DPI201 I: The Responsibilities of Public Action
for International and Global Affairs
(version updated Dec 15, 2014)
Instructor: Mathias Risse
Professor of Philosophy and Public Policy
209 Rubenstein
mathias_risse@harvard.edu
Office Hour: Tuesday 3-4
Faculty Assistant: Derya Honça
Rubenstein 215
derya_honca@hks.harvard.edu
Classroom Location: L 140
Class Days and Time: Monday & Wednesday, 2.40-4
Teaching Fellow: Tomer Perry (tomer_perry@hks.harvard.edu)
Section times TBD
GETTING STARTED
Come prepared for the first session. Pick up readings from the Course Materials Office
and books from the Harvard Coop.
Course Description:
This introduction to ethical questions that arise at the international level is designed
for students in the International and Global Affairs concentration. The course is
organized around the human rights paradigm. That paradigm is currently the
leading moral vision for the future of humanity. Human rights standards have
become increasingly prominent in international politics, civil society and business in
recent decades. This does not mean the human rights approach is undisputed. For
instance, economic policy is often made from within a consequentialist framework
that does not make rights central. In some parts of the world (especially in East
Asia) there is also intellectual and political resistance to human rights, which are
seen as a Western construct. International relations scholars disagree about the
importance of human rights for change. This course introduces the human rights
1
approach and articulates such concerns. Connections to other classes in the IGA
curriculum can readily be made from these topics. The course concludes with
several sessions on human rights and business/fairness in trade.
Course Requirements:
Participation
Students are required to come to class prepared to discuss the readings. They are
also required to come to section for the first five weeks. After that, attendance in
section is optional but will count very favorably towards your participation grade.
Participation counts for 20% of the final grade.
Short Papers
Students are required to submit three of the posted writing assignments, according
to the following rules: (a) you must submit the first assignment within the first four
weeks; (b) there must be at least two weeks between any two assignments – so if
you choose to submit as the first assignment one posted for week 3, then the earliest
assignment you can submit next is the one posted two weeks later: (c) the
assignment is due within a week after the class for which it is posted (and due
before next class). The length of the paper should be 750-800 words. Papers that
are longer than 800 words will not be accepted. Please include a word count.
Assignments require normative argumentation. Guidance for how to write such
papers will be provided. The short papers count 30% towards the grade. NOTE: Do
not confuse writing assignments and guiding questions!
Ethics Task Force and Human Rights Log
You will be assigned to an ethics task force of four to five students. Each task force
will be in the same section. This group has the following tasks: (a) you will meet at
least once a week to discuss (some of) the study questions and written assignments
for the week; (b) you will submit your short papers on the same subject and discuss
them beforehand (though the papers will then be individual work) – so you must
work out a semester schedule of paper writing that is specific to this group and
applies to the whole group; (c) you must keep a Human Rights log in which a
member of the group each week reflects the thinking of the group on at least one of
the study questions for that week, in about 300 words; (d) each task force must
schedule one 45-min meeting with Mathias Risse and one with Tomer Perry (which
can count as your meeting for that week). The Human Rights log is due on the day of
the last class and counts for 20% of the grade of each person in the task force.
Final Take Home
2
The final exercise will consist of essay questions that are to be answered in no more
than 2,000-2,500 words in total (as specified). Examinations will be available on
Wednesday, April 29, and are due on Wednesday, May 6, 5 pm. Late examinations
will not be accepted. All submissions will be done electronically, and assignments
will be returned electronically. The final exercise counts for 30% of your grade.
Academic Integrity
Discussion and the exchange of ideas are essential to academic work, and in this
course the Ethics Task Force introduces an explicitly collaborative component.
However, you should ensure that the shorter papers and the exam essays that you
submit for evaluation is the result of your own research and writing and that it
reflects your own approach to the topic. You must also properly cite any books,
articles, websites, lectures, etc. that have helped you with your work. If you receive
any help with your writing (e.g., feedback on drafts), you must also acknowledge
this assistance. Integrity is essential to academic life.
Professionalism in the Classroom
Professionalism is as important as integrity for a successful class. Do come
prepared, and do come on time. Do not eat during class time. Laptop use is
permitted but the presumption is that you only use the laptop for activities
connected to this class. You are undermining professionalism in the classroom if you
work on unrelated things.
Grading:
The HKS Academic Council has issued recommendations on grading policy, which
include the following curve: A (10-15%), A- (20-25%), B+ (30-40%), B (20-25%), B(5-10%).
Reading and Assignments:
Required readings: readings are posted on the DPI201 I course page.
Introduction
Class 1: Monday, Jan 26: Ethics in Precarious Times
Readings
Joshua Greene, Moral Tribes, pp 1-55 and pp 361-364
Max Bazerman and Ann Tenbrunsel, Blind Spots, pp 1-23
3
Jared Diamond, Collapse, pp 419-440 pp 550-551
Guiding Questions
1. What does Greene define as Tragedy of Commonsense Morality, and how
is this different from the Tragedy of Commons you probably have
encountered before? Why is this new tragedy important?
2. What is the phenomenon Greene describes as biased fairness, and why is
it important?
3. What do Bazerman and Tenbrunsel mean by “bounded ethicality?” Can
you connect this to situations in your life where this might have
mattered? Why would this be problematic?
4. According to Diamond, why did societies collapse because of
environmental problems although these problems must have been visible
to them? What lesson does this teach us?
Human Rights – the “Last Utopia” and its Competitors
Class 2: Wednesday, Jan 28: Introducing Human Rights
Readings
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Paul Gordon Lauren, The Evolution of International Human Rights, Chapter 7
(“Proclaiming a Vision: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights”, 2003),
pp. 199-232
Samuel Moyn, The Last Utopia, pp 120-158
Recommended
Aryeh Neier, The International Human Right Movement: A History, pp 1-25
Guiding Questions
1. What is the difference between Article 1 and 2 of the UDRH? Why does it
matter that these issues are discussed before even a right to life has been
introduced? What relevance does this have for today?
2. Why does Moyn call human rights “the last utopia?” Are you comfortable
endorsing this “last utopia”? Why or why not?
4
3. We learn from Lauren that the Human Rights Commission was a rather
diverse group by the standards of the time. Does the composition of this
committee matter for the legitimacy of the document?
Class 3: Monday, February 2: Arguing for Human Rights – Kantian Ethics
Readings
Thomas Hill, “Kantian Normative Ethics,” in David Copp, ed., The Oxford
Handbook of Ethical Theory (2006), pp 480-514
Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, Bundesverfassungsgericht Press
Release No. 11/2006 (Feb. 15, 2006), “Authorization to Shoot down Aircraft
in the Aviation Security Act Void,” pp. 1-5.
Recommended
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, 406 (“If we have
so far (…)”) – 436 (“and of every rational nature.”).
Guiding Questions
1. What is the connection between human rights and Kantian moral thinking?
2. What is the formula-of-humanity version of the Categorical Imperative?
Think of three scenarios where somebody’s behavior violates this formula.
Do you think the Categorical Imperative gives intuitive correct