16; employing possible world analysis, 2; importance of social realizations in 18ff; little use for categorical judgments, 46; must always admit revisablity, 134; necessity of drawing on social science because not pure moral philosophy, 17; orienting function, 4ff; and progressive thought, 2; as realistic, 2; two conditions for, 39ff; two fundamental tasks of, 5
idealization, xvii, 1, 36ff, 102
Ihäheimo, H., 177
immigration, 169, 172, 175, 232, 245
impartial spectators, 8, 155–59, 160, 162, 173
indeterminacy, 151, 224–26