PO301 Issues in Political Theory

Module Handbook 2009-10

Module Director: Ed Page

Contents of this handbook1. Contact Details2. Introduction 3. Aims 4. Objectives 5. Module Arrangements 6. Assessment7. Term Essays 8. Lecture Programme 9. Reading Lists by Topic

1. Contact Details

Ed Pagee.a.page@warwick.ac.ukOffice: B1.09, Tel. (02476) 523112Office Hours: 15.00-16.00 Mondays & 15.00-16.00 Tuesdayshttp://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/staff/Page/

Andrew WaltonAndrew.j.walton@warwick.ac.ukOffice: B1.15 Tel. (02476) 550496Office Hour: 17.00-18.00 Tuesdays http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/phd/students/walton/

2. Introduction

The study of politics has included not just the study of how the political world operates, but also the study of how it ought to operate. This module examines a set of issues that have received considerable attention within recent normative political theory. The module is divided into five parts: (1) Conceptions of Justice after Rawls (including those of Rawls, Nozick, Dworkin and G. A. Cohen), (2) Justice and the Welfare State (which considers issues concerning education, stakeholding, and health care), (3) Dealing with Diversity (which considers liberal, multicultural, democratic and feminist responses to pluralism), (4) Justice at the Margins (which introduces questions about concerning justice and the treatment of environment and non-human animals and the issue of abortion), and (5) Non-Ideal Justice (which focuses on justice and war, and punishment).

3. Aims

The aims of this module are: To foster a detailed critical understanding of a range of arguments central to

contemporary analytical political philosophy. To foster the ability to analyse and assess opposing arguments in political

philosophy. To foster appreciation of the relevance of arguments in political philosophy to

contemporary political and social issues and the ability to apply arguments in political philosophy to a range of such issues.

4. Objectives

By the end of the module, you should be able to:

Comprehend and critically analyse complex arguments from the literature of contemporary political philosophy.

Provide an account of your considered judgements about the issues discussed, taking account of a variety opposing arguments and perspectives.

Construct your own sustained argument about major political values, and defend it against sceptics, using arguments from other disciplines where appropriate.

1

5. Module Arrangements

5.1. Timetable

The module will be taught by one lecture and one seminar each week. Lectures will take place on Thursdays, 12:00 to 1:00 pm in H0.51. A draft of the seminar groups will be distributed during the first lecture (Week One).

Week 6 of the Autumn and Spring terms are Reading Weeks throughout the Department, so there will be no lectures and no seminars.

5.2. Module requirements

Attendance at seminars and submission of required module work by the set date are module requirements. If you are unable to attend a seminar, you are expected to inform your seminar tutor of the reason for your absence before the seminar or, if this is not feasible, as soon as possible afterwards. Remember that your personal tutor is available if you wish to discuss any personal or health problems. You have an obligation to tell your personal tutor about any reasons for not fulfilling the requirements of this module. Your seminar tutor will report any unexplained absences, as explained in the PAIS Student Handbook.

Students should also bear in mind University Regulation 13: “…failure to attend prescribed classes or to complete prescribed coursework may result in a student being required to submit additional assessed work, or to sit an additional written examination, or in the student being required to withdraw from his/her course of study.” (Regulation 13.1 Section 1)

5.3. Feedback

We value your opinion about our teaching and seek to review our modules in order to improve them. There is a formal process of evaluation that will take place towards the end of Term 2. Details are included in your Student Handbook. But please don’t feel that you have to wait until then to express your views. Contact Matthew Clayton or Andrew Walton by e-mail or in person if anything goes wrong in the delivery of the module, or if you have questions or suggestions about its organisation.

5.4. Learning Methods

Lectures are meant to provide students with an overview of the various topics covered in the module, and the material presented in them is by no means to be considered exhaustive. Students are expected to do considerable additional reading for lectures and especially for seminars. Seminars are an extremely important part of the module, and their value depends on students’ active participation in the discussion. This may involve group work and oral or written presentations to the rest of the class. Discussions in, and preparations for, seminars are essential for understanding of the material in the lectures, and for extending this material.

2

6. Assessment

The formal assessment—the process which determines your mark for this module and which feeds into your degree result—can take place by three routes between which you may choose:

One three-hour, four-question examination. One one-and-a-half hour, two question examination, plus one 5000 word

assessed essay. Two 5000-word assessed essays.

NB1. Please consult the Undergraduate Handbook for details concerning new arrangements with respect to Online Module Registration and choice of assessment pattern.

NB2. There is a University rule which limits the overall amount of assessed work to 50% of the degree. Substitution of assessed essays (including, where applicable, a dissertation) for examinations may not exceed the equivalent of four modules spread over all second and third/final year modules. This rule is quite clear, but if you are unsure how it might apply to you, please consult your personal tutor.

NB3. This document covers students who are taking Issues in Political Theory for the whole year. There are separate arrangements for Part-Year Students that are detailed in a separate document available from the Undergraduate Office. Please consult your seminar tutor if you are in doubt about the requirements for this module.

6.1 Assessed Essays

6.1.1 Choice of title

For the assessed essay, you can either choose a title from the Pre-Approved Assessed Essay Title list below, or alternatively you can negotiate your own title. If you negotiate a title with your tutor you must submit a title form to the office by the Negotiated Title Deadline listed in the PAIS Undergraduate Handbook 2008/2009.

If you decide to negotiate your own title, you must liaise with your seminar tutor to finalise the precise wording of the essay title. You must then complete the essay submission form with the agreed title, and obtain the signature of the seminar tutor. Only your tutor in the module is permitted to sign the form for you. If you fail to obtain his signature, you will not be able to submit the title or the essay. Do not leave agreement of titles until the last minute. If you wish to submit a negotiated title, approach your tutor to make an appointment at least two weeks before the deadline.

Approval by your seminar tutor is not final approval. The titles will be considered by the Department and the External Examiner, and may be changed. A list of approved titles will be published on the PAIS notice board as soon as possible after the deadline. You must check and double-check this list to ensure that you use the approved title. If you do not check, and your title has been altered, you could end up receiving a mark of zero for your essay because you submitted an essay with the incorrect title.

3

NB. Assessed essays form one method of examination for the module, and do not substitute for non-assessed Term Essays. You may write an assessed essay on a topic you have covered in a Term Essay (although you may wish to discuss the pros and cons of this with your seminar tutor). But there should be no significant overlap between any assessed essays you submit for this or any other module, and no significant overlap between any assessed essay and any exam answer.

6.1.2 Assessed essay submission

PAIS now operates a process of electronic submission for assessed fork in year 3. Full instructions are available at: http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/currentstudents/esubmission

6.1.3 Assessed essay plan

Once your assessed essay title has been decided you are entitled to have your seminar tutor read and discuss with you a plan of up 500 words, in which you outline the central theme of the essay, itemise its structure and the material you will use in support of your argument. Seminar tutors will inform you of the deadline for the submission of assessed essay plans. After the meeting to discuss the plan, there can be no further contact about the substance of your assessed essay.

6.1.4 Deadline for submission of assessed essays

Two paper copies of the essay, an electronic copy of the essay, and the two submission forms for each essay must be submitted to the PAIS Undergraduate Office by the deadline indicated in the PAIS Undergraduate Handbook.

6.1.6 Extensions of deadlines for submission of assessed essays

It is important that you allow plenty of time to complete your essays. An extension of the deadline may be allowed in cases of illness and on production of a medical note that indicates that during the period of illness the candidate was unable to work on his/her essay(s). The failure of personal computers, software or floppy disks are not normally grounds for an extension. Extensions of deadlines may be granted only by the Director of Undergraduate Studies (Dr S. Kettell, room B1.11) or, in his absence, the Chair of PAIS (Prof. Ben Rosamond) Extensions cannot, under any circumstances, be given by module tutors.

6.1.7 Penalties for the late submission of assessed essays

According to University rules, late submission of an assessed essay will, unless an extension has been granted in advance of the deadline, result in the following penalty deduction: 5 marks per day, including weekend days (with no upper limit).

6.1.8 Presentation of essays

In addition to clear and precise referencing (see the Undergraduate Handbook on how to reference essays), please ensure that you: Use size 12 font

4

Add page numbering Reference all your sources (An abstract is not required on assessed essays.)

6.1.9 Word limits

The limit for assessed essays in years 3 is 5,000 words with no lower limit. Students breaching the 5,000 word limit will incur penalties as set out in the undergraduate handbook. Footnotes, references, bibliographies do not count towards the word limit.

6.1.10 Return of assessed work

Assessed essays WILL NOT be returned to students as they are covered by the same rules as examination scripts. If copies are needed, they should be made before the essays are submitted.

6.1.11 Plagiarism and Cheating

There are severe penalties for cheating of any kind in all forms of University test. Plagiarism is a form of cheating, as it attempts to acquire a benefit from the work of others unfairly. The Department’s policy on Plagiarism is fully explained in the PAIS Undergraduate Handbook 2008/2009, available both in hard copy and on the PAIS website. The handbook explains how the University’s published regulation may be accessed on the web.

6.2 Pre-Approved Assessed Essay Titles

A critical assessment of Rawls’s Difference Principle.

On the relationship between liberty and self-ownership.

An evaluation of Dworkin’s conception of Equality of Resources.

Luck egalitarianism and its critics.

The idea of an egalitarian ethos.

Egalitarianism and the levelling down objection.

A critical assessment of Van Parijs’s defence of unconditional basic income.

On Adam Swift’s theory of educational justice

A critical evaluation of Norman Daniels’s conception of justice in the distribution of health care.

An inquiry into the legitimacy of religious and cultural exemptions.

An examination of whether democracy is intrinsically just.

5

The value of democracy

A critical discussion of Susan Möller-Okin’s theory of liberal feminism

An evaluation of Ronald Dworkin’s account of the political morality of abortion.

Abortion, women’s rights, and foetal rights.

A critical evaluation of Peter Singer’s theory of animal welfarism

On the limits of our duties to future generations.

A critical assessment of retributivist conceptions of punishment.

On the relationship between principles of jus ad bellum and jus in bello.

7. Term Essays (which do not count towards the assessment of the module)

7.1 Compulsory non-assessed work

In the Autumn Term, you must write a non-assessed essay by a date to be set by your seminar tutor. The compulsory non-assessed essay should be chosen from List A.

