FACULTY OF HUMANITIES
SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES
POLITICS
COURSE UNIT OUTLINE 2014/15
Arguing About Politics – POLI 20602
Semester: 2
Credits: 20
Lecturer(s):
Room:
Telephone:
Email:
Feedback Hours:
Tutors:
Dr Liam Shields (convenor) and colleagues
4.061 ALB
01612754887
liam.shields@manchester.ac.uk
by appointment
Tutorials will be taken by relevant lecturers
Administrator:
Guro Buchanan (guro.buchanan@manchester.ac.uk) and Chantel
Riley (chantel.riley@manchester.ac.uk), UG Office G.001 Arthur Lewis
Building
Lectures:
Tutorials:
Thursday 9-11 Ellen Wilkinson C5.1
Allocate yourself to a tutorial group using the Student System
Mode of assessment: A two-hour unseen examination to be taken at the end of the course
worth 2/3 of the total mark, and an assessed essay worth 1/3 of the
total mark
Essay Writing Week:
No lecture on 5th March and no associated seminars
***IMPORTANT INFORMATION – PLEASE READ***
Essay hand in date: Monday 9th March 2015 with a deadline of 2pm.
Communication: Students must read their University e-mails and look at BB regularly, as
important information will be communicated in this way.
Examination period:
Re-sit Examination period:
Please read this course outline through very carefully as it provides essential information
needed by all students attending this course
This course guide should be read in conjunction with Part II: Course Unit Guide.
A copy of this guide is available on BB and copies may be obtained from the
Undergraduate Office, G.001 Arthur Lewis Building
1.
Aims
This course will introduce students to a selection of topics and modes of argument in recent
work in political theory with particular focus on how these theoretical debates inform current
political controversies. Theoretical arguments will be developed and applied to practical
political problems.
2.
Objectives
On completion of this unit successful students will:
 Have gained a deeper understanding of certain key normative debates in politics
 Be able to apply theoretical arguments about abstract concepts to practical political
controversies
 Be able to analyze normative arguments critically
 Be able to construct and defend their own normative arguments in an analytically
rigorous fashion
3.
Credits
The course will earn 20 credit points under the University’s credit rating system.
PLEASE NOTE
Attendance at tutorials is compulsory. Students are expected to make every effort to attend all
tutorials on this course. If they know in advance that circumstances beyond their control will
prevent them from attending a tutorial, they should contact their tutor with this information. If
they are unable to do this, they should explain their absence as soon as possible. Students should
not wait to be contacted by tutors for non-attendance. Unexcused absences can lead to an
unsatisfactory tutor’s report at the end of the course (affecting future job references by other
tutors), and may even result in exclusion from this course or in a refusal to allow you to re-sit
a failed examination. The University's Academic Standards Code of Practice states that a 20
credit module is expected to require a total of 200 hours’ work
4. Prerequisites:
POLI 10702 (Introduction to Political Thought) or POLI 20881 (Freedom and Equality)
For dispensation in special cases students should contact course convenor Dr L Shields
5. Lectures and Tutorials
The lecture arrangements consist of: one lecture per week. Students are required to attend
one tutorial group each week. Students will be able to select a tutorial group in the same way
as they selected their module options. Please go to the Undergraduate Office to resolve any
problems that might arise.
The tutorials on each topic will take place in the same week as the relevant lecture, and will
2
be taken by the relevant lecturer. There are no tutorials associated with lecture 1 or with
lecture 11, so each tutorial group will meet 9 times.
The first lecture will be on Thursday 29th January. The first tutorials will
be on Friday 6th and Tuesday 9th February following the first substantive
lecture on 5th February.
Lecturers on this course:
Dr Liam Shields
Dr Christian Schemmel
Dr Stephanie Collins
Dr Stephen Hood
Dr Stephen de Wijze
(liam.shields@manchester.ac.uk)
(christian.schemmel@manchester.ac.uk)
(stephanie.collins@manchester.ac.uk)
(stephen.hood@manchester.ac.uk)
(stephen.a.de-wijze@manchester.ac.uk)
Venue of Lectures:
Ellen Wilkinson C5.1
Venue of Tutorials:
Friday 10-11 Roscoe 1.002
Friday 12-1 University Place 5.211
Friday 1-2
Roscoe 4.8
Tuesday 9-10 Hums Bridgeford Street G35
Convenor
Tuesday 11-12
Roscoe 1.007
Tuesday 4-5 University Place 4.209
6.
Assessment
The mode of assessment is a two-hour unseen examination to be taken at the end of the
course worth 2/3 of the total mark, and an assessed essay worth 1/3 of the total mark.
The examination paper will have two sections (A and B) – students are required to answer
two questions, one question from each section.
