Skip to main content

Brian Carey

Durham University, School of Government and International Affairs, Faculty Member

Followers

116

Following

95

Public Views

I work mainly on issues in contemporary political theory and moral philosophy, especially topics relating to ideal and non-ideal theory. I am also interested in issues relating to political feasibility, linguistic justice, public deliberation, and social epistemology.

I have held research and teaching posts at the University of Limerick, and Trinity College Dublin. I am currently an Assistant Professor in Political Theory at Durham University.

less

InterestsView All (20)

Uploads

Papers by Brian Carey

Perfecting the Art of the Possible: A Constraint-Based View of Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory

The aim of this thesis is to describe and defend ?The Constraint-Based View?, which is a particul... more The aim of this thesis is to describe and defend ?The Constraint-Based View?, which is a particular conception of the nature of, and relationship between, ideal and non-ideal theories of justice. Traditionally, ideal theory is characterised by the assumption of ?full compliance?, while non-ideal theory is characterised by the assumption of ?partial compliance?. In other words, ideal theories assume that those for whom the theory is meant to apply will be entirely willing and able to comply with the theory?s requirements, while non-ideal theories do not.In Chapter 1 of this thesis, I describe and assess this original conception as well as several alternative accounts of ideal and non-ideal theory, in order to offer a broad survey of the existing literature, and to identify the various ways that these conceptions fail to capture fully the relationship between ideal and non-ideal theory.In Chapter 2, I draw a distinction between two different approaches to theorising about justice. ?Ax...

The Language of Public Reason

Journal of Social Philosophy, 2020

Against the right to revoke citizenship

Citizenship Studies, 2018

The state's right to denationalise and deport certain citizens has been defended in public discou... more The state's right to denationalise and deport certain citizens has been defended in public discourse primarily on the grounds that it is a necessary and proportionate response to certain types of threats to national security. While political theorists have been highly critical of such justifications, less attention has been paid to a second line of defence that is sometimes invoked alongside appeals to national security. According to this view, certain types of behaviour constitute voluntary renunciation of a person's citizenship status, to which denationalisation and deportation is an appropriate response. If successful, this approach would avoid criticisms grounded in the apparent disproportionate, ineffective or inegalitarian nature of citizenship revocation. In this article, I examine (and ultimately reject) the idea that denationalisation and deportation can be an appropriate response to certain types of behaviour. I argue that acts of serious political violence do not amount to voluntary self-exclusion from the political community and that even if they did, denationalisation and deportation would not constitute a fitting response.

Justice for Jerks

Social Theory and Practice, 2016

Chapter 18. Justifying language policies in mobile societies

Advances in Interdisciplinary Language Policy, 2022

Public Reason-Honesty, Not Sincerity

Journal of Political Philosophy, 2017

Against The Right to Revoke Citizenship (Citizenship Studies)

Citizenship Studies, 2018

The state’s right to denationalise and deport certain citizens has been defended in public discou... more The state’s right to denationalise and deport certain citizens has been defended in public discourse primarily on the grounds that it is a necessary and proportionate response to certain types of threats to national security. While political theorists have been highly critical of such justifications, less attention has been paid to a second line of defence that is sometimes invoked alongside appeals to national security. According to this view, certain types of behaviour constitute voluntary renunciation of a person’s citizenship status, to which denationalisation and deportation is an appropriate response. If successful, this approach would avoid criticisms grounded in the apparent disproportionate, ineffective or inegalitarian nature of citizenship revocation. In this article, I examine (and ultimately reject) the idea that denationalisation and deportation can be an appropriate response to certain types of behaviour. I argue that acts of serious political violence do not amount to voluntary self-exclusion from the political community and that even if they did, denationalisation and deportation would not constitute a fitting response.

"Public Reason - Honesty, Not Sincerity" (Journal of Political Philosophy)

(Abstract. Full version available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopp.12119/abstr... more

"Children and the Limits of Paternalism" (Ethical Theory and Moral Practice)

In this article...I will argue that there are limits to how we may permissibly paternalize c... more In this article...I will argue that there are limits to how we may permissibly paternalize children. I begin in Section 1 by describing and endorsing Jonathan Quong’s account of paternalism, which defines paternalistic acts as acts that involve particular kinds of judgments that the paternalizer makes about the capacities of the paternalizee. In Section 2, I introduce a distinction between two kinds of paternalism: ‘compensatory’ paternalism, and ‘exploitative’ paternalism. In Section 3, I explain why compensatory paternalism is usually permissible in the case of children. In section 4, I argue that exploitative paternalism is often, if not always, impermissible even when directed toward children.

