Cultural advice

The Australian National University acknowledges, celebrates and pays our respects to the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people of the Canberra region and to all First Nations Australians on whose traditional lands we meet and work, and whose cultures are among the oldest continuing cultures in human history.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are advised that ANU Library collections may include images, names, voices, and other representations of deceased persons.

Material in the collection may contain terms, language or views that reflect the period in which the item was created and may be considered inappropriate today.

The feasibility issue

dc.contributor.authorsouthwood, nicholas
dc.date.accessioned2019-04-01T01:22:34Z
dc.date.issued2018-05-29
dc.date.updated2019-03-12T07:19:54Z
dc.description.abstractIt is commonly taken for granted that questions of feasibility are highly relevant to our normative thinking—and perhaps especially our normative thinking about politics. But what exactly does this preoccupation with feasibility amount to, and in what forms if any is it warranted? This article aims to provide an opinionated introduction to, and clearer characterisation of, the feasibility issue. I begin by discussing the question of how feasibility is to be understood. I then turn to the question of feasibility's role, suggesting that there are two quite different kinds of role questions that may be at play, though they are often run together: a question about feasibility's normative significance; and a question about its proper use in informing our normative thinking. Finally, I consider how the feasibility issue differs from certain other related issues: the demandingness issue; the issue of whether “ought” implies “can”; and the “ideal versus non-ideal theory” issue.en_AU
dc.description.sponsorshipResearch for the article was supported by an Australian Research Council‐funded Future Fellowship (FT160100409).en_AU
dc.format.extent13 pagesen_AU
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdfen_AU
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1885/158119
dc.language.isoen_AUen_AU
dc.provenancehttp://sherpa.mimas.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1747-9991/ Author can archive pre-print (ie pre-refereeing). Author can archive post-print (ie final draft post-refereeing) with 2 years embargo (Sherpa/Romeo as of 1/4/2019)en_AU
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwellen_AU
dc.relationhttp://purl.org/au-research/grants/arc/FT160100409en_AU
dc.rights© 2018 John Wiley & Sons Ltden_AU
dc.sourcePhilosophy Compassen_AU
dc.subjectfeasibilityen_AU
dc.subjectissueen_AU
dc.subjectdemandingnessen_AU
dc.titleThe feasibility issueen_AU
dc.typeJournal articleen_AU
dcterms.accessRightsOpen Access
local.bibliographicCitation.issue8en_AU
local.bibliographicCitation.startpagee12509en_AU
local.contributor.affiliationSouthwood, Nicholas, College of Arts and Social Sciences, The Australian National Universityen_AU
local.contributor.authoruidSouthwood, Nicholas, u4036392en_AU
local.description.notesImported from ARIESen_AU
local.identifier.absfor220319 - Social Philosophyen_AU
local.identifier.absseo970122 - Expanding Knowledge in Philosophy and Religious Studiesen_AU
local.identifier.ariespublicationa383154xPUB10542en_AU
local.identifier.citationvolume13en_AU
local.identifier.doi10.1111/phc3.12509en_AU
local.identifier.essn1747-9991en_AU
local.identifier.scopusID2-s2.0-85047666392
local.publisher.urlhttps://www.wiley.com/en-gben_AU
local.type.statusAccepted Versionen_AU

Downloads

Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Loading...
Thumbnail Image
Name:
18-4-24 The feasibility issue_For Philpapers.pdf
Size:
225.01 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format