Section A: Feminist Challenges to the Liberal State, Rights and Democracy; The
Scope/Grounds of Justice,
Section B: The Ethics of the Welfare State; Beyond the Welfare State, Political
Morality of Dirty Hands
The assessed essay must be no more than 2800 words in length. The hand in date is
Monday 9th March with a deadline of 2pm. Essays must be written on topics given in
lectures 2-4.
Please Note:
 The essays must be typed, double-spaced in a reasonable font (eg. 12 point in Times New
Roman).
 Essay questions will be provided*******. They will relate to the topics covered in weeks
2-4 –These topics will NOT be examined in the final examination.
 Extensions can be granted to students where there are exceptional mitigating
circumstances (e.g. strong medical reasons). In such cases a Mitigating Circumstances
form must be completed and submitted to the Undergraduate Office, Ground Floor, Arthur
Lewis Building. A Mitigating Circumstances form must be submitted before the due date
of the assessed work. Students are advised to refer to the University's Policy on Mitigating
Circumstances (available on the student intranet) for what constitutes grounds for
mitigation.
 Essays must not be faxed or emailed to any member of staff; no essay submitted in these
ways will be marked.
 There will be a penalty of 10 points per day for up to 10 days (including weekends) for
any assessed essays submitted after the specified submission date, unless the SoSS UG
Office grants the student an extension. Please note a ‘day’ is 24 hours, i.e. the clock starts
ticking as soon as the submission deadline has passed. Politics will not accept any assessed
essay after the exam for the course has taken place; unless the student has such
permission, any assessed essay which is submitted after the exam will be marked as 0.
7.
General Course Readings
Some required readings may be made available electronically via the course website. All other
readings will be available from the John Rylands University Library. Most reading is
specific to particular topics, however, although not required, the following more general
textbooks are helpful and recommended:
1. Kymlicka, W. (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy (Oxford University Press).
2. Farrelly, C. (2004) An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory (London: Sage).
3. Dryzek, J., Honig, B., & Phillips, A. (eds.) (2006) The Oxford Handbook of Political
Theory (Oxford University Press).
4. Goodin, R.E. and Pettit, P. (eds.) (1996) A Companion to Contemporary Political
Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers)
8. Overview of course
1) 29th January - Introductory Lecture
2) 5th February “Who is a Parent?”
3) 12th February “Morality and Markets”
4) 19th February “Multiculturalism”
5) 26th February – “Feminist Challenges to the Liberal State”
*Essay writing week*
**Essay Deadline 2pm 9th March**
6) 12th March – “Rights and Democracy”
7) 19th March – “The Scope/Grounds of Justice”
*Easter Break*
8) 16th April – “The Political Morality of Dirty Hands”
9) 23rd April – “The Ethics of the Welfare State”
10) 30rd April – “Beyond the Welfare State”
11) 7th May – Concluding Lecture
9. Outline of each topic
Lecture 2: Who is a Parent? Dr Liam Shields
4
Lecture Theme: Who one’s parents are has a profound influence on one’s life prospects.
Many adult are or wish to be parents. In many contemporary societies who one’s parents are
in primarily determined by biology. However, this need not be the case. We could instead
determine who is a parent in the best interests of the child or some combination of biology
and the interests of the child. This week, we question the underlying arguments in favour of
the significance of biology and contrast them with arguments in favour of the child’s
interests. The philosophical account of the factors relevant to determining parenting will
enable us to answer important practical questions about post-separation custody, adoption,
fostering and taking children into care. We will also consider Hugh La Follette’s proposal of
licensing parents, as we license medical professions and drivers.
Required Reading:
 Archard, David. "What's blood got to do with it? The significance of natural
parenthood." Res Publica 1.1 (1995): 91-106.
 Vallentyne, Peter. "Rights and Duties of Childbearing." Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 11
(2002): 991.
Recommended Reading:
 Gheaus, A. “The Right to Parent One’s Biological Baby” Journal of Political Philosophy:
1-24.
 LaFollette, Hugh, 1980, “Licensing Parents,” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9(2): 183–97.
 Brighouse, H. & Swift, A. 2006b. “Parents’ Rights and the Value of the Family”. Ethics
117: 80-108.
 Hannan, S. & Vernon, R. 2008. Parental Rights: A Role Based Approach. Education
Theory and Research: 173-89.
 Clayton, Matthew, Justice and Legitimacy in Upbringing, OUP Ch. 2
Further Reading
Biology
Velleman, J. David. "Family history." Philosophical Papers 34.3 (2005): 357-378.
Austin, Michael, 2004, “The Failure of Biological Accounts of Parenthood,” The Journal of
Value Inquiry, 38: 499–510.
