Why Feasibility Need Not and Should Not be Moralized

Abstract The literature on feasibility in political philosophy has been dominated by non-moralized accounts, but also moralized variants have been defended. Recently, however, it has been argued that unless reduced to mere possibility, also allegedly non-moralized accounts are in fact moralized, and therefore cannot do the theoretical work assigned to them. In this paper, we reject that conclusion. Whether moralization is understood in the commonsensical sense—according to which an instantiation of the concept itself provides a moral reason—or in the weaker sense of value-ladenness—according to which correct application depends on background evaluative judgments—the concept of feasibility does not collapse into moralization. The paper furthermore argues that feasibility should not be moralized, since doing so obscures the distinct role of feasibility in practical deliberation. A non-moralized concept of feasibility preserves the difference between what is infeasible and what is merely costly, demanding, or morally unattractive, and thereby retains its value as an analytical and practical tool in political philosophy.