The Department has issued the following policy statement on non-assessed work:Failure to submit essays by the dates prescribed by the seminar tutor will be officially recorded in student files and may be taken into account by examination boards. Students should also bear in mind the following regulation: “failure to attend prescribed classes or to complete prescribed coursework may result in a student being required to submit additional assessed work, or to sit an additional written examination, or in the student being required to withdraw from his/her course of study.” (Regulation 13.1 Section 1)

7.2 Optional non-assessed work

In the Spring Term, you may, but are not required to, write a second non-assessed essay on which your seminar tutor will offer you written feedback. Deadlines for submission will be announced by your seminar tutor.

7.3 Essay requirements

The essays should be no more than 1500 words long, must be based on a range of sources, and must include full references for any passages cited or views attributed, as well as a bibliography. They should be word-processed.

In the treatment of your chosen topic, you should strive to present your thoughts by means of a coherent and sustained argument, backed by textual evidence whenever appropriate. Note, however, that seminar tutors are obviously not expecting you to pronounce the final word on the issues you are dealing with.

6

When writing an essay you should bear in mind the following points. (See the Undergraduate Handbook for further guidance on writing essays.)

a. Argue a case in response to the questionAn essay is often better to the extent that it argues for a particular conclusion, explicitly setting out the argument for the position adopted. You should avoid writing that merely surveys the positions concerning the issue without defending a particular conclusion. In addition, you should ensure that the essay answers the particular question that is addressed. In some cases, the question may include certain technical terms, e.g. the ‘original position’, and these will need to be defined or discussed.

In making the argument you will no doubt refer to the work of various political philosophers and their critics. In doing so, it is desirable to expound and assess the view offered. How convincing are the arguments for or against it? Are there any relevant distinctions that the author ignores? Are the inferences valid and the premises of the argument sound? Note, however, that many of the thinkers you are writing about are very bright and have developed their views over a considerable period of time in the light of the views of, and criticism from, other bright philosophers. Thus, if you find yourself attributing to them views that seem absurd or incoherent, assume that you have misinterpreted them (unless there is ample evidence that you have not).

Usually, essays are better if you take a stand on the issue yourself and argue for it as convincingly as possible. If this is not possible, because you are undecided on the issue, you should argue why neither side of the case is wholly convincing.

b. StructureAn essay should be clearly structured. It should include an opening section, in which the key terms are defined and, perhaps, the main features of the essay are sign-posted; a middle section, in which the arguments are developed, making the necessary distinctions, responding to possible objections, and criticising other positions; and a final section in which the original question is re-addressed and conclusions offered.

c. Knowledge and styleIf certain empirical or historical information is relevant it should be accurately stated. In addition, you should describe the positions you examine accurately. In doing this, it is generally better to summarise the view in your own words, rather than to quote, because this reveals the extent to which you understand it. Thus, an essay should not consist merely of a series of quotations. If, however, something of importance does hang on the use of particular words then, by all means, quote and explain its significance. When summarising or quoting it is essential that you acknowledge and reference the source (see the Undergraduate Handbook for further information).

d. CommunicationExpress your ideas as clearly and sharply as possible. Always define any technical terminology. Essay writing requires thought about how best to communicate your ideas. It might be that the way in which you arrive at a view is not the way to present it in its most convincing manner. It can be worthwhile to ask someone to read a first draft and to write a final draft that remedies any obscurities or gaps in the argument, and takes into account any other comments of the reader.

7

7.4 Term essay lists

Please choose from the following lists:

List A (compulsory non-assessed essay—Term 1)

1. Are there any good reasons to think that correct principles of social justice would emerge from the Original Position?

2. ‘Nozick’s principle of transfer is just as implausible as his principle of acquisition.’ Discuss.

3. To what extent is it fair to say that Dworkin’s conception of equality of resources is attractive in theory but unconvincing when applied to practical issues?

4. ‘The personal is political.’ Evaluate this slogan with reference to the debate between Cohen and Rawlsians on the justice of inequality-generating incentive payments.

5. ‘How can inequality be unjust if it is bad for no one?’ Does this question defeat egalitarianism?

6. ‘Any kind of scheme involving unconditional monetary payments (whether in the form of income or capital grants) constitutes an injustice towards those who contribute to society.’ Discuss.

7. Under what conditions, if any, can the purchase of expensive private schooling for one’s child be justified?

8. Critically assess Daniels’s view that justice in the distribution of health care is best determined by reference to a conception of ‘normal species functioning’.

9. Should health care rationing give priority to the interests of the young?

List B (optional non-assessed essay—Term 2)

10. Can exemptions from generally applicable laws be justified on religious grounds?

11. What is the point of democracy?

12. Is the idea of an ‘ethic of care’ detrimental to feminism?

13. Does the resolution of the issue of abortion turn on the moral status of the foetus?

14. ‘All animals are equal’ (Singer). What does Singer mean by this? Is he right?

15. What, if anything, do we owe to future generations?

16. ‘The purpose of punishment is to educate the offender and society more generally. It follows that the death penalty is unjustifiable.’ Discuss.

17. What, if anything, is fair about Fair Trade?

18. Under what conditions, if any, is it morally justifiable to wage war?

8

8. Lecture Programme

Key for lecturers:

AW: Andrew Walton EP: Ed Page DM: Dean Machin

Autumn Term

Week 1 Introduction (EP)

Part 1: Conceptions of Justice after Rawls

Week 2 Liberal Justice: Rawls and ‘Justice as Fairness’ (EP)Week 3 Libertarian Justice: Nozick’s ‘Entitlement Theory’ (EP)Week 4 Liberal Equality: Dworkin and ‘Equality of Resources’ (EP)Week 5 Socialist Justice: Cohen’s Egalitarian Ethos (AW)Week 6 Reading Week (no lecture, no seminars)

Part 2: Justice and the Welfare State

Week 7 Equality, Priority, and Sufficiency (EP)Week 8 Stakeholding and Basic Income (AW)Week 9 Meritocracy and Education (EP)Week 10 Justice and Health Care (EP)

Spring Term

Part 3: The Politics of Inclusion

Week 11 Democratic Theory (DM)Week 12 Responses to Religious and Cultural Justice (EP)Week 13 Justice and Gender (EP)

Part 4: Justice Across Frontiers

Week 14 The Political Morality of Abortion (EP)Week 15 Justice Between Species (EP)Week 16 Reading week (no lecture, no seminars) Week 17 Environmental Justice (EP)

Part 5: Non-Ideal Justice: Fair-Trade, Punishment and War

Week 18 The Fair Trade Question (AW)Week 19 Punishment (EP)Week 20 Morality of Warfare (EP)

Summer term

Week 21 Revision Lecture (EP/AW)

9

10

9. Reading Lists by Topic

9.1. General

The reading lists are distinguished by the topics which we shall cover, but note that many of the issues and thinkers we discuss cannot be neatly compartmentalised. Consequently, you might think about how issues and positions discussed in one seminar might draw on, or have a bearing on, other issues.

For each topic there are a few questions which you should think about and some core reading. You are required to read these items as preparation for seminars. (See the module webpage for links to electronic versions of this material. If a core reading is not available for some reason you should consult librarians and then your module tutor.) The Core Reading is immediately followed by some suggestions for supplementary reading. It is recommended that you read some of these items. Note that the core reading relates specifically to the issues we shall discuss in seminars. For each topic there will be a range of questions and issues and we will be able to discuss only some of them in seminars. Consequently, you should think about the other questions and issues that attend the various topics and read material that is relevant to them.

Subject to legal and operational requirements, copies of all core readings are available either in the Library Short Loan Collection (SLC), Learning Grid or online. If a core reading is not available in this manner, you should consult the Subject Librarian and your module tutor.

9.2 Journals

There are many journals devoted to issues in political theory. The best three are Ethics, Journal of Political Philosophy and Philosophy and Public Affairs (henceforth ‘PPA’). All three are available electronically. It is well worth browsing through back issues.

9.3 General and introductory books on contemporary political philosophy:

Brighouse, H., Justice (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005).

Farrelly, C., An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory (London: Sage, 2003).

Hampton, J., Political Philosophy (Boulder: Westview Press, 1996).

Knowles, D., Political Philosophy (London: Routledge, 2001).

Kymlicka, W., Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction, 2dn ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). (henceforth ‘CPP’)—by far the best general survey.

Plant, R., Modern Political Thought (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).

Swift, A., Political Philosophy: A Beginners’ Guide for Students and Politicians (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2006)—good for a first orientation to the topics.

White, S. Equality (Cambridge: Polity, 2007)

11

Wolff, J., An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996/2006).

9.4 Edited collections/dictionaries

Clayton, M., & A. Williams (eds.), Social Justice (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004).

Drysek, J., B. Honig & A. Phillips (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Goodin, R., & P. Pettit (eds.), Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2006).

——— (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993).

Held, D. (ed.), Political Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1991).

Kymlicka, W., Justice in Political Philosophy (Aldershot: Elgar, 1992), 2 vols. (henceforth ‘JPP’).

LaFollette, H. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

McKinnon, C. (ed.), Issues in Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

McLean, I. & A. McMillan (eds.), The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Miller, D. et al (eds.), The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991).

Questions:

1. What are Rawls's Two Principles of Justice? How attractive are these principles as principles of social justice?

2. What is the Original Position? What role does it play in Rawls's defence of the Two Principles? Are the assumptions and constraints embodied in the Original Position plausible from the point of view of justice?

3. How plausible is Rawls’s argument for the claim that parties within the Original Position would choose the Two Principles?

Core reading:

Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, rev. edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), Part One. (The first edition, 1972, is fine if you can’t get hold of the revised

12

Liberal Justice: Rawls and ‘Justice as Fairness’.

edition.) Certain extracts are reproduced in 'A Theory of Justice' in T. Honderich & M. Burnyeat (eds.) Philosophy As It Is (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1979).

Kymlicka, W., CPP, 53-75.

Supplementary reading: general

Arneson, R., ‘Primary Goods Reconsidered’, Noûs, 24 (1990), 429–54.

Audard, C. John Rawls (London: Acumen, 2007), 79-174.

Barry, B., The Liberal Theory of Justice (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973).