Millum, 2010, “How Do We Acquire Parental Rights?” Social Theory and Practice, 36(1):
112–132.
Haslanger, Sally, 2009, “Family, Ancestry and Self: What is the Moral Significance of
Biological Ties?,” Adoption & Culture, 2(1).
Elizabeth Brake “Willing Parents: A Voluntarist Account of Parental Role Obligations,” in
Archard and Benatar 2010, pp. 151–177
Kolers, Avery and T. Bayne, 2001, ““Are You My Mommy?” On the Genetic Basis of
Parenthood,” Journal of Applied Philosophy, 18(3): 273–85.
Fuscaldo, Giulianna, 2006, “Genetic Ties: Are they Morally Binding?,” Bioethics, 20(2): 64–
76.
Child-Centered
Dwyer, James. (2006) The Relationship Rights of Children. Cambridge University Press.
Purdy, Laura Martha. In their best interest?: the case against equal rights for children. Cornell
University Press, 1992
Hedman, Carl. "Three approaches to the problem of child abuse and neglect." Journal of
social philosophy 31.3 (2000): 268-285.
Archard, David. "Child abuse: parental rights and the interests of the child." Journal of
applied philosophy 7.2 (1990): 183-194.
Dual-Interest
Schrag, F. 1976. Justice and the Family. Inquiry 19: 193-208.
Gheaus, Anca. "Is the Family Uniquely Valuable?." Ethics and Social Welfare 6.2 (2012):
120-131.
Reed, Ryan. "Are the Kids Alright? Rawls, Adoption, and Gay Parents." Ethical theory and
moral practice 16.5 (2013): 969-982
Kupfer, Joseph. "Can parents and children be friends?." American Philosophical Quarterly
(1990): 15-26.
Archard, David (2012). The Future of the Family. Ethics and Social Welfare 6 (2):132-142.
Liscensing
De Wispelaere, Jurgen, and Daniel Weinstock. "Licensing Parents to Protect Our Children?."
Ethics and Social Welfare 6.2 (2012)
Vopat, Mark. "Parent licensing and the protection of children." Taking Responsibility for
Children (2007): 73-96.
Frisch, Lawrence E. "On Licentious Licensing: A Reply to Hugh LaFollette." Philosophy &
Public Affairs, Vol. 11, No. 2 (1982): 173-180.
LaFollette, Hugh. "Licensing parents revisited." Journal of Applied Philosophy 27.4 (2010):
327-343.
LaFollette, Hugh. "A reply to Frisch." Philosophy & Public Affairs (1982): 181-183.
Sample Questions:
1. Are any biological relations relevant to custody?
2. Why, if ever, should we not allocate children in accordance with the best custodian
condition?
3. Is parental licensing a good idea?
Lecture 3. Morality and Markets: – Dr Stephen Hood
Lecture theme
One common charge levelled against markets is that their operation has a corrupting
influence upon societies, due to their reliance upon self-interested motivations and
commercial notions of value. This lecture will assess some key arguments about the moral
character of markets. Do markets influence societies and their members in a positive or a
negative manner? Do markets ‘crowd out’ virtuous social norms? Are there some goods that
ought not to be bought or sold?
Required reading
6
 Sandel, M. (2012) What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. London: Allen
Lane. Chapter 3: ‘How Markets Crowd Out Morals’.
Additional reading
General discussion
 Herzog, L. (2013). ‘Markets’. Stanford Encylcopedia of Philosophy Entry.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/markets/
 Lomasky, L. (2011). ‘Liberty After Lehman Brothers.’ Social Philosophy and Policy, Vol.
28, pp. 135-165.
 Phillips, A. (2008). ‘Egalitarians and the Market: dangerous ideals.’ Social Theory and
Practice. Vol. 34, no. 3. pp. 439-462.
 Sen, A. (1985), ‘The Moral Standing of the Market’, Social Philosophy and Policy. Vol. 3,
pp. 1–19.
 Anderson, E. (1992), Values in Ethics and Economics, Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
 Roemer, J. (2012), ‘Ideology, Social Ethos, and the Financial Crisis’, The Journal of
Ethics, vol. 16, pp. 273–303.
On the limits of markets
 Satz, D. (2010) Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Sandel, M. (1998) What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. Tanner Lectures
on Human Values. http://baihua.org/user_image2/2011/11/1320205825_1.pdf
 Kanbur, R. (2004) ‘On Obnoxious Markets’. In S. Cullenberg and P. Pattanaik (eds.)
Globalization, Culture and the Limits of the Market: Essays in Economics and Philosophy,
ed.. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/poverty/kanbur/Obnoxious%20Markets.pdf
 Wolff, J. (2007) “Market Failure, Common Interests, and the Titanic Puzzle.” In K.
