David Estlund's guest appearances

David Estlund

New Books in Political Science

New Books in Philosophy

New Books Network

Princeton UP Ideas Podcast

Elizabeth Anderson

Jason Stanley

Seana Shiffrin

Phillipa Chong

Jason Brennan

Corey Brettschneider

Jamie Kelly

Helene Landemore

Douglas Kriner

Eric Schickler

Kei Hiruta

Carlos Fraenkel

Lily Geismer

Andrew Rudalevige

Serena Parekh

OwlTail

It is tempting to hold that any proposed principle of social justice is defective if it demands too much of people, given their proclivities.  A stronger view, one that many philosophers find attractive, has it that there is something about the concept of justice that makes it the kind of...

David Estlund, “Utopophobia: On the Limits (If Any) of Political Philosophy” (Princeton UP, 2020)

It is tempting to hold that any proposed principle of social justice is defective if it demands too much of people, given their proclivities. A stronger view, one that many philosophers find attractive, has it that there is something about the concept of justice that makes it the kind of thing that must be kept “down to earth,” and within our reach. A range of conceptual and methodological issues quickly emerge once we begin wondering whether this kind of deference to the realistic and feasible is warranted. The series of contemporary disputes characterized as the “ideal/non-ideal theory debate” fit this mold.In his new book, Utopophobia: On the Limits (If Any) of Political Philosophy (Princeton University Press, 2020), David Estlund explores the question of whether proposed principles of justice are defective strictly in virtue of being unrealistic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSupport our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/philosophy

It is tempting to hold that any proposed principle of social justice is defective if it demands too much of people, given their proclivities. A stronger view, one that many philosophers find attractive, has it that there is something about the concept of justice that makes it the kind of thing that must be kept “down to earth,” and within our reach. A range of conceptual and methodological issues quickly emerge once we begin wondering whether this kind of deference to the realistic and feasible is warranted. The series of contemporary disputes characterized as the “ideal/non-ideal theory debate” fit this mold.In his new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691147167/?tag=newbooinhis-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Utopophobia: On the Limits (If Any) of Political Philosoph</a>y (Princeton University Press, 2020), <a href="https://www.brown.edu/academics/philosophy/david-estlund" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">David Estlund</a> explores the question of whether proposed principles of justice are defective strictly in virtue of being unrealistic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://megaphone.fm/adchoices" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">megaphone.fm/adchoices</a>Support our show by becoming a premium member! <a href="https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/philosophy" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/philosophy</a>

David Estlund, "Utopophobia: On the Limits (If Any) of Political Philosophy" (Princeton UP, 2020)

It is tempting to hold that any proposed principle of social justice is defective if it demands too much of people, given their proclivities. A stronger view, one that many philosophers find attractive, has it that there is something about the concept of justice that makes it the kind of thing that must be kept “down to earth,” and within our reach. A range of conceptual and methodological issues quickly emerge once we begin wondering whether this kind of deference to the realistic and feasible is warranted. The series of contemporary disputes characterized as the “ideal/non-ideal theory debate” fit this mold.In his new book, Utopophobia: On the Limits (If Any) of Political Philosophy (Princeton University Press, 2020), David Estlund explores the question of whether proposed principles of justice are defective strictly in virtue of being unrealistic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoicesSupport our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

It is tempting to hold that any proposed principle of social justice is defective if it demands too much of people, given their proclivities. A stronger view, one that many philosophers find attractive, has it that there is something about the concept of justice that makes it the kind of thing that must be kept “down to earth,” and within our reach. A range of conceptual and methodological issues quickly emerge once we begin wondering whether this kind of deference to the realistic and feasible is warranted. The series of contemporary disputes characterized as the “ideal/non-ideal theory debate” fit this mold.In his new book, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691147167/?tag=newbooinhis-20" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Utopophobia: On the Limits (If Any) of Political Philosoph</a>y (Princeton University Press, 2020), <a href="https://www.brown.edu/academics/philosophy/david-estlund" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">David Estlund</a> explores the question of whether proposed principles of justice are defective strictly in virtue of being unrealistic. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit <a href="https://megaphone.fm/adchoices" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">megaphone.fm/adchoices</a>Support our show by becoming a premium member! <a href="https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science</a>