—— Justice as Impartiality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), part one, esp. chs. 1 & 3.

Cohen, J., ‘Democratic Equality’, Ethics, 99 (1989), 727–51.

Daniels, N., (ed.), Reading Rawls (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1989).

—— ‘Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in Ethics’ Journal of Philosophy, 76 (1979), 256-82.

Freeman, S. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003). Look at the vast lists of suggested further reading, distinguished by topic, at the end of the book.

—— Rawls (London: Routledge, 2007), chs. 1-6.

Kukathas, C., & P. Pettit, Rawls (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1990).

Kymlicka, W. (ed.), JPP, vol. 1, part 3a.

Levine, A., Engaging Political Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002).

Okin, S., Justice, Gender and the Family (New York: Basic Books, 1989), ch. 5.

Pogge, T., Realizing Rawls (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1989).

—— John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007).

Rawls, J., Collected Papers, ed. Samuel Freeman (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1999).

—— Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, ed. Erin Kelly (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999).

Scanlon, T. M., ‘Rawls’s Theory of Justice’, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 121 (1973), 1029–69.

—— ‘The Diversity of Objections to Inequality’, in his The Difficulty of Tolerance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), or in Matthew Clayton and Andrew Williams (eds.), The Ideal of Equality.

Sen, A., ‘Justice: Freedom versus Means’, PPA, 19 (1990), 111–21.

Swift, A., & S. Mulhall, Liberals and Communitarians, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996), intro.

13

On the difference principle

(There are general discussions of the difference principle in most of the introductory books. The following constitute more detailed treatments. See also reading under the following three four weeks for further discussion of Rawls’s conception of socioeconomic justice.)

Barry, B., Theories of Justice, chs. 1.1, 6.

—— The Liberal Theory of Justice, chs. 9-11.

—— Justice as Impartiality, sec. 9.

Hare, R.M., ‘Rawls’ theory of justice’, in Daniels Reading Rawls.

Harsanyi, J., ‘Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality’, American Political Science Review, 69 (1975), 594-606.

Martin, R., ‘Economic Justice: Contractarianism and Rawls's Difference Principle’, in D. Boucher, D. & P. Kelly (eds.), The Social Contract from Hobbes to Rawls (London: Routledge, 1994).

Nagel, T., ‘Equality’, in his Mortal Questions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).

Parfit, D., ‘Equality or Priority?’, in Matthew Clayton and Andrew Williams (eds.), The Ideal of Equality.

Pogge, T., Realizing Rawls, ch. 4, sec. 17.

—— John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, 106-120.

Rawls, A Theory of Justice, secs. 1-5 (intro), 11-17 (the pareto argument), 20-29 (the rational choice argument), 47-49, 77, 80-81.

—— ‘Reply to Alexander and Musgrave’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 88 (1974), reprinted in Rawls’s Collected Papers (difficult).

Van Parijs, P., ‘Difference Principles’, in Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls.

Waldron, J., ‘John Rawls and the Social Minimum’, in his Liberal Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Questions:

1. Assess Nozick’s use of the case of Wilt Chamberlain to criticise egalitarian or socialist redistribution.

2. Are there any convincing arguments for the Nozick’s ‘principle of acquisition’?

14

Libertarian Justice: Nozick’s ‘Entitlement Theory’

3. Is Nozick’s theory of justice unfair to the poor?

Core reading:

Nozick, R., Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974), ch. 7, sec. I.

Cohen, G. A., Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), esp. chs. 1-4, 9-10.

Kymlicka, W., CPP, 102-27.

Supplementary reading:

Arneson, R., ‘Lockean Self-Ownership: Toward a Demolition’, Political Studies, 39 (1991), 36–54.

Cohen, G. A., Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995).

Freeman, S., ‘Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism is Not a Liberal View’, PPA, 30 (2001), 105–51.

Gorr, M., ‘Justice, Self-Ownership and Natural Assets’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 12 (1995), 267–91.

Kukathas & Pettit, Rawls (Cambridge: Polity, 1990), ch. 5.

Kymlicka, W., CPP, ch. 4.

—— JPP, vol. 1, part 4a.

Mack, E., ‘Self-Ownership, Marxism, and Egalitarianism’, pts. I and II, Politics, Philosophy and Economics, 1 (2002), 75-108 and 237–76.

Narveson, J., The Libertarian Idea (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1987).

Nozick, R., Anarchy, State and Utopia (Oxford: Blackwell, 1974).

Okin, S. M., Justice, Gender and the Family (New York: Basic Books, 1989). ch. 4.

Olsaretti, S., Liberty, Desert and the Market (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), chs. 4-5.

Otsuka, M., Libertarianism without Inequality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003).

—— ‘Self-Ownership and Equality: A Lockean Reconciliation’ PPA, 27 (1998), 65-92. (An earlier version of ch. 1 of the above.)

Paul, J. (ed.), Reading Nozick (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981).

Pogge, T., John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, 178-84.

—— Realizing Rawls (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989). ch. 1.

Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, reading on difference principle, and secs. 41-44.

—— ‘The Basic Structure as Subject’, in Political Liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993/1996).

Steiner, H., ‘Capitalism, Justice, and Equal Starts’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 5 (1987), 49–71.

15

—— An Essay on Rights (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994).

Vallentyne, P., and H. Steiner (eds.), Left-Libertarianism and its Critics: The Contemporary Debate (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2000).

Waldron, J., The Right to Private Property (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988), ch. 7.

Wolff, J., Robert Nozick (Cambridge: Polity, 1991).

Questions:

1. How attractive is Dworkin’s use of the ‘envy test’ and his ‘hypothetical insurance scheme’ to theorise distributive justice?

2. What is the relationship between equality and luck? How convincing is Anderson’s critique of ‘luck egalitarianism’.

Core reading:

Dworkin, R., ‘What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources’, PPA, 10 (1981), 185–243, esp. 283-314.

Kymlicka, W., CPP, 75-96.

Anderson, E., ‘What Is the Point of Equality?’, Ethics, 109 (1999), 287–337.

Supplementary reading:

Arneson, R., ‘Equality and Equal Opportunity for Welfare’, Philosophical Studies, 56 (1989), 77–93.

—— ‘Liberalism, Distributive Subjectivism, and Equal Opportunity for Welfare’, PPA, 19 (1990), 158–94.

—— ‘Equality of Opportunity for Welfare Defended and Recanted’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 7 (1999), 488–97.

Arnsperger, C., ‘Envy-Freeness and Distributive Justice’, Journal of Economic Surveys, 8 (1994), 155-186.

Burley, J. (ed.), Dworkin and His Critics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), esp. chs. by Otsuka, Arneson, Casal and Williams, and replies by Dworkin.

Clayton, M., ‘The Resources of Liberal Equality’, Imprints, 5 (2000), 63–82.

Clayton, M. & A. Williams, ‘Some Questions for Egalitarians’, in The Ideal of Equality (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000), 8-15.

16

Liberal Equality: Dworkin and ‘Equality of Resources’

—— ‘Egalitarian Justice and Interpersonal Comparison’, European Journal of Political Research, 35 (1999), 445-64

Cohen, G. A., ‘On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice’, Ethics 99 (1989), 906-44, esp. 906-34.

—— ‘Expensive Taste Rides Again’, in J. Burley (ed.), Dworkin and His Critics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004). This responds to Dworkin’s reply to Cohen’s earlier article (Sovereign Virtue, ch. 7). See also the reply by Dworkin.

Daniels, N., ‘Equality of What: Welfare, Resources or Capabilities?’, Philosophy and Phenomenolgical Research (1990, Supplement), reprinted in his Justice and Justification (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

Dworkin, R., ‘What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources’, PPA, 10 (1981), 185–243.

—— Sovereign Virtue (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), chs. 1-2, 7-9.

—— Is Democracy Possible Here? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006), Ch. 4.

Dworkin, R. et al., ‘Symposium on Ronald Dworkin’s Sovereign Virtue’, Ethics, 113 (2002), pp. 5–143.

Lippert-Rasmussen, K., ‘Egalitarianism, Option Luck, and Responsibility’, Ethics, 111 (2001), 548–79.

Matravers, M. ‘Responsibility, Luck, and the ‘Equality of What’ Debate’, Political Studies, 50 (2002), 558-72.

McLeod, C., Liberalism, Justice, and Markets (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

Nussbaum, M., Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2006), chs. 1-3.

Rakowski, E., Equal Justice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).

—— ‘Who Should Pay for Bad Genes?’, California Law Review, 90 (2002), 1345–1414.

Roemer, J., Egalitarian Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pt. II.

Sen, A., ‘Equality of What?’, Choice, Welfare and Measurement (Oxford, Blackwell, 1982), and S. McMurrin (ed.), Tanner Lectures on Human Values, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), and S. Darwall (ed.), Equal Freedom (Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1995).

—— Inequality Re-Examined (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992).

—— ‘Justice: Freedom versus Means’, PPA, 19 (1990), 111-21.

Vallentyne, P., ‘Brute Luck, Option Luck, and Equality of Initial Opportunities’, Ethics, 112 (2002), 529–57.

Williams, A., ‘Equality for the Ambitious’, Philosophical Quarterly, 52 (2002), 377–89.

17

—— ‘Resource Egalitarianism and the Limits to Basic Income’, Economics and Philosophy, 15 (1999), 85–107.

—— 'Equality, Ambition, and Insurance', Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume, 78 (2004), 131-50.

—— ‘Liberty, Equality, and Property’, in J. Dryzek et al (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory.

The Debate about ‘Luck Egalitarianism’

Arneson, R., ‘Egalitarian Justice versus the Right to Privacy’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 17 (2000), 91–119.

—— ‘Luck Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism’, Ethics, 110 (2000), 339–49.

—— ‘Why Justice Requires Transfers to Offset Income and Wealth Inequalities’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 19 (2002), 172–200.

Dworkin, Ronald, ‘Sovereign Virtue Revisited’, Ethics, 113 (2002), 113-17.

—— ‘Equality, Luck and Hierarchy’, PPA, 31 (2003), 190–8.

Fleurbaey, Marc, ‘Equal Opportunity or Equal Social Outcome?’, Economics and Philosophy, 11 (1995), 25–55.