Lippert-Rasmussen and N. Holtung (eds.) Egalitarianism: New Essays on the Nature and
Value of Equality, Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://sasspace.sas.ac.uk/663/1/J_Wolff_Titanic.pdf
 Fabre, C. (2006). Whose Body is it Anyway? Justice and the Integrity of the Person.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapters 6-8.
 Basu, K. (2007), ‘Coercion, contract and the limits of the market’, Social Choice and
Welfare, vol. 29, pp. 559–579.
 ‘Debate: Trade in Human Organs’ Journal of Medical Ethics Vol. 29: No. 3 (2003).
Markets and norms/attitudes/behaviour
 Gintis, H. (2000) ‘Beyond Homo Economicus: Evidence from experimental economics’.
Ecological Economics. Vol. 35, pp. 311-322.
 Gneezy, U. & A. Rustichini. (2000) ‘A Fine Is A Price.’ The Journal of Legal Studies.
Vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 1-17.
 Frey, B. and F. Oberholzer-gee (1997). ‘The Cost of Price Incentives: An Empirical
Analysis of Motivation Crowding- Out’. The American Economic Review, Vol.87(4),
pp.746-755.
Markets and society
 Marx, K. & F. Engels (1848) The Communist Manifesto. Chapter 1: Bourgeois and
Proletarians. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communistmanifesto/ch01.htm#007
 Bowles, S. (2011) ‘Is Liberal Society a Parasite on Tradition?’ Philosophy & Public
Affairs 39, no. 1, pp. 46-81
 Cohen, G.A. (2009) Why Not Socialism? Princeton University Press.
 Cunningham, F. (2005) “Market economies and market societies”, Journal of Social
Philosophy, 36(2): 129–142.
 Christiano, T. (2010). ‘The Uneasy Relationship Between Democracy And Capital.’
Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 27, pp. 195-217.
 Hirsch, F. (1976). The Social Limits to Growth, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Sample questions
1. Does the self-interested basis of markets undermine altruistic motivations?
2. Are free markets a danger to social stability?
3. Why might we want to restrict certain goods from being traded on markets?
Lecture 4. Multiculturalism – Dr Stephanie Collins
Lecture Theme: Many societies contain people from a diverse range of cultural, religious,
linguistic, and national backgrounds. In western liberal societies, it is common for laws and
policies to target such groups. For example, in the UK, Sikhs are permitted to wear turbans—
rather than helmets—when on motorcycles; funding is dedicated to preserving the Welsh
language; and so on. This week’s lecture answers the following questions: what, if anything,
justifies such policies? What are the limits on such policies? How should these justifications
be balanced against potentially competing values, like stability and national cohesion?
Required Reading:
 Will Kymlicka. Multicultural Citizenship. Oxford University Press, 1995. Chapter 5.
 Brian Barry, ‘The Limits of Cultural Politics.’ Review of International Studies 24, 1998,
307-319.
Additional Reading:
 Brian Barry. Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism. Harvard
University Press, 2001. Esp. ch. 2.
 Simon Caney, 1992, ‘Liberalism and Communitarianism: A Misconceived
Debate’, Political Studies, (June): 273–90.
 Nancy Fraser, ‘From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a ‘PostSocialist’ Age.’ New Left Review I/212, 1995, 68–93. Available at
8






<http://newleftreview.org/I/212/nancy-fraser-from-redistribution-to-recognitiondilemmas-of-justice-in-a-post-socialist-age>.
Carl Knight . “Liberal Multiculturalism Reconsidered.” Politics 24 (3), 2004, 189-97.
Chandran Kukathas. ‘Are There Any Cultural Rights?’ Political Theory 20, 1992, 105-39.
Andrew Mason, ‘Political Community, Liberal-Nationalism and the Ethics of
Assimilation,’ Ethics 109, 1999, 261–286.
Bhikhu Parekh, Rethinking Multiculturalism. Macmillan, 2000. Esp. chs 9–10.
Charles Taylor. ‘The Politics of Recognition’ in Gutmann (ed.), Multiculturalism:
Examining the Politics of Recognition. Princeton University Press, 1994.
Vernon Van Dyke, ‘The Individual, the State, and Ethnic Communities in Political
Theory’ in Kymlicka (ed.), The Rights of Minority Cultures. Oxford University Press,
1995.
Seminar Questions:
1. What’s the difference between religions, cultures, ethnicities, national minorities, and
identity groups more broadly? Do these differences matter?
2. What’s the difference between liberal and communitarian justifications for groupdifferentiated rights? Which is more plausible?
3. Are there ever conflicts between group-differentiated rights and the individual rights of
group members? If so, how should these conflicts be resolved?
