当前位置: X-MOL 学术European Journal of Philosophy › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Infeasibility as a normative argument-stopper: The case of open borders
European Journal of Philosophy Pub Date : 2020-12-28 , DOI: 10.1111/ejop.12619
Nicholas Southwood 1 , Robert E. Goodin 1
Affiliation  

The open borders view is frequently dismissed for making infeasible demands. This is a potent strategy. Unlike normative arguments regarding open borders, which tend to be relatively intractable, the charge of infeasibility is supposed to operate as what we call a “normative argument-stopper.” Nonetheless, we argue that the strategy fails. Bringing about open borders is perfectly feasible on the most plausible account of feasibility. We consider and reject what we take to be the only three credible ways to save the charge of infeasibility: by proposing an alternative account of feasibility; by proposing an alternative, more circumscribed interpretation of the subject-matter of feasibility claims; and by proposing a more expansive account of the addressees of the demand for open borders. The first fails to vindicate the claim that infeasibility is a normative argument-stopper. The second does not provide an argument against open borders at all. The third underestimates the power of at least some non-state actors. We conclude by drawing some lessons for the open borders view and the use of feasibility in politics more generally.

中文翻译:

作为规范性论点的不可行性:开放边界的情况

开放边界的观点经常因提出不可行的要求而被驳回。这是一个强有力的策略。与相对难以处理的关于开放边界的规范性论点不同,不可行的指控应该作为我们所说的“规范性论点停止者”来运作。尽管如此,我们认为该策略失败了。从最合理的可行性角度来看,实现开放边界是完全可行的。我们考虑并拒绝我们认为唯一的三种可信的方法来避免不可行的指控:提出可行性的替代说明;通过对可行性声明的主题提出一种替代的、更受限制的解释;并提出对开放边界需求的对象进行更广泛的说明。第一个未能证明不可行性是规范性论点的说法是正确的。第二个根本没有提供反对开放边界的论据。第三个低估了至少一些非国家行为者的力量。我们总结了一些关于开放边界观点和更普遍地在政治中使用可行性的经验教训。
更新日期:2020-12-28
down
wechat
bug