Hinton, Timothy, ‘Must Egalitarians Choose Between Fairness and Respect?’, PPA, 30 (2001), 72–87.

Hurley, S., Justice, Luck and Knowledge (Harvard: Harvard University Press, 2003), chs. 5-7.

Scheffler, Samuel, ‘What is Egalitarianism?’, PPA, 31 (2003), 5–39.

—— ‘Equality as a Virtue of Sovereigns: A Reply to Ronald Dworkin’, PPA, 31 (2003), 199–206.

White, S., Equality, ch. 4.

Wolff, J., ‘Fairness, Respect, and the Egalitarian Ethos’, PPA, 27 (1998), 97–127.

Questions:

1. How convincing is Cohen’s argument for an ‘egalitarian ethos’ as a requirement of justice?

2. How might Rawlsians reply to Cohen’s critique of the incentive argument for inequality? How convincing are these replies?

18

Socialist Justice: Cohen’s Egalitarian Ethos

Core reading:

Cohen, G. A., ‘Incentives, Inequality and Community’, G. Petersen (ed.), The Tanner Lectures on Human Values, vol. 13 (Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1992), reprinted in S. Darwall (ed.) Equal Freedom (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1995). These lectures are available online at: http://www.tannerlectures.utah.edu/lectures/cohen92.pdf

—— ‘Where the Action Is: On the Site of Distributive Justice’, PPA, 26 (1997).

Supplementary reading:

Brighouse, H., Justice, ch. 8.

Carens, J., ‘Rights and Duties in an Egalitarian Society’, Political Theory, 14 (1986), 31-49.

—— Income Inequality, Moral Incentives, and the Market: An Essay in Utopian Politico-Economic Theory (Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services, 1999).

Cohen, G. A., ‘The Pareto Argument for Inequality’, in E. Paul et al (eds.), Contemporary Political and Social Philosophy.

—— If You’re an Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich? (Cambridge: MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), prospectus and chs. 8-10.

Cohen, J., ‘Taking People as They Are?’, PPA, 30 (2001), 363-86.

Crocker, L., ‘Equality, Solidarity and Rawls’s Maximin’, PPA, 6 (1977), 262-66.

DiQuattro, A., ‘Rawls and Left Criticism’, Political Theory, 11 (1983), 53-78.

Estlund, D., ‘Liberalism, Equality and Fraternity in Cohen’s Critique of Rawls’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 6 (1998), 99-112.

Hampton, J., Political Philosophy (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1997), ch. 4.

Julius, A. J., ‘Basic Structure and the Value of Equality’, PPA, 31 (2003), 321-55.

Kymlicka, W., CPP, ch. 5.

—— JPP, vol. 2, part 1a-1c.

—— Liberalism, Community and Culture (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), ch. 6.

Miller, R., ‘Rawls and Marxism’, in Daniels (ed.) Reading Rawls.

Nagel, T., ‘Cohen on Inequality’, in his Concealment and Exposure (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).

White, S., Equality, ch. 5.

Williams, A., ‘Incentives, Inequality, and Publicity’, PPA, 27 (1998), 225-247.

19

Equality, Priority, and Sufficiency

Questions:

1. Should we embrace strict equality, priority to the worse off, a principle of sufficiency, or none of the above?

2. Is there a convincing response to the levelling down objection to equality?

Core reading:

Parfit, D., ‘Equality and Priority’, in A. Mason (ed.), Ideals of Equality (Oxford: Blackwell, 1998).

Frankfurt, H., ‘Equality as a Moral Ideal’, Ethics, 98 (1987), 21-43, and The Importance of What We Care About (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

Temkin, L., ‘Equality Priority and the Levelling-Down Objection’, in M. Clayton & A. Williams (eds.) The Ideal of Equality (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000).

Supplementary reading:

Arneson, R. ‘Equality’, in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, eds. R.E. Goodin and P. Petit (Oxford, Blackwell, 1995), 489-507.

—— ‘Distributive Justice and Basic Capability Equality: “Good Enough” is not Good Enough’, in A. Kaufman (ed) Capabilities Equality: Basic Issues and Problems (London: Routledge, 2006), 17-43.

Brighouse, H. and Swift, A. ‘Equality, Priority and Positional Goods’, Ethics, 116 (2006), 471-97.

Brink, D., ‘The Separateness of Persons, Distributive Norms, and Moral Theory’, R. G. Frey and C. Morris (eds.), Value, Welfare, and Morality (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Casal, P. ‘Why Sufficiency is not Enough’, Ethics, 117 (2007), 296-326.

Clayton, M. and Williams, A., ‘Some Questions for Egalitarians’, in Clayton and Williams (eds.) The Ideal of Equality.

Cohen, J., ‘Democratic Equality’, Ethics 99 (1989), 727-51.

Copp, D. ‘Equality, Justice, and the Basic Needs’ in Necessary Goods: Our Responsibilities to meet Others’ Needs, ed. G. Brock (Oxford: Rowman and Littlefield, 1998), 113-133.

Crisp, R., ‘Egalitarianism and Compassion’, Ethics, 113 (2003), 119-26.

—— ‘Equality, Priority, and Compassion’, Ethics, 113 (2003), 745-63.

Frankfurt, H. ‘Equality and respect’, Social Research, 64, 3-12, 1987.

Glannon, W., ‘Equality, Priority and Numbers’, Social Theory and Practice (1995), 427-455

Holtug, N. & Lippert-Rasmussen, K. (eds.), Egalitarianism: New Essays on the Nature and Value of Equality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Kekes, J., ‘A Puzzle for Egalitarians’, Ethics, 107 (1997), 658-70.

20

McKerlie, D., ‘Equality and Priority’, Utilitas (1994), 25-42.

Marmor, A. ‘Intrinsic Value of Economic Equality’, in Rights, Culture and the Law: Themes from the Legal and Political Philosophy of Joseph Raz, eds. L. Meyer, S.L. Paulson, and T.W. Pogge (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 127-41.

Mason, A., Levelling the Playing Field: The Idea of Equal Opportunity and its Place in Egalitarian Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), ch. 5.

Nagel, T., Equality and Partiality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991).

—— ‘Equality’ in his Mortal Questions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979). Reprinted in Clayton and Williams (eds.), The Ideal of Equality.

Page, E.A., ‘Justice Between Generations: Investigating a Sufficientarian Approach’, Journal of Global Ethics, 3 (2007), 2-20.

Parfit, D., 'Equality or Priority?' in M. Clayton & A. Williams (eds.) The Ideal of Equality.

Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971), secs. 11–13.

—— A Theory of Justice, (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971), secs. 29 and 49.

Raz, J., The Morality of Freedom (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986) ch. 9.

Reibetanz, S., ‘Contractualism and Aggregation’, Ethics (1998), 296-311.

Rosenberg, A., ‘Equality, Sufficiency, and Opportunity in the Just Society’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 12 (1995), 54-71.

Scanlon, T. M., What We Owe to Each Other (Cambridge, Mass. Harvard Univeristy Press), ch. 5.

Temkin, L., ‘Egalitarianism Defended’, Ethics, 114 (2003), 764-82

—— ‘Equality, Priority or What?’, Economics and Philosophy, 19 (2003), 61-87.

Waldron, J., ‘John Rawls and the Social Minimum’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 1986, 21-33. Reprinted in his Liberal Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Questions:

1. Is there a compelling argument from justice for either unconditional basic income (UBI) or unconditional basic capital (UBC)?

2. How plausible are criticisms of UBI or UBC which appeal to ideals of reciprocity or non-exploitation?

21

Stakeholding and Basic Income

Core reading:

Van Parijs, P. ‘Basic Income: A Simple and Powerful Idea for the Twenty-First Century’, Politics and Society 32 (2004), 7-39, reprinted in E. O. Wright (ed.), Redesigning Distribution: Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Cornerstones for an Egalitarian Capitalism (London: Verso, 2006).

Ackerman, B., & A. Alstott, ‘Why Stakeholding?’, Politics and Society, 32 (2004), 41-60, reprinted in Ackerman and Wright (eds.) Redesigning Distribution.

White, S., ‘Liberal Equality, Exploitation, and the Case for an Unconditional Basic Income’, Political Studies, 45 (1997), 312-26.

—— ‘Reconsidering the Exploitation Objection to Basic Income’, Basic Income Studies, 1 (2006), 1-17.

Supplementary reading:

Ackerman, B., & A. Alstott, The Stakeholder Society (New Haven & London: Yale University Press, 1999).

Ackerman, B. and Wright, E.O. (eds.) Redesigning Distribution: Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Alternative Cornerstones for a more Egalitarian Capitalism (London: Verso, 2006).

Barry, B., ‘Real Freedom and Basic Income’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 4 (1996), 242-76.

Basic Income Studies, http://0-www.bepress.com.pugwash.lib.warwick.ac.uk/bis/all_issues.html

Cunliffe, J, & G. Erreygers, ‘“Basic Income? Basic Capital!” Origins and Issues of a Debate’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 11 (2003), 89-110.

Dowding, K. et al (eds.), The Ethics of Stakeholding (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003).

Reeve, A., ‘Introduction’ to A. Reeve & A. Williams (eds.), Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2002).

Van der Veen, R., ‘Real Freedom versus Reciprocity: Competing Views on the Justice of Unconditional Basic Income’, Political Studies, 46 (1998), 140-163.

Van Parijs, P., ‘Why Surfers Should be Fed: The liberal Case for an Unconditional Basic Income’, PPA, 20 (1991), 101-31. (RP)

—— Real Freedom for All: What (if Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

—— et al, Symposium on ‘Delivering a Basic Income’, Boston Review, October/November 2000. Includes a defence by van Parijs and comments by others. Available at: http://bostonreview.net/ndf.html#Income

White, S., The Civic Minimum; On the Rights and Obligations of Economic Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

—— ‘Assessing the Unconditional Stake’, in K. Dowding et al (eds.), The Ethics of Stakeholding.

22

—— ‘Fair Reciprocity and Basic Income’, in A. Reeve & A. Williams (eds.) Real Libertarianism Assessed: Political Theory after Van Parijs (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2003).

Wright, E. O., ‘Reducing Income and Wealth Inequalities: Real Utopian Proposals’, Contemporary Sociology, 29 (2000), 143-56.