Sample essay or exam questions:
i) ‘Group-differentiated rights objectionably inhibit individual liberty by putting people into
artificial boxes.’ Discuss.
ii) According to Will Kymlicka, “The problem is that most liberals have assumed, implicitly
or explicitly, that individuals will achieve their freedom and equality within the majority
culture.” Is Kymlicka correct that this assumption is a problem?
Lecture 5. Feminist Challenges to the Liberal State – Dr Miriam Ronzoni
Focus of the Lecture
Contemporary liberalism attempts to strike the right balance freedom and equality. The
distinction between a public sphere (where equality is ensured and enforced by the state) and a
private sphere (where the state should leave citizens alone) is often considered to be best way
to strike such a balance. Gender relationships, however, challenge the very possibility to draw
a clear line between the private and the public, or the personal and the political – for they
originate in the private sphere, yet play out, and have deep ramifications, for political inequality
and power.
Required Tutorial Reading
 Chambers, Clare. 2004. “Are Breast Implants Better than Female Genital Mutilation?
Autonomy, Gender Equality And Nussbaum's Political Liberalism,” Critical Review
of International Social and Political Philosophy 7: 1-33.
Further Reading
Articles, Individual Chapters, and On-line Resources




Shrage, Laurie. 1989. “Should Feminists Oppose Prostitution,” Ethics 99: 347-361;
Saul, Jennifer. 2004. “Feminist Philosophy of Language,” Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy
Entry,
available
at:
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2010/entries/feminism-language/ (last visited on
January 6th, 2015);
Gavison, Ruth. 1992. “Feminism and the Public/Private Distinction,” Stanford Law
Review 45: 1-45;
Okin, Susan M. 1999. ‘Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?’, in Cohen, Jean (ed.). Is
Multiculturalism Bad for Women? Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Books and Edited Collections
 Phillips, Anne. 1998. Feminism and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press;
 Pateman, Carole, 1988. The Sexual Contract. Oxford: Polity;
 Saul, Jennifer. 2003. Feminism: Issues and Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Sample Questions:
1. Is there a defensible version of the ‘public-private distinction’? If so, where do its
boundaries lie?
2. Can liberalism accommodate feminism without making itself less liberal?
3. Can feminism accommodate liberalism without making itself less feminist?
Lecture 6. Rights and Democracy – Dr Miriam Ronzoni
Focus of the Lecture
This lecture focuses on the relationship, and possible tension, between two fundamental
political concepts in contemporary liberal democracy: individual rights and democratic
processes. On the one hand, protecting the fundamental, and arguably inalienable, rights of
individual citizens is traditionally seen as being one of the main aims of the liberal state. On
the other, it seems that one of the fundamental rights we should have, within a political system
that genuinely treats us as equal, is the right to have an equal say in democratic decisionmaking. Democratic processes, however, can in principle decide to disenfranchise specific
groups or ban specific practices (prostitution, pornography, same-sex practices, etc.). How is
this compatible with considering rights inalienable? Is the constitutional entrenchment of
fundamental rights a solution to this problem, or is it a downright restriction on democratic
processes?
Required Tutorial Reading
 Fabre, Cécile. 2000. “A Philosophical Argument for a Bill of Rights,” British Journal of
Political Science, 29: 77-98;
 Waldron, Jeremy. 1993. “Rights and Majorities: Rousseau Revisited” in Liberal
Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
Further Reading
Articles and Individual Chapters
10




Ronald, Dworkin. 1977. “Taking Rights Seriously”, in Taking Rights Seriously.
Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press;
Dworkin, Ronald. 1985. “Do We Have a Right to Pornography?” in A Matter of
Principle. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press;
Waldron, Jeremy. 1993. “A Right-based Critique of Constitutional Rights,” Oxford
Journal of Legal Studies 13: 18-51;
Waldron, Jeremy. 1999. “Part III: Rights and Judicial Review” (chapters 10-13), in
Law and Disagreement. N: Oxford University Press, 1999;
Books
 Bellamy. Richard. 2007. Political Constitutionalism: A Republican Defence of the
Constitutionality of Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
 Zurn. Christopher. 2007. Deliberative Democracy and the Institutions of Judicial
Review. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press;
Sample Questions:
1. “Any right has sometimes to be overridden.” Is this a good objection to having a Bill
of Rights?
2. Is constitutional review undemocratic?
3. What are the limits of democracy? What are the limits of constitutional powers?
Lecture 7. The Scope/Ground of Justice – Dr Miriam Ronzoni
Focus of Lecture
A central question within contemporary liberal theory concerns the scope of principles and
obligations of justice: do we have obligations of justice towards all other human beings? Or is
the occurrence of demands of justice a function of specific relationships and/or forms of
association –and if so which? As we shall see, the question regarding the scope of justice is
deeply intertwined with the question regarding its ground: different takes on the scope of
justice often rely on different views about what triggers obligations of justice to begin with.
