Public Affairs 506A
Ethics and Public Policy
Winter 2010
Michael Blake
Savery Hall 389
miblake@u.washington.edu
http://faculty.washington.edu/miblake/pbaf506a.shtml
Office Hours: TBA
Public policy professionals are frequently confronted in their political, professional, and
personal decisions with questions of value. This course is designed to provoke critical
thinking about the moral challenges of public policymaking and the moral responsibilities
of public actors in a democracy.
The course examines two questions: (1) What should governments do? (2) What should
public servants do? The first question requires us to consider public principles that guide
good, just, and legitimate public policy, especially in multicultural and pluralistic
societies such as the United States. The second question requires us to consider the many
and often competing obligations, commitments, and values that should guide public
actors inside and outside government, particularly when there is disagreement about
specifying and interpreting public principles, and disagreement about what is good, just,
and legitimate public policy.
The conviction that guides both the course’s content and its pedagogy is that moral and
political views can and should be grounded in reasons, and that reasoned changes of view
are possible. Moreover, the course is premised on the view that although there are a
number of ways in which questions of value might be explored, one of those ways—the
methods of analytic philosophical thought—provides an important tool for the critical
and reflective thinking that is necessary for successful governance. The course therefore
provides regular practice in developing the skills of analytic moral reasoning, and invites
reflection about one’s moral and political commitments through an ongoing engagement
with classmates and authors (who may have different commitments).
READINGS
Many of the conceptual readings ask you to stretch your mind in what might be an
unaccustomed way. The challenge is worthwhile. Serious discussion about questions of
value in public service requires at least some exposure to serious writings, both to build a
conceptual vocabulary and to see examples of good moral reasoning. The readings have
been selected not only for their importance, but also for their accessibility. Still, you will
find some passages hard-going. Study questions are provided to guide you through the
rough spots.
If you have not read much philosophy before, the following documents may be helpful:
James Pryor, “Philosophical Terms and Methods,” “How to Read a Philosophy
Paper,” “Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper,” links available on website.
Thomas Nagel, What Does it All Mean? (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987)
pp. 59-75.
All readings for the course are available either through e-reserves, or online through the
syllabus. Both the syllabus and a link to the e-reserves page are available on the course
website.
EVALUATION
The goal in the course is not simply to master knowledge of what other people have said,
but to engage with their ideas in a critical way. Accordingly, the assignments will ask
you to take the point of view of a political agent faced with an ethical decision. Your
task will be to complete a memo detailing what factors affect how the decision ought to
be made, and what decision is ultimately most defensible. You will have to write two
memos over the course of the term.
(1) A two-page single-spaced memo, due February 2 (Memo prompts available
January 19), worth 20% of total grade.
(2) A three-page single-spaced memo, due March 2 (Memo prompts available
February 16), worth 30% of total grade.
In addition to these memos, there will be a take-home exam, handed out on March 9, due
March 16 at 5PM. This exam is worth 30% of the total grade.
Finally, this course is intended to be discussion-based, and participation in discussions
will count for 20% of your total grade. Please bring your nameplates to class every time!
SYLLABUS
1. Roles and Principles (January 5)
Edmund Burke, excerpt from the “Speech to the Electors of Bristol” (1774), available at
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch13s7.html
PART I. POLITICAL PRINCIPLES AND PUBLIC POLICY
2. Liberty and Its Limits I: Freedom of Conscience and Freedom of Speech
(January 12)
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1978) chapters 13. Available at http://www.bartleby.com/130/
Minersville School District v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586 (1940) (opinion of Justice
Frankfurter only; there is no need to read the dissents or the footnotes.) Available at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=310&invol=586
West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (opinion of
Justice Jackson only, although the dissenting opinion of Justice Frankfurter is
recommended.) Available at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=624
Village of Skokie v. National Socialist Party of America, Supreme Court of Illinois
(1978), in Joel Feinberg and Hyman Gross, Philosophy of Law, 4th ed. (1991), pp. 311314. Available at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgibin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=432&invol=43
Mark Steyn, “The future belongs to Islam,” Maclean’s, October 20, 2006. Available at
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20061023_134898_134898
Adam Liptak, “Unlike Others, U. S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech,” New York
Times, June 12, 2008. Available at
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/12/us/12hate.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=maclean's%20isla
m&st=cse
3. Liberty and Its Limits II: Paternalism and Moralism (January 19)
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859) (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1978), chapters 45. Available at http://www.bartleby.com/130/
Manuel Wackenheim v. France, Communication No. 854/1999, U.N. Doc.