Also see the Basic Income Earth Network (BIEN) website: http://www.etes.ucl.ac.be/BIEN/Index.html

Questions:

1. What is equality of opportunity? Would a just education policy promote equal opportunity?

2. Is it unjust to send one’s child to an expensive advantageous private school?

Core reading:

Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice, secs. 12-14.

Brighouse, H., ‘The Case for Educational Equality’, ch. 6 of his School Choice and Social Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

Swift, A., ‘The Morality of School Choice’, Theory and Research in Education, 2 (2004), 7-21.

Supplementary reading:

Anderson, E., ‘Rethinking Equality of Opportunity: Comment on Adam Swift’s How Not to be a Hypocrite’, Theory and Research in Education, 2 (2004), 99-110.

—— ‘Fair Equality in Education: A Democratic Equality Perspective’, Ethics, 117 (2007), 595-622.

Arneson, R., ‘Against Rawlsian Equality of Opportunity’, Philosophical Studies, 93 (1999), 77-112.

Barry, B., Theories of Justice (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1989), 217-34.

—— Why Social Justice Matters (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005).

—— The Liberal Theory of Justice, ch. 8

Bowles, S. et al (eds.) Unequal Chances: Family Background and Economic Success (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2005).

Brighouse, H., School Choice and Social Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000).

23

Meritocracy and Education

—— A Level Playing Field: The Reform of Private Schools (London: Fabian Society, 2000).

—— On Education (London: Routledge, 2006).

—— ‘Educational Equality and Justice’, in R. Curren (ed.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Education (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005).

Brighouse, H. & Swift, A.,‘Equality, Priority, and Positional Goods’, Ethics, 116 (2006), 471-97.

—— ‘Parents Rights and the Value of the Family’, Ethics, 117 (2006), 80-108.

Cavanagh, M., Against Equality of Opportunity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2003).

Clayton, M., & D. Stevens, ‘School Choice and the Burdens of Justice’, Theory and Research in Education, 2 (2004), 111-26. (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/staff/clayton/research/school_choice_/)

Clayton, M., ‘Rawls and Natural Aristocracy’ Croatian Journal of Philosophy, 1 (2001), 239-59. (http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/pais/staff/clayton/research/rawls_and_natural_/)

Daniels, N., ‘Merit and Meritocracy’, PPA, 7 (1978), 206-23.

Fishkin, J., Justice, Equal Opportunity and the Family (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983).

Flew, A., The Politics of Procrustes: Contradictions of Enforced Equality (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Press, 1981).

Jacobs, L., Pursuing Equal Opportunities: The Theory and Practice of Egalitarian Justice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), chs. 1-5.

Macleod, C., ‘The Puzzle of Parental Partiality: Reflections on How Not to Be a Hypocrite: School Choice for the Morally Perplexed Parent’, Theory and Research in Education, 2 (2004), 309-21.

Mason, A., Levelling the Playing Field: the Idea of Equal Opportunity and its Place in Egalitarian Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006).

Marshall, G., A. Swift & S. Roberts, Against the Odds: Social Class and Social Justice in Industrial Societies (Oxford: Clarendon, 1997).

Marshall, G. & A. Swift, ‘Meritocractic Equality of Opportunity: Economic Efficiency, Social Justice, or Both?’, Policy Studies, 18 (1997).

Miller, D. Principles of Social Justice (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), chs. 7-9.

Nagel, T., ‘Justice and Nature’, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 17 (1997). (Reprinted in his Concealment and Exposure and Other Essays (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).

—— Equality and Partiality (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), ch. 10.

Nozick, R., Anarchy, State and Utopia, 232-238.

Paul, E. P. et al (eds.), Equal Opportunity (Oxford: Blackwell, 1987), chapters by Fishkin, Goldman and Sher.

24

Pogge, T., Realizing Rawls (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989), secs. 14-15.

—— John Rawls: His Life and Theory of Justice, 120-133.

Rawls, A Theory of Justice, secs. 10-14.

Satz, D., ‘Equality, Adequacy and Education for Citizenship’, Ethics, 117 (2007), 623-648.

Sher, G., Desert (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1987), ch. 7.

Swift, A., How Not to Be a Hypocrite: School Choice for the Morally Perplexed Parent (London: Routledge, 2003).

—— ‘Class Analysis from a Normative Perspective’, British Journal of Sociology, 51 (2000), 663-79.

—— ‘Would Perfect Mobility be Perfect?, European Sociological Review, 20 (2004), 1-11.

—— ‘The Morality of School Choice Reconsidered: A Response’, Theory and Research in Education, 2 (2004), 323-42.

Tawney, R. H., Equality (London: Unwin, 1964), IIIii.

Tooley, J., Reclaiming Education (London: Cassell, 2000), esp. Sessions 1-3.

Walzer, M. Spheres of Justice (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), chs. 5 & 8.

White, J., ‘The Dishwasher’s Child: Education and the End of Egalitarianism’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, 28 (1995), 173-81.

Young, M., The Rise of the Meritocracy (1958 or New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1994).

Questions:

1. Is health just one resource among others, for purposes of distributive justice, or does it make special demands of justice?

2. If someone autonomously chooses to smoke, is she entitled to subsidized health care if she develops lung cancer as a result?

3. Is it just to allocate medical resources on the basis of age?

Core reading:

Dworkin, R., ‘Justice and the High Cost of Health, in his Sovereign Virtue (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2000), 307-319.

25

Justice and Health Care

Daniels, N., ‘Health Care Needs and Distributive Justice’, in his Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

Shaw, A. B., ‘In Defence of Ageism’, Journal of Medical Ethics, 20 (1994), 188-91. Reprinted in H. Kuhse & P. Singer (eds.), Bioethics: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999).

Supplementary reading:

Anand, S., F. Peter & A. Sen (eds.), Public Health, Ethics, and Equity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004).

Arrow, K., ‘Uncertainty and the Welfare Economics of Medical Care’, American Economic Review 53 (1973), 941-73.

Braybrooke, Meeting Needs (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1987).

Brock, D., ‘Justice and the ADA: Does Prioritising and Rationing Health Care Discriminate Against the Disabled?’, Social Philosophy and Policy, 12 (1995).

—— ‘Priority to the Worse Off in Health Care Resource Prioritisation’, in M. Battin, R. Rhodes & A. Silvers (eds.), Health Care and Social Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).

—— ‘Health Care Resource Prioritisation and Disrimination Against Persons with Disabilities’, in L. Francis & A. Silvers (eds.), Americans with Disabilities (New York: Routledge, 2000).

—— ‘Quality of Life Measures in Health Care and Medical Ethics’, in Martha C. Nussbaum and Amartya Sen (eds.), TheQuality of Life, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993).

Broome, J., Ethics out of Economics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), ch. 13.

Burley, J., ‘The Price of Eggs: Who Should Bear the Costs of Fertility Treatments?’ in J. Harris and S. Holm (eds.) The Future of Human Reproduction: Ethics, Choice and regulation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). (This paper is a discussion of equality of resources and its application to issues relating to reproduction.)

Daniels, N., Just Health Care (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985).

—— Am I My Parents’ Keeper? (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988).

—— Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), chs. 9-12.

—— Just Health: Meeting Health Needs Fairly (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

—— articles on his website: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/benchmark/ndaniels/publications.html

Daniels, N. & J. Sabin, ‘Limits to Health Care’, PPA, 26 (1997), 303-50.

Glover, J., Causing Death and Saving Lives (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1976), chs. 16-17.

26

Goodin, R., No Smoking: The Ethical Issues (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989).

Hausman, D., ‘Valuing Health’, PPA, 34 (2006), 246-74.

—— (2007) ‘What’s wrong with health Inequalities?’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 15(1), pp.46-66.

McKerlie, D., ‘Justice Between the Young and the Old’, PPA, PPA, 30 (2001), 152-7

—— ‘Dimensions of Equality’, Utilitas 13 (2001), 263-278.

Marmot, M., & R. Wilkinson (eds.), Social Determinants of Health (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

Menzel, P., ‘Rescuing Lives: Can’t We Count?’, Hastings Center Report, 24 (1994), 22-23 (reprinted in H. Kuhse & P. Singer (eds.), Bioethics: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999).

Murray, D., ‘Rethinking DALYs’, in Christopher J. L. Murray and Alan D. Lopez (eds.), The Global Burden of Disease, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, for the World Health Organization and the World Bank, 1996).

Rescher, N., ‘The Allocation of Exotic Medical Lifesaving Therapy’, Ethics, 79 (1969), 173-86.

Roemer, J., ‘Equality and Responsibility’, Boston Review, 20 (1995), 3-7, 15-6. (Available online at the Boston Review archive.)

Waldemann, R., ‘Income Distribution and Infant Mortality’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (1992), 1283-302.

Walzer, M., Spheres of Justice (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983), ch. 3.

Wilkinson, R., Unhealthy Societies: the Afflictions of Inequality (London: Routledge, 1996).

Questions:

1. What is democracy?

2. For a state to be democratic, must it be egalitarian?

3. Is democracy an end in itself or a means to other ends?

4. What are the distinctive merits of ‘deliberative democracy’?

Core reading:

27

Democratic theory

Arneson, R., ‘Democracy is Not Intrinsically Just’, in K. Dowding, R. Goodin and C. Pateman (eds.), Justice as Democracy: Essays for Brian Barry (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 40-58.

Dworkin, R., ‘Is Democracy Possible Here?’ in Is Democracy Possible Here? (Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press, 2006).

Christiano, T., ‘The Authority of Democracy’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 12 (2004), 266-90.

Supplementary reading: general

Birch, A., The Concepts and Theories of Modern Democracy (London: Routledge, 1993).

Christiano, T., The Rule of the Many: Fundamental Issues in Democratic Theory (Boulder, CO: Westview Press,1996).

—— The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and Its Limits (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

Copp, D. et al (eds.) The Idea of Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Crick, B., Democracy: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Dahl, R., On Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1999), 35-80.

Estlund, D., Democratic Authority (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008)

Harrison, R., Democracy (London: Routledge, 1993).

Held, D., Models of Democracy, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Polity, 2006).

—— ‘Democracy and the New International Order’, in D. Archibugi and D. Held (eds.), Cosmopolitan Democracy (Cambridge: Polity, 1995), 96-120.