For instance, many (but not all) authors who argue that individuals are bound by justice iff they
are jointly subject to a coercive system tend to endorse the view that the scope of justice is
limited to state boundaries.
Required Tutorial Reading

Miller, David, 2009. “Justice and Boundaries,” Politics, Philosophy, & Economics 8(3),
291-309.
Further Reading
Articles and Individual Chapters
On the ground of justice:
 Blake, Michael (2001), “Distributive Justice, state Coercion, and Autonomy,”
Philosophy and Public Affairs, 30: 257-296.
 Meckled-Garcia, Saladin (2008), “On the Very Idea of Cosmopolitan Justice:
Constructivism and International Agency,” The Journal of Political Philosophy 1: 245271.
 Nagel, Thomas (2005), “The Problem of Global Justice,” Philosophy and Public
Affairs, 33: 113-147.
 Sangiovanni, Andrea (2007), “Global Justice, Reciprocity, and the State.” Philosophy
and Public Affairs 35: 3-39.
 Valentini, Laura, 2011. ‘Coercion and (Global) Justice’, American Political Science
Review, 105 (1): 205-220.
On whether it is possible to restrict the scope of justice:
 Abizadeh, Arash. 2007. “Cooperation, Pervasive Impact, and Coercion: On the Scope
(not Site) of Distributive Justice.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 35: 318-58.
 Barry, Christian and Valentini, Laura (2009), “Egalitarian Challenges to Global
Egalitarianism: A Critique.” Review of International Studies 35: 485-512.
 Pogge, Thomas. 2002. “Moral Universalism and Global Economic Justice.” Politics,
Philosophy, and Economics, 1(1), 29-58.
Intermediate Approaches:
 Forst, Rainer (2001), “Towards a Critical Theory of Transnational Justice.”
Metaphilosophy 32: 160-179.
 Ronzoni, Miriam (2009), “The Global Order: A Case of Background Injustice? A
Practice-Dependent Approach.” Philosophy & Public Affairs. 37: 229-256.
 Cohen, Joshua and Sabel, Charles, 2006. ‘Extra Rempublicam Nulla Justitia?',
Philosophy and Public Affairs, 34 (2): 147-75.
Books (including edited collections)
 Beitz, Charles. 1999. Political Theory and International Relations. Revised edition.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 Caney, Simon (2010), “Cosmopolitanism,” in Bell, Duncan, ed. Ethics and World
Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Fraser, Nancy (2009), Scales of Justice: Reimagining Political Space in a Globalizing
World. New York: Columbia University Press.
 Pogge, Thomas. 2008. World Poverty and Human Rights. Revised Edition. London:
Polity Press.
 Walzer, Michael. 1983. Spheres of Justice. New York: Basic Books.
 Darrel, Moellendorf. 2002. Cosmopolitan Justice. Boulder: Westview Press.
 Valentini, Laura. 2011 Justice in a Globalized World. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Brock, Gillian (ed.). 2013. Cosmopolitanism vs Non-Cosmopolitanism: Critiques,
Defences, Reconceptualizations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12
Sample questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
What triggers obligations of justice?
Do obligations of justice come in degrees, or are they an “all or nothing” affair?
Does the ground of justice endorsed by a theory necessarily determine its scope?
Does the scope of justice obligations depend on associative relations between agents,
or does it derive from the fundamental moral equality of all people?
5. Do obligations of justice beyond borders hold among individuals or among
peoples/states?
Lecture 8. The Political Morality of Dirty Hands – Dr Stephen de Wijze
Focus of Lecture
Introducing the concept of ‘dirty hands’ and exploring its relationship to a notion of a
political morality.
Required reading
 Walzer, M. (1973) ‘Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands’, Philosophy & Public
Affairs, Vol 2 Number 2. (Winter)
 Coady, C.A.J.(1993) Politics and the Problem of Dirty Hands’ in Singer, P. (ed.) (1993)
A Companion to Ethics, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).
 Garrett, S. (1996) Conscience and Power: An Examination of Dirty Hands and Political
Leadership, (London: Palgrave) Preface and Ch.1.
 Rynard, P. & Shugarman, D. (eds) (2000) Cruelty & Deception, (Australia: Pluto Press)
Introduction pp11-18 and Appendix pp. 251-261.
 de Wijze, S. (2007) ‘Dirty Hands: Doing Wrong to do Right’ in Politics and Morality
(ed.) Igor Primoratz: ch. 1
Additional reading
 Stocker, M. (1990) Plural and Conflicting Values, (Oxford: OUP) Chs 1-2.
