2023/10/16 by ALEXANDER S. KIRSHNER, Jeff Spinner‐Halev · 1 voice
Arts and Humanities · Social Sciences · #Global Peace and Security Dynamics #Political Philosophy and Ethics #War, Ethics, and Justification
paper · pdf · doi:10.1017/s0003055423000898
openalex publication_date 2023/10/16 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/06/06
Political philosophers and theorists make arguments about high-stakes problems. This article shows that those theories would be more credible if political philosophers ensured their work was robust: capable of withstanding reasonable changes to their assumptions and to the cases to which their arguments apply. The world is varied and inconstant. As a result, scientists and social scientists recognize the virtue of robustness. This article shows why political philosophers should also do so. It defines robustness, demonstrates its value, and shows how it can be evaluated. Illustrating the stakes of robustness, the article assesses prominent arguments concerning multiculturalism and open borders. Avoiding misunderstanding and confusion should be a central aim of political philosophy. To sidestep these outcomes and to reassure scholars that one’s theory is not subject to concerns about its credibility, it will often be reasonable for philosophers to explicitly test their theories for robustness.