—— ‘The Authority of Democracy’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 12 (2004), 266-90.

—— Democracy and the Global Order (Cambridge: Polity, 1995).

—— Democratic Theory (Oxford: Clarendon, 1973), esp. chs. 1-3.

Macpherson, C. B., The Life and Times of Liberal Democracy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1977), ch. III.

Mansbridge, J., ‘Feminism and Democracy’, in A. Phillips (ed), Feminism and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

May, J., ‘Defining Democracy’, Political Studies, 1978.

Mill, J. S., Considerations on Representative Government, chs. 2, 3.

Miller, D., Political Philosophy: a Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 37-54.

Pennock, J. and J. Chapman (eds.), Liberal Democracy (London and New York: New York University Press, 1983), essays by Whelan, Beitz, Dahl, Braybrooke.

Phillips, A., Engendering Democracy (Cambridge: Polity, 1991), esp. chs. 1 & 6.

28

Raphael, D. D., Problems of Political Philosophy (London: Pall Mall Press, 1970).

Shapiro, I. and C. Hacker-Cordon (eds.), Democracy’s Edges (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999).

Shapiro, I., Democratic Justice (New Haven: Yale University Pres, 1999), ch. 1 & 2.

Weale, A., ‘The Justification of Democracy’, in Democracy (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 1999), 40-61.

Wolff, J., Introduction to Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 68-114.

Supplementary reading: deliberative democracy

Bohman, J. & W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics (Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1997).

Dryzek, J., Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000), 1-30.

Elster. J., Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998). See especially editor’s introduction and articles by Stokes and Przeworski.

Miller. D., ‘Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice’, Political Studies, 40 (1992), 54-67.

Parkinson, J., ‘Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy’, Political Studies, 51 (2003), 180-96.

Sanders, L., ‘Against Deliberation’, Political Theory, 25 (1997), 347-76.

Young, I. M., ‘Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy’, Political Theory, 29 (2001), 670-90.

—— Inclusion and Democracy (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2002), chs. 1-4.

Questions:

1. Should exemptions from the law ever be granted on cultural or religious grounds? Think about particular examples.

2. What is the most attractive conception of multiculturalism?

Core reading:

Bou-Habib, P., ‘A Theory of Religious Accommodation’, Journal of Applied Philosophy, 23 (2006), 109-26.

29

Responses to Religious and Cultural Diversity

Laborde, C., ‘Secular Philosophy and Muslim Headscarves in School’, The Journal of Political Philosophy, 13 (2005), 305-329.

Kymlicka, W., CPP, ch. 8 (see also ch. 6).

Supplementary reading:

Andar, R., and Leigh, I., Religious Freedom in the Liberal State (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Avishai, M., & H. Moshe, ‘Liberalism and the Right to Culture’, Social Research, 61 (1994), 491-510.

Bartels, E., ‘Wearing a Headscarf is My Personal Choice' (Jasmina, 16 years)’, Islam and Christian - Muslim relations, 16 (2005), 15-28.

Benhabib, S., The Claims of Culture: Equality and Diversity in the Global Era (Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 2002).

—— The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004), 171-212.

Cesari, J., ‘The Muslim Presence in France and the United States: Its Consequences for Secularism’, French Politics, Culture & Society, 25 (2007), 34-45.

Gutmann, A., ‘The Challenge of Multiculturalism in Political Ethics’, PPA, 22 (1993), 171-206.

Joppke, C. ‘The Retreat of Multiculturalism in the Liberal State: Theory and Policy’, The British Journal of Sociology, 55 (2004), 237-257.

Kelly, P., Multiculturalism Reconsidered: Culture and Equality and Its Critics (Cambridge: Polity, 2002).

Kymlicka, W., CPP, chs. 6 & 8.

—— Multicultural Citizenship (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).

—— ‘Liberal Theories of Multiculturalism’, in L.H. Meyer ets al (eds.) Rights Culture, and the Law: Themes from the Legal and Political Philosophy of Joseph Raz (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 229-250.

Macedo, S.‘ Liberal Civic Education and Religious Fundamentalism: The Case of God v. John Rawls’, Ethics, 105 (1995), 468-49.

Modood, T. Multiculturalism (Cambridge: Polity, 2007).

Nussbaum, M., Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America’s Tradition of Religious Equality (New York: Basic Books, 2008).

—— Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1999), 9-24. Also available at: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.5/okin.html

Okin, Susan Möller, ‘Mistresses of Their Own Destiny: Group Rights, Gender and Realistic Rights of Exit’, Ethics, 112 (2002), 205-230.

Parekh, B., Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political Theory (Basingstoke: Macmillan, 2000).

Phillips, A., Multiculturalism Without Culture (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007).

30

Raz, J., ‘Multiculturalism: A Liberal Perspective’, in his Ethics in the Public Domain (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994).

Tamir, Y., ‘Against collective rights’, in Meyer, H. L., Paulson, L. S., Pogge, W. T., (eds.), Rights Culture, and the Law: Themes from the Legal and Political Philosophy of Joseph Raz (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 183-204.

Taylor, C., Multiculturalism and the Politics of Recognition, ed. A. Gutmann (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994).

Walzer, M., On Toleration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997).

On liberalism and liberal neutrality:

Cohen, J., ‘Moral Pluralism and Political Consensus’, in D. Copp et al (eds.), The Idea of Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Caney, ‘Anti-Perfectionism and Rawlsian Liberalism’, Political Studies, 43 (1995), 248-64.

Dreben, B., ‘On Rawls and Political Liberalism’, in S. Freeman (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Rawls (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

Dworkin, R., Sovereign Virtue (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), chs.5-6.

—— Is Democracy Possible Here?, Ch. 3.

Galston, W. ‘Two Concepts of Liberalism’, Ethics, 105 (1995), 516-34.

Larmore, C., ‘Political Liberalism’, Political Theory, 18 (1990), 339-60.

Rawls, J., Political Liberalism, paperback edn. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996)

—— Collected Papers, ed. S. Freeman (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), chs. 16, 19-22, 26, 27.

Raz, J. Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), chs. 4-5.

Sandel, M., ‘Review of Political Liberalism’, Harvard Law Review, 107 (1994), 1765-94.

Questions:

1. How convincing is Okin’s conception of justice and gender?

2. Is liberal justice male-biased?

3. Is the idea of an ethics of care detrimental to feminism?

31

Justice and Gender

Core reading:

Okin, S. M., ‘The Family: Gender and Justice’ (extracts from Justice, Gender and the Family), in M. Clayton & A. Williams (eds.), Social Justice (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), 203-18.

Kymlicka, W., CPP, 238-92.

Supplementary reading:

Anderson, E., ‘Is Women’s Labor a Commodity?’, PPA, 19 (1990), 71-92.

Baier, A. C., ‘The Need for More than Justice’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 13 (1987), 41-56.

Blum, L., ‘Gilligan and Kohlberg: Implications for Moral Theory’, Ethics, 98 (1988), 472-91.

Dancy, J., ‘Caring about Justice’, Philosophy, 67 (1992), 447-66.

Evans, J., ‘An overview of the problem for feminist political theorists’, in J. Evans (ed.), Feminism and Political Theory (London: Sage, 1986).

Frazer, E., J. Hornsby and S. Lovibond (eds.), Ethics: A Feminist Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992).

Frazer, N. & N. Lacey, ‘Liberal Individualism: The Feminist Critique’, in their The Politics of Community: A Feminist Critique of the Liberal/Communitarian Debate (London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993).

Friedman, M., ‘Feminism and Modern Friendship: Dislocating the Community’, in S. Avineri and A. de-Shalit (eds.) Communitarianism and Individualism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992).

Gilligan, C., In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993).

Hekman, S.J. (1995) Moral Voices, Moral Selves: Carol Gilligan and Moral Theory (Oxford: Polity Press).

Held, V. (ed.), Justice and Care: Essential Readings in Feminist Ethics (Oxford: Westview, 1995).

Jaggar, A. (ed.) Living with Contradictions: Controversies in Feminist Social Ethics (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1994)

Kymlicka, W., ‘Rethinking the Family’, PPA, 20 (1991), 77-97 (review of Okin’s Justice, Gender and the Family).

—— CPP, 238-92.

Noddings, N., Caring: A Feminist Approach to Ethics and Moral Education (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), esp. Chs. 1-2, 4.

Noddings, N., Starting at home: Caring and Social Policy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002), esp. Chs. 1 & 4.

Nussbaum, M. and A. Sen (eds.), The Quality of Life, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), part III.

32

Nussbaum, M., Sex and Social Justice (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 55-80.

—— Women and Human Development (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), esp. pp. 241-97.

Okin, S., Justice, Gender and the Family (New York: Basic Books, 1989).

—— ‘Justice and Gender’ PPA, 16 (1987), 42-72.

—— ‘Reason and Feeling in Thinking about Justice’ Ethics, 99 (1989), 229-49.

—— ‘Politics and the Complex Inequality of Gender’, in D. Miller and M. Walzer (eds.), Pluralism, Justice and Equality (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 120-143.

Pateman, C., The Sexual Contract (Cambridge: Polity, 1988), 1-18, 154-88.

—— ‘‘The Disorder of Women’: Women, Love and the Sense of Justice’, Ethics, 91 (1981), 20-34.

Phillips, A. (ed.), Feminism and Politics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

Sen, A., Inequality Reexamined (Oxford: Clarendon, 1992), 122-25.

Shanley, M. and C. Pateman (eds.), Feminist Interpretations and Political Theory (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1991).

Sinopoli, R. C. and N. J. Hirschmann, A symposium on ‘Feminism and Liberal Theory’, American Political Science Review 85 (1991), 221-33.

Wolff, J., ‘Individualism, Justice, Feminism’, in An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 196-21.

Questions:

1. Do the unborn possess rights? If so, to what extent do these rights conflict with the woman’s right to choose?

2. How convincing is Dworkin’s account of the political morality of abortion?

Core reading:

Marquis, D. ‘An argument that abortion is wrong’, in H.LaFollette (ed) Ethics In Practice, 137-47.

Warren, M.A. ‘On the moral and legal status of abortion’, The Monist, 57 (1973), 43-61. Revised and reprinted in H. LaFollette (ed) Ethics In practice, 126-36.

Thomson, J.J. ‘A Defense of Abortion’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1 (1971), 47-66.