 Thompson, D.(1987) Political Ethics and Public Office, (Harvard University Press) Ch.
1.
 Benn, S. I. and Gaus G. F. (eds.) (1983) Public and Private in Social Life, (London:
Macmillan) Ch.7
 Rynard and Shugarman (eds.) (2000) Cruelty and Deception - read the following
articles. Note that the first 4 articles argue for the notion of ‘dirty hands’ while the
subsequent 4 argue against it:
FOR: Beiner, ‘Missionaries and Mercenaries’ Ch. 2.
Allett, ‘Bernard Shaw and Dirty-Hands Politics: Ch3.
Sorell, ‘Politics, Power and Partisanship’: Ch. 4.
Simpson, ‘Justice, Expediency, and Practices of Thinking’: Ch. 6.
AGAINST
Nielsen, ‘There is No Dilemma of Dirty Hands’: Ch. 8.
Yeo, ‘On the one hand and on the other’: Ch.9.
McDonald, ‘Hands: Clean and Tied or Dirty and Bloody’: Ch.11.
Shugarman, ‘Democratic Dirty Hands?’:Ch. 14.

Primoratz, I. (ed.) (2007) Politics and Morality, (New York: Palgrave) Chs. 2-4
Sample of examination questions
i)
ii)
iii)
Is the political world a place where morality is suspended?
Are claims about dirty hands conceptually confused?
Could an action be morally justified but nevertheless also morally wrong
Lecture 9. The Ethics of the Welfare State – Dr Christian Schemmel
Focus of Lecture
Comparative welfare state research is an important branch of political science, but the welfare
state has received less attention in normative political theory. Yet normative controversies
regarding the welfare state feature centrally in the public discourse of many developed
countries, and perhaps especially of the UK. What, if anything, justifies (which form of) the
welfare state? In this lecture, we consider different possible justifications, and underlying
values, of welfare state arrangements, as well as objections to them.
Required Tutorial Reading
 Goodin, Robert (1982) “Freedom and the Welfare State: Theoretical Foundations”,
Journal of Social Policy 11 (2), 149-176.
Further Reading:
On different justifications of (different forms/aspects of) the welfare state:
Articles/ Chapters
 Barry, Brian (1990), “The Welfare State versus the Relief of Poverty”, Ethics 100 (3),
503-529.
 Goodin, Robert E. (1990), “Stabilizing Expectations: The Role of Earnings-Related
Benefits in Social Welfare Policy”, Ethics 100 (3), 530-553.
 *Heath, Joseph (2006) “The Benefits of Cooperation”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 34 (4),
313-351.
 Heath, Joseph (2011) “Three Normative Models of the Welfare State”, Public Reason 3
14
(2), 13-43.
 Moon, J. Donald (1988), “The Moral Basis of the Democratic Welfare State”, in: Amy
Gutmann (ed)., Democracy and the Welfare State, Princeton: Princeton University Press,
pp. 27-52.
 *Weale, Albert (1990) “Equality, Social Solidarity, and the Welfare State”, Ethics 100 (3),
473-488.
Books
 *Goodin, Robert E. (1988) Reasons for Welfare: The Political Theory of the Welfare
State. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
 Goodin, Robert E. (1998) The Real Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, esp. pp. 21-36.
 Rothstein, Bø (1998), Just Institutions Matter, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 Schmidtz, David, and Goodin, Robert E. (1998) Social Welfare and Individual
Responsibility. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Critiques of the Welfare State (from “the Right”; for proposals to go beyond it, see next
week)
 *Friedman, Milton (1962/2002), Capitalism and Freedom, 40th Anniversary Edition,
Chicago: University of Chicago Press, especially pp. 176-195.
 Hayek, Friedrich (1960/2013), The Constitution of Liberty, Vol. 17 of his Collected
Works, ed. Ronald Hamowy, Routledge: London, Part III; see also his “The Meaning of
the Welfare State in Pierson/Castles 2006, pp. 90-95.
 Mead, Lawrence M. (1986), Beyond Entitlement – The Social Obligations of Citizenship,
New York: Free Press.
 Schmidtz, David, “Taking Responsibility”, in Schmidtz/Goodin (1998), pp. 3-96.
Edited Volumes/Anthologies
 Gutmann, Amy (ed) (1988), Democracy and the Welfare State, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
 Pierson, Christopher, and Castles, Francis G. (eds.) (2006) The Welfare State Reader,
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Classic Texts on the Welfare State
 Beveridge, William (1942), Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Social
Insurance and Allied Services (the “Beveridge Report”), H. M. Stationery Office, London,
1942, available online at http://www.sochealth.co.uk/public-health-andwellbeing/beveridge-report/.
