Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Normative political theorists frequently compare hypothetical scenarios for the purpose of identifying reasons to prefer one kind of institution to alternatives. We examine three types of “unfair” comparisons and the reasoning errors associated with each. A theorist makes an obscure comparison when one (or more) of the alternatives under consideration is underspecified; a theorist makes a mismatched comparison when they fail to hold fixed the relevant contextual factors while comparing alternatives; and a theorist makes an irrelevant comparison when they compare alternatives assuming contextual factors that differ in important respects from those they “should” assume given their theoretical aims. We then introduce the notion of a modeling mindset and show how this mindset can help theorists detect and avoid the three types of error. We conclude with a reconstruction of Cohen's camping trip thought experiment to illustrate the approach.
Ingham et al. (Tue,) studied this question.