Dworkin, R. Life’s Dominion (London: HarperCollins, 1995), 68-101.

33

The Political Morality of Abortion

Supplementary reading: Burley, J. (ed.), Dworkin and His Critics (Oxford: Blackwell, 2004), essays by

Clayton, Kamm, and Rakowski.

Cudd, A. ‘Sensationalized Philosophy: A Reply to Marquis’s“Why Abortion is Immoral”’, The Journal of Philosophy, 87(5), 1990, 262-4

Dworkin, R. ‘Unenumerated Rights: Whether and How Roe v. Wade Should be Overruled’, University of Chicago Law Review, 59 (1992), 395-432.

Glover, J. Causing Death and Saving Lives (London: Penguin, 1977), 119-149.

Hare, R.M. ‘Abortion and the Golden Rule’, in Hare (ed) Essays on Bioethics (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993), 147-67 or J. Rachels (ed) Moral Problems (New York: Harper and Row, 1979).

Harris, J. The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics (London: Routledge, 1985), 136-173.

Harris, J. and Holm, S. ‘Animals’, in H.LaFollette (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 112-135.

Kamm, F.M. Creation and Abortion: A Study in Moral and Legal Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 78-123.

Kuhse, H. and Singer, P. (eds) Bioethics: An Anthology (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999), 9-82.

McMahan, J. The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 267-422.

McInerney, P. ‘Does a Foetus Already have a Future-Like-Ours?’ The Journal of Philosophy, 87 (5), 1990, 264-8

Narveson, J. Moral Issues (Toronto: Oxford University Press, 1983), Ch.9.

Norcross, A. ‘Killing, Abortion, and Contraception’, The Journal of Philosophy, 87 (5), 1990, 268-77

Rachels, J. (ed) Moral Problems 3rd edition (New York: Harper and Row, 1979).

Scanlon, T. ‘Partisan for Life’ (review of Dworkin's book), New York Review of Books, July 15, 1993.

Singer, P. (ed) Applied Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986), 29-86 (articles by Rachels, Thomson and Tooley).

Singer, P. Practical Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 135-74.

Warren, M.A. ‘Abortion’, in P. Singer (ed) A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell), 303-14.

34

Questions:

1. What rights, if any, do non-human animals enjoy?

2. Is speciesism on a moral par with racism and sexism?

Core reading:

Singer, P. ‘Taking Life: Animals’, in his Practical Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 110-34.

Fox, M. A., ‘The Moral Community’, in LaFollette (ed.), Ethics in Practice, 2nd edn. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 127-38.

Regan, T. ‘The Case for Animal Rights’, in Singer (ed.), In Defence of Animals, 13-26.

Supplementary reading:

Callicott, J.B. ‘Animal Liberation: A Triangular Affair’ in R.Elliot (ed) Environmental Ethics, 29-59.

Cavalieri, P. & P. Singer, ed., The Great Ape Project: Equality beyond Humanity (London: Fourth Estate, 1993).

Clark, S.L., Animals and Their Moral Standing (London: Routledge, 1997).

Clark, S.L. The Moral Status of Animals (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977).

Curruthers, P. The Animals Issue (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

Dawkins, M., Animal Suffering: The Science of Animal Welfare (London: Chapman and Hall, 1980).

Frey, R., Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1980)

Frey, R.G. ‘Animals’, in H.LaFollette (ed), The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 161-187.

Garner, R., ed., Animal Rights: The Changing Debate (London: Macmillan, 1996).

Gruen, L. ‘Animals’, in P.Singer (ed) A Companion to Ethics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1992), 342-53.

Jamieson, D. (ed) Singer and His Critics (Oxford: Blackwell, 1999) (especially, chapters by McGinn, Holton & Langton, Hare and Singer).

Jamieson, D. ‘Animal Liberation is an Environmental Ethic’, in Jamieson (ed) Morality’s Progress (Oxford: Clarendon, 2002) 197-212.

Jamieson, D. Ethics and the Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 102-44.

35

Justice between Species

LaFollette, H., ed. Ethics in Practice (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 168-212 (articles by Singer, Fox, Frey and Regan).

Leahy, M., Against Liberation: Putting Animals in Perspective (London: Routledge, 1993).

McMahan, J., ‘Our Fellow Creatures’, Journal of Ethics, 9 (2005).

Nussbaum, M., ‘Animal Rights: The Need for a Theoretical Basis’, Harvard Law Review 114, 2001, 1506-1550.

Orlans, F. et al, The Human use of Animals (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998)

Regan, T. & P. Singer (eds) Animal Rights and Human Obligations (London: Prentice-Hall, 1976).

Regan, T. The Case for Animal Rights (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984).

Routley, R. and Routley, V. ‘Against the inevitability of human chauvinism’, in R.Elliot (ed) Environmental Ethics, 104-128.

Scruton, R., Animal Rights and Wrongs (London: Demos, 1996).

Singer, P., ‘All animals are equal’, in Singer (ed) Applied Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986) or Singer, Practical Ethics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 55-82.

Singer, P. (ed) In Defence of Animals (Oxford: Blackwell, 1985) (especially, chapters by Regan, Clark, Midgley and Prologue.

Singer, P. Animal Liberation (London: Pimlico, 1995).

Sunstein, C., ‘The Rights of Animals’, The University of Chicago Law Review 70 (2003): 387-401.

Vallentyne, P., ‘Of Mice and Men: Equality and Animals’, Journal of Ethics, 9 (2005).

Some relevant web sites:

Animal Rights Resources Site: http://animalconcerns.netforchange.com

Great Ape Project: http://greatapeproject.org

The Countryside Alliance: http://www.countryside-alliance.org

Questions:

1. What do we owe others in relation to the environment?

2. Are there non-anthropocentric environmental values?

3. Is there a constitutional right to environmental quality?

36

Environmental Justice

Core reading:

Shrader-Frechette, K. ‘Environmental Ethics’, in H. LaFollette (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics, 188-218.

Beckerman, W. Small Is Stupid: Blowing the Whistle on the Greens (London: Duckworth, 1995), 13-23 & 66-78.

Hayward, T. ‘Constitutional Environmental Rights: A case for political analysis’, Political Studies, 48(3), 2000, 558-572.

Supplementary reading:

Attfield, R. Environmental Ethics (Oxford: Polity, 2003).

Attfield, R. The Ethics of Environmental Concern 2nd Edition (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1991).

Baxter, B. Ecologism (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998).

Callicott, J.B. ‘The Land Ethic’ in D. Jamieson (ed) A Companion to Environmental Philosophy, 204-217.

Carson, R. Silent Spring (Boston, MA: Mariner Books, 1962)

Connelly, J. and Smith, G. Politics and the Environment: From Theory to Practice (London: Routledge, 1999).

Dobson, A. (ed) The Green Reader (London: Andre Deutsch, 1991) (especially extracts from Carson, Leopold, Hardin).

Dobson, A. Green Political Thought (London: Routledge, 1992).

Dobson, A. Justice and the Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998).

Dryzek, J. The Politics of the Earth 2nd Edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005).

Elliot, R. (ed) Environmental Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995) (chapters by Elliot, Passmore, Sagoff, Brennan, Sober & editor’s introduction).

Elliot, R. ‘Environmental Ethics’, in P.Singer (ed) A Companion to Ethics, 284-93.

Fox, W. Toward a Transpersonal Ecology (Boston, Shambala, 1990).

Hardin, G. ‘The tragedy of the commons’, Science 162 (3859), 1243-8.

Hayward, T. Political Theory and Ecological Values (New York: St Martin’s Press, 1998).

Hayward, T. Constitutional Environmental Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Humphrey, M., Preservation versus the People? Nature, Humanity, and Political Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Jamieson, D. (ed) A Companion to Environmental Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell, 2001), especially articles by Elliot and O’Neill (163-191).

Jamieson, D. ‘Environment’, in C. McKinnon (ed) Issues in Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 313-35.

37

Jamieson, D. Ethics and the Environment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008).

LaFollette, H., ed. Ethics in Practice (Oxford: Blackwell, 1997), 657-700 (articles by Leopold, Schmidtz, Hill and Carter).

Leopold, A. A Sand County Almanac with Sketches Here and There (New York: Oxford University Press, 1949).

Lomborg, B. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), Chapter 1,24.

Lovelock, J. Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979).

Low, Nicholas and Gleeson, B. Justice, Society and Nature: an exploration of political ecology (London: Routledge, 1998).

Meadows, D. et al The Limits to Growth (New York: Universe Books, 1972).

Rolston, H. ‘Duties to Endangered Species’, in R. Elliot (ed.), Environmental Ethics, 60-75.

Sagoff, M. The Economy of the Earth (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988).

Schumaker, H. Small is Beautiful: A Study of Economics as if People Mattered (Vintage: 1993).

Taylor, P. Respect for Nature: A Theory of Environmental Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986).

Wissenburg, M. Green Liberalism (London: UCL Press, 1998).

World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987).

The Fair Trade Question

Questions

1. What, if any, are the morally defensible properties of Fair Trade?2. Is there any reason to think the purchase of Fair Trade goods is any better,

morally speaking, than making similar sized donations to charity?

Core Reading

Kuper, A., ‘More Than Charity: Cosmopolitan Alternatives to the “Singer Solution”’, Ethics and International Affairs, 16: 2 (2002), pp. 107-120.

Singer, P., ‘Poverty, Facts, and Political Philosophies: Response to “More Than Charity”’, Ethics and International Affairs, 16: 2 (2002), pp. 121-124.

38

Lyon, S., ‘Evaluating Fair Trade Consumption: Politics, Defetishization and Producer Participation’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 30: 5 (2006), pp. 452-464.

Raynolds, L., ‘Re-embedding Global Agriculture: The International Organic and Fair Trade Movements’, Agriculture and Human Values, 17: 3 (2000), pp. 297-309

Supplementary Reading

Fridell, G., ‘Fair Trade and Neoliberalism: Assessing Emerging Perspectives’, Latin American Perspectives, 33: 6 (2006), pp. 8-28.

Hudson, I., & Hudson, M., ‘Removing the Veil? Commodity Fetishism, Fair Trade and the Environment’, Organization and Environment, 16: 4 (2003), pp. 413-430.