"The Preference Satisfaction Model of Linguistic Advantage" (Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy)

In this article, I argue that we should measure a person's linguistic advantage within a particul... more In this article, I argue that we should measure a person's linguistic advantage within a particular linguistic environment according to the extent to which his or her preferences about that environment are satisfied. I begin by outlining three criteria that a model of linguistic advantage should satisfy, if it is to serve as a plausible guide for theories of linguistic justice. I then describe a model that is capable of satisfying these criteria – the Preference Satisfaction Model (PSM) - and defend it from several potential objections. Finally, I consider some practical implications of the PSM, and describe how the model should be modified in cases where there are insufficient resources for it to be fully implemented.

"Justice for Jerks: Human Nature, Selfishness, and Noncompliance" (Social Theory and Practice)

Recent debates about the relationship between ideal and non-ideal theory have begun to focus on e... more Recent debates about the relationship between ideal and non-ideal theory have begun to focus on exploring the concept of political feasibility and the role that feasibility considerations should play in a theory of justice.

In this paper I argue that if there are facts which constrain what is feasible for human beings to motivate themselves to do, that these facts ought to be understood as constraints on what justice can demand of us. In the first part of this paper, I explain why our feasibility considerations must be sensitive to facts about motivational capacities. In the second part of this paper I argue that taking motivational constraints seriously need not commit us to an overly-concessive theory of justice.

"Towards a 'Non‐Ideal' Non‐Ideal Theory" (Journal of Applied Philosophy)

This article explores the role that considerations about the feasibility of a political proposal ... more This article explores the role that considerations about the feasibility of a political proposal should play at the levels of both ideal and non-ideal theory. Drawing on recent work in the literature on political feasibility, I begin by describing a ‘constraint-based’ view of ideal and non-ideal theory, with feasibility considerations serving different functions depending on whether they are operating at the ideal or non-ideal level. Taking feasibility seriously at either level presents us with at least two important challenges. Firstly, we need principles which enable us to weigh the value of a proposal's feasibility against its other normatively significant properties, and against those of alternative proposals. Secondly, we need the capacity to gauge the nature of the epistemic constraints which apply to our feasibility assessments themselves. In response to these problems, I propose a ‘narrowing-down’ approach, focused on developing our capacities to make accurate and reliable judgements about the feasibility of political proposals.

"Permissible Piracy?" ("Digital Ethics - Research and Practice")

This paper cannot be uploaded to this website for copyright reasons (which is kind of ironic...).... more

Perfecting the Art of the Possible: A Constraint-Based View of Ideal and Non-Ideal Theory

The aim of this thesis is to describe and defend ?The Constraint-Based View?, which is a particul... more The aim of this thesis is to describe and defend ?The Constraint-Based View?, which is a particular conception of the nature of, and relationship between, ideal and non-ideal theories of justice. Traditionally, ideal theory is characterised by the assumption of ?full compliance?, while non-ideal theory is characterised by the assumption of ?partial compliance?. In other words, ideal theories assume that those for whom the theory is meant to apply will be entirely willing and able to comply with the theory?s requirements, while non-ideal theories do not.In Chapter 1 of this thesis, I describe and assess this original conception as well as several alternative accounts of ideal and non-ideal theory, in order to offer a broad survey of the existing literature, and to identify the various ways that these conceptions fail to capture fully the relationship between ideal and non-ideal theory.In Chapter 2, I draw a distinction between two different approaches to theorising about justice. ?Ax...

The Language of Public Reason

Journal of Social Philosophy, 2020

Against the right to revoke citizenship

Citizenship Studies, 2018

The state's right to denationalise and deport certain citizens has been defended in public discou... more The state's right to denationalise and deport certain citizens has been defended in public discourse primarily on the grounds that it is a necessary and proportionate response to certain types of threats to national security. While political theorists have been highly critical of such justifications, less attention has been paid to a second line of defence that is sometimes invoked alongside appeals to national security. According to this view, certain types of behaviour constitute voluntary renunciation of a person's citizenship status, to which denationalisation and deportation is an appropriate response. If successful, this approach would avoid criticisms grounded in the apparent disproportionate, ineffective or inegalitarian nature of citizenship revocation. In this article, I examine (and ultimately reject) the idea that denationalisation and deportation can be an appropriate response to certain types of behaviour. I argue that acts of serious political violence do not amount to voluntary self-exclusion from the political community and that even if they did, denationalisation and deportation would not constitute a fitting response.