 Marshall, T.H. (1950), “Citizenship and Social Class”, in his Citizenship and Social Class
and other essays, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1950, pp. 1-85.
 Titmuss, Richard H. (1963), Essays on the Welfare State, 2nd ed., London: Allen Unwin.
 Esping-Andersen, Gøsta (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Note: * denotes particularly recommended further reading.
Sample Questions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What is the welfare state? Which values underpin it?
Is there a distinctive moral justification for the welfare state?
Does the welfare state diminish freedom?
Does it breed dependency, and reward the irresponsible?
Lecture 10. Beyond the Welfare State - Dr Christian Schemmel
Focus of Lecture
Welfare state arrangements are often criticised, interestingly from both the left and the right,
as encouraging dependency, and failing to promote individual autonomy. In this lecture, we
examine two proposals aiming to go beyond the welfare state in these respects: by achieving a
more egalitarian initial distribution of capital; and by granting an unconditional basic income.
We will assess the respective strengths and weaknesses of these proposals.
Required Tutorial Reading
 Ackerman, Bruce and Alstott, Anne (1999), The Stakeholder Society, chs. 1,2, and 11 (pp.
210-216 only).
 Van Parijs, Philippe (1992), “Basic Income Capitalism”, Ethics 102 (3), 465-484.
Further Reading:
On Basic Income:
 *McKinnon, Catriona (2003) “Basic Income, Self-Respect, and Reciprocity”, Journal of
Applied Philosophy 20 (2), 143-158.
 Offe, Claus (2009) “Basic Income and the Labor Contract”, Analyse & Kritik 31 (1), 49-79
(on Blackboard, not available via library)
 Van Parijs, Philippe (1991) “Why Surfers Should be Fed: The Liberal Case for an
Unconditional Basic Income”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 20 (2), 101-131.
 Van Parijs, Philippe (1995), Real Freedom for All, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Collections on Stakeholding/Basic Income
 *Ackerman, Bruce, Alstott, Anne, and van Parijs, Philippe Redesigning Redistribution –
Basic Income and Stakeholder Grants as Cornerstones for an Egalitarian Capitalism,
edited by Erik Olin Wright, London: Verso 2006.
 Dowding, Keith, De Wispelaere, Jurgen, and White, Stuart (2003) The Ethics of
Stakeholding, Basingstoke: Palgrave/Macmillan.
An Intermediate Proposal
 White, Stuart, The Civic Minimum: On the Rights and Obligations of Economic
Citizenship, Oxford: Oxford University Press, Part II.
 *White Stuart, (2011) “Basic Income vs. Basic Capital: Can We Resolve the
16
Disagreement?, Policy and Politics 39 (1), 67-81.
John Rawls’s Proposal of a “Property-Owning Democracy”, and Discussion
 *Rawls, John (2001) Justice as Fairness – A Restatement, Cambridge (MA): Harvard
University Press, especially Part IV, pp. 135-140.
 Freeman, Samuel (2013) “Property-Owning Democracy and the Difference Principle”,
Analyse & Kritik 35 (1), 9-36, especially pp. 9-24 (on Blackboard, not available via
library).
 Krouse, Richard, and McPherson, Michael (1988) “Capitalism, ‘Property-Owning
Democracy’, and the Welfare State, in: Gutmann, Amy (ed), Democracy and the Welfare
State, Princeton: Princeton University Press, pp. 79-105.
 *O’Neill, Martin (2009), “Liberty, Equality, and Property-Owning Democracy”, Journal
of Social Philosophy 40 (3), 379-396.
 O’Neill, Martin, and Williamson, Thad (eds) (2012) Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls
and Beyond, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
 Weale, Albert (2013) “The Property-Owning Democracy versus the Welfare State”,
Analyse & Kritik 35 (1), 37-54 (on blackboard; not available via library).
Note: * denotes particularly recommended further reading.
Sample Questions
1.
2.
3.
4.
What is the moral case for a “citizen’s stake”?
What is the moral case for an unconditional basic income?
How do these two proposals compare? Which one is preferable?
Can capitalism be egalitarian?
-----------------------------------------
10. Web Information
For the convenience of students, some overhead slides and certain required readings will be
placed on the course website - see the relevant Blackboard website.
The lecture notes on the website are not a comprehensive set of notes and MUST NOT
serve as a substitute for attending lectures and/or doing the prescribed and recommended
readings for this course. Students who simply reproduce this material in either ESSAYS
or EXAMINATIONS will be marked down and deemed to have not done adequate work,
nor attained an adequate level of understanding of the material required for the course.