Lindsay, B., ‘Grounds for Complaint? Understanding the Coffee Crisis’, Paper for the Centre for Trade Policy Studies, 16 (2003), available at http://www.freetrade.org/pubs/briefs/tbp-016.pdf

Nicholls, A., & Opal, C., Fair Trade: Market-Driven Ethical Consumption (London: Sage Publications, 2005), Ch.3.

Raynolds, L., ‘Consumer/Producer Links in Fair Trade Coffee Networks’, Sociologia Ruralis, 42: 4 (2002), pp. 404-424.

Raynolds, L., et al., ‘Fair Trade Coffee: Building Producer Capacity via Global Networks’, Journal of International Development, 16: 8 (2004), pp. 1109-1121

Shreck, A., ‘Just Bananas? Fair Trade Banana Production in the Dominican Republic’, International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 10: 2 (2002), pp. 13-23.

Shreck, A., ‘Resistance, Redistribution, and Power in the Fair Trade Banana Initiative’, Agriculture and Human Values, 22: 1 (2005), pp. 17-29.

Singer, P., ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 1: 3 (1972), pp. 229-243.

Singer, P., & Mason, J., Eating: What We Eat and Why it Matters (London: Arrow Books, 2006), Ch.11.

Taylor, P.L., et al., ‘Keeping Trade Fair: Governance Challenges in the Fair Trade Coffee Initiative’, Sustainable Development, 13: 3 (2005), pp. 199-208

Watson, M., ‘Trade Justice and Individual Consumption Choices: Adam Smith’s Spectator Theory and the Moral Constitution of the Fair Trade Consumer’, European Journal of International Relations, 13 (2), 2007, 263-288.

Wempe, J., ‘Ethical Entrepreneurship and Fair Trade’, Journal of Business Ethics, 60: 3 (2005), pp. 211-220.

Wright, C., ‘Consuming Lives, Consuming Landscapes: Interpreting Advertisements for Cafedirect Coffees’, Journal of International Development, 16: 5 (2004), pp. 665-680.

39

On Impact Assessment of Fair Trade

Bacon, C., ‘Confronting the Coffee Crisis: Can Fair Trade, Organic, and Speciality Coffees Reduce Small-Scale Farmer Vulnerability in Northern Nicaragua?’, World Development, 33: 3 (2005), pp. 497-511.

Mayoux, L., ‘Impact Assessment of Fair Trade and Ethical Enterprise Development’, available at http://www.enterprise-impact.org.uk/pdf/IAofFairTrade.pdf

Moberg, M., ‘Fair Trade and Eastern Caribbean Banana Farmers: Rhetoric and Reality in the Anti-Globalization Movement’, Human Organization, 64: 1 (2005), pp. 4-15.

Oxfam, ‘Mugged: Poverty in your Coffee Cup’, (2002), available at http://www.maketradefair.com/en/assets/english/mugged.pdf

Oxford Policy Management, ‘Fair Trade: Overview, Impact, Challenges – Study to Inform DFID’s Support to Fair Trade’ (2000), available at http://www.opml.co.uk/document.rm?id=413

Parrish, B.D., et al., ‘What Tanzania’s Coffee Farmers can teach the World: A Performance Based Look at the Fair Trade-Free Trade Debate’, Sustainable Development, 13: 3 (2005), pp. 177-189

Udomkit, N., & Winnett, A., ‘Fair Trade in Organic Rice: a Case Study from Thailand’, Small Enterprise Development, 13: 3 (2002), pp. 45-54.

Young, W., & Utting, K., ‘Fair Trade, Business and Sustainable Development’, Sustainable Development, 13: 3 (2005), pp. 139-142.

Also see the Impact Studies conducted by the Fair Trade Research Group, available at http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/Sociology/FairTradeResearchGroup/

Questions:

1. What is punishment, and how, if at all, can it be justified?

2. Are hybrid theories necessarily incoherent?

3. Can the use of the death penalty be justified?

Core reading:

Hart, H. L. A., ‘Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment’, in his Punishment and Responsibility (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968).

Pojman, L., ‘In Defense of the Death Penalty’, in H. LaFollette (ed.) Ethics in Practice: An Anthology, second edition (Oxford: Blackwell, 2002), 493-502.

40

Punishment

Reiman, J., ‘Justice, Civilisation and the Death Penalty: Answering van den Haag’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 14 (1985), 115-148.

Supplementary reading:

Andenaes, J., Punishment and Deterrence (Ann Arbor : University of Michigan Press, 1974), esp. chs. 2 & 4.

Bedau, H., ‘Punishment’, Stanford Enclyclopedia of Philosophy (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/punishment/). See bibliography for further references.

—— ‘Capital Punishment’, in H. LaFollette (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003).

Bedau, H. A. and Cassell, G. (eds.), (2005) Debating the Death Penalty (Oxford: Oup).

Duff, R.A. ‘Punishment’ in H. LaFollette (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003)—see his list of references for further guidance.

Duff, R.A. and D. Garland, A Reader on Punishment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1984).

Gorecki, J. ‘Capital Punishment: For or Against’, Michigan Law Review, 83 (1985), 1180-92.

Hampton, J., ‘The Moral Education Theory of Punishment’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 13 (1984), 208-38.

Honderich., T., Punishment: The Supposed Justifications (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1984).

Hudson, B., Understanding Justice (Buckingham: Open University Press, 1996).

LaFollette, H. (ed) Ethics in Practice (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005), 505-561.

Lyons, D., Ethics and the Rule of Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1984), ch. 5.

Mill, J. S., ‘Speech in Favour of Capital Punishment’, in P. Singer (ed.), Applied Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986).

Nozick, R., Philosophical Explanations (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), 363-98.

Oderberg, D. Applied Ethics: A Non-Consequentialist Approach (Oxford: Blackwell, 2000), 144-81.

Plant, R., Modern Political Thought (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 293-319.

Radelet, M.L. and Bedau, HA, ‘The Execution of the Innocent’, Law and Contemporary problems, 61 (1998), 105-24.

Simmons, A.J. et al (eds.), Punishment (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995)).

Ten, C. L., Crime, Guilt and Punishment: A Philosophical Introduction (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1987).

Van den Haag, E., ‘The Ultimate Punishment’, Harvard Law Review, 99 (1986), 1662-69.

41

Questions:

1. What are the just reasons for waging war, if any?

2. Is preventative warfare immoral?

3. Can the use of torture, area bombing or nuclear weapons ever be justified?

Core Reading:

Walzer, M., Just and Unjust Wars (London: Allen Lane, 1978), Chs. 4,5,8, 9.

Caney, S., Justice Beyond Borders, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 189-220.

Suplementary: general

Dower, N., World Ethics (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998), 115-36.Orend, B., ‘War’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/).Norman, R., Ethics, Killing and War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,

1995).

Shue, H. ‘War’ in H. LaFollette (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003), 734-62.

Walzer, M. Arguing about War (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006).Elshtain, J.B. Just War Theory (New York: New York University Press, 1992).

Evans, M.. Just War Theory: A Reappraisal (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2005).

Bull, H. ‘Review Article: Recapturing the Just War for Political Theory’, World Politics, 31(1979), 588-99.

Walzer, M. ‘The United States in the World: Just Wars and Just Societies: An Interview with Michael Walzer’, Imprints, 7 (2003), 4-19. (http://mail.bris.ac.uk/~plcdib/imprints/michaelwalzerinterview.html)

Kamm, F.M., ‘Failures of Just War Theory’, Ethics, 114 (2004), 650-92.

Supplementary Reading: jus ad bellum

Aquinas, Summa Theologica, II-II Question 40 ‘Of War’, Article 1; and Question 64 ‘Of Murder’, Article 6,7, 8. (http://www.ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html): accessed through heading: ‘Second Part of the Second Part (QQ1-189).’

Coates, A., The Ethics of War (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 146-208.

Luban, D., ‘Preventative War’, PPA, 32 (2002) 204-48.

42

Morality of warfare

McMahan, J., ‘Just Cause for War’, Ethics and International Affairs, 19 (2005), 1-21.McMahan, J. and R. McKim, ‘The Just War and the Gulf War’, Canadian Journal of

Philosophy, 23 (1993), 501-41.Nardin, T. (ed.), The Ethics of War and Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press,

1996), especially articles by McMahan and Mapel.Orend, B. Michael Walzer on War and Justice (Cardiff: University of Wales, 2000),

especially chs. 4 and 5.Orend, B. ‘Just and Lawful Conduct in War: Reflections on Michael Walzer’, Law

and Philosophy, 20(1), 2001, pp.1-30.Rodin, D. et al, Symposium on ‘War and Self-Defense’, Ethics and International

Affairs, 18 (2004), 63-98.Rodin, D., War and Self-Defense (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002).

Walzer, M., ‘The Rights of Political Communities’, in Beitz, C., M. Cohen, T. Scanlon, and A. J. Simmons (eds.), International Ethics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985).

Walzer, M., ‘The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics', PPA, 9 (1980), 209-29.

MacMahan, J., ‘The Ethics of Killing in War’, Ethics, 114 (2004), 693-733.

Supplementary reading: jus in bello

Brandt, ‘Utilitarianism and the Rules of War’, in his Morality, Utilitarianism, and Rights (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) (RP).

Coates, A., The Ethics of War (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1997), 209-72.

Estlund, D. ‘On Following Orders in a Just War’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 15 (2007), 213-34.

Luban, D. ‘Just War and Human Rights’, PPA, 9, 160-81.

McMahan, J., ‘On the Moral Equality of Combatants’, Journal of Political Philosophy, 14 (2006), 377-419.

Nagel, T., ‘War and Massacre’, in his Mortal Questions (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979) (RP).

Nardin, T. (ed.), The Ethics of War and Peace (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), especially articles by McMahan and Mapel.

Orend, B., Michael Walzer on War and Justice (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 2000), 110-34.

Orend, B. ‘Just and Lawful Conduct in War: Reflections on Michael Walzer’, Law and Philosophy, 20(1), 2001, pp.1-30.

Rawls, J., ‘Fifty Years After Hiroshima’, in his Collected Papers ed. S. Freeman (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press, 1999).

Statman, D. (2006) ‘Supreme Emergencies Revisited’, Ethics, 117(1), pp.58-79.

43