Justice for Jerks

Social Theory and Practice, 2016

Chapter 18. Justifying language policies in mobile societies

Advances in Interdisciplinary Language Policy, 2022

Public Reason-Honesty, Not Sincerity

Journal of Political Philosophy, 2017

Against The Right to Revoke Citizenship (Citizenship Studies)

Citizenship Studies, 2018

The state’s right to denationalise and deport certain citizens has been defended in public discou... more The state’s right to denationalise and deport certain citizens has been defended in public discourse primarily on the grounds that it is a necessary and proportionate response to certain types of threats to national security. While political theorists have been highly critical of such justifications, less attention has been paid to a second line of defence that is sometimes invoked alongside appeals to national security. According to this view, certain types of behaviour constitute voluntary renunciation of a person’s citizenship status, to which denationalisation and deportation is an appropriate response. If successful, this approach would avoid criticisms grounded in the apparent disproportionate, ineffective or inegalitarian nature of citizenship revocation. In this article, I examine (and ultimately reject) the idea that denationalisation and deportation can be an appropriate response to certain types of behaviour. I argue that acts of serious political violence do not amount to voluntary self-exclusion from the political community and that even if they did, denationalisation and deportation would not constitute a fitting response.

"Public Reason - Honesty, Not Sincerity" (Journal of Political Philosophy)

(Abstract. Full version available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jopp.12119/abstr... more

"Children and the Limits of Paternalism" (Ethical Theory and Moral Practice)

In this article...I will argue that there are limits to how we may permissibly paternalize c... more In this article...I will argue that there are limits to how we may permissibly paternalize children. I begin in Section 1 by describing and endorsing Jonathan Quong’s account of paternalism, which defines paternalistic acts as acts that involve particular kinds of judgments that the paternalizer makes about the capacities of the paternalizee. In Section 2, I introduce a distinction between two kinds of paternalism: ‘compensatory’ paternalism, and ‘exploitative’ paternalism. In Section 3, I explain why compensatory paternalism is usually permissible in the case of children. In section 4, I argue that exploitative paternalism is often, if not always, impermissible even when directed toward children.

"The Preference Satisfaction Model of Linguistic Advantage" (Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy)

In this article, I argue that we should measure a person's linguistic advantage within a particul... more In this article, I argue that we should measure a person's linguistic advantage within a particular linguistic environment according to the extent to which his or her preferences about that environment are satisfied. I begin by outlining three criteria that a model of linguistic advantage should satisfy, if it is to serve as a plausible guide for theories of linguistic justice. I then describe a model that is capable of satisfying these criteria – the Preference Satisfaction Model (PSM) - and defend it from several potential objections. Finally, I consider some practical implications of the PSM, and describe how the model should be modified in cases where there are insufficient resources for it to be fully implemented.

"Justice for Jerks: Human Nature, Selfishness, and Noncompliance" (Social Theory and Practice)

Recent debates about the relationship between ideal and non-ideal theory have begun to focus on e... more Recent debates about the relationship between ideal and non-ideal theory have begun to focus on exploring the concept of political feasibility and the role that feasibility considerations should play in a theory of justice.

In this paper I argue that if there are facts which constrain what is feasible for human beings to motivate themselves to do, that these facts ought to be understood as constraints on what justice can demand of us. In the first part of this paper, I explain why our feasibility considerations must be sensitive to facts about motivational capacities. In the second part of this paper I argue that taking motivational constraints seriously need not commit us to an overly-concessive theory of justice.

"Towards a 'Non‐Ideal' Non‐Ideal Theory" (Journal of Applied Philosophy)

This article explores the role that considerations about the feasibility of a political proposal ... more This article explores the role that considerations about the feasibility of a political proposal should play at the levels of both ideal and non-ideal theory. Drawing on recent work in the literature on political feasibility, I begin by describing a ‘constraint-based’ view of ideal and non-ideal theory, with feasibility considerations serving different functions depending on whether they are operating at the ideal or non-ideal level. Taking feasibility seriously at either level presents us with at least two important challenges. Firstly, we need principles which enable us to weigh the value of a proposal's feasibility against its other normatively significant properties, and against those of alternative proposals. Secondly, we need the capacity to gauge the nature of the epistemic constraints which apply to our feasibility assessments themselves. In response to these problems, I propose a ‘narrowing-down’ approach, focused on developing our capacities to make accurate and reliable judgements about the feasibility of political proposals.

"Permissible Piracy?" ("Digital Ethics - Research and Practice")

This paper cannot be uploaded to this website for copyright reasons (which is kind of ironic...).... more