Moral demands in nonideal theory

Abstract

The optimizing principle of beneficence, which requires agents to maximize overall well-being, is frequently dismissed as absurdly over-demanding. While standard critiques focusing on alienation or confinement often reduce to this intuitive objection, the conceptual foundations of over-demandingness itself lack the theoretical stability to serve as a definitive moral standard. The perceived absurdity of such demands arises primarily from the problem of partial compliance within nonideal theory. Under the optimizing principle, complying agents are unfairly required to increase their personal sacrifice to compensate for the non-compliance of others. A normative compliance condition rectifies this by stipulating that an agent’s required contribution should not exceed what would be expected of them under conditions of full compliance. This framework supports a collective principle of beneficence, which treats the promotion of well-being as a shared undertaking. By centering the distribution of responsibility rather than merely imposing arbitrary limits on personal cost, this approach provides a theoretically consistent explanation for the rejection of extreme utilitarian demands while maintaining a robust obligation to promote the good in an imperfect world. – AI-generated abstract.