Abstract

In the ideal vs. non-ideal theory debate contemporary political philosophers discuss the method of theorizing social justice. Some argue that theories of social justice should be ideal and justify exclusively in ideal theory a just society as goal for social reform. Others hold that theories of social justice should be nonideal and justify exclusively in non-ideal theory how to address social injustices in the status quo. This article shares the view of those who, like John Rawls, maintain that theories of justice must consist of an ideal and a non-ideal theory part. Yet it criticizes Rawls for prioritizing ideal over non-ideal theory and defends the mutual dependence or co-originality of ideal and non-theory. For not only does non-ideal theorizing depend on a goal of social reform justified in ideal theory. Ideal theorizing also depends on a non-ideal theory to determine whether and how the goal for social reform is feasible.