CCPR/C/75/D/854/1999 (2002). Available on e-reserves.
Marion Smiley, “Legalizing Laetrile,” in Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson, eds.,
Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments (2d. ed.) (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1990) 235243. Available on e-reserves.
Richard H. Thaler and Cass Sunstein, “Designing Better Choices,” Los Angeles Times,
April 2, 2008. Available at http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/02/opinion/oethalerandsunstein2
4. Democracy and Difference at Home (January 26)
John Rawls, Justice as Fairness: A Restatement (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1999), pp. 14-38. Available on e-reserves.
John Rawls, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,” Sec. 1-3, in John Rawls, Collected
Papers (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), Samuel Freeman, ed., pp. 573-591.
Available on e-reserves.
Gregory M. Stankiewicz, “The Controversial Curriculum,” in Amy Gutmann and Dennis
Thompson, eds., Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments (Chicago: Nelson-Hall,
1997), pp. 327-333. Available on e-reserves.
Stephen Macedo, Diversity and Distrust: Civic Education in a Multicultural Democracy
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), pp. 153-187, 316-321. Available on ereserves.
5. Boundaries I: Cross-Cultural Conflicts of Value (February 2)
Susan Okin, “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?” in Is Multiculturalism Bad for
Women? Joshua Cohen et al., eds. (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1999), pp. 9-24.
Available at http://www.bostonreview.net/BR22.5/okin.html
Azizah al-Hibri, “Is Western Patriarchal Feminism Good for Third World / Minority
Women?” in Cohen et al., eds. (1999), pp. 41-46. Available on e-reserves.
Charles Taylor, “The Politics of Recognition,” in Amy Gutmann, ed., Multiculturalism
and the Politics of Recognition (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), pp. 25-61.
Available on e-reserves.
Michael Blake, “Rights for People, not for Cultures,” Civilization, August / September
2000, pp. 50-53. Available on e-reserves.
6. Boundaries II: Immigration and Poverty (February 9)
Joseph Carens, “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders,” The Review of
Politics 49:2 (1987), pp. 251-273. Available on e-reserves.
Michael Blake, “Immigration,” in R. G. Frey and Christopher Heath Wellman, eds., A
Companion to Applied Ethics (2003), pp. 224-237. Available on e-reserves.
Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1:3
(1972), pp. 229-243. Available at http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1972----.htm
PART IV. POLITICAL AUTHORITY AND PUBLIC ROLES
7. Ethics and Roles, I: Role Morality (February 16)
“Miller and Furloughs.” Case summary, available on website.
Sir Michael Quinlan, “Controversy: Ethics in the Public Service,” Governance 6:4
(1993), pp. 538-544. Available on e-reserves.
Arthur Isak Applbaum, “The Remains of the Role,” in Ethics for Adversaries
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1999), pp. 61-75. Available on e-reserves.
Mark H. Moore and Malcolm K. Sparrow, “Saturday Night Massacre,” in Moore and
Sparrow, Ethics in Government (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prenctice Hall, 1990) pp. 136144. Available on e-reserves.
8. Ethics and Roles, II: Official Disobedience (February 23)
Martin Luther King, Jr., “A Letter from the Birmingham Jail,” in Why We Can’t Wait
(1963), pp. 77-100. Available at
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/frequentdocs/birmingham.pdf
David Rudenstine, “Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers,” in Amy Gutmann and
Dennis F. Thompson, Ethics and Politics: Cases and Comments, 3rd ed. (1997), pp. 161171. Available on e-reserves.
Taylor Branch, “The Odd Couple,” in Gutmann and Thompson, 3rd ed. (1997), pp. 152161. Available on e-reserves.
9. First class-selected topic (March 2)
10. Second class-selected topic (March 9)
Possible topics include:
(1) The morality of the invasion of Iraq (and/or Afghanistan)
(2) Ecological value and the ethics of climate change
(3) Selective conscientious disobedience
(4) Public policy responses to terrorism
(5) Race
Or, anything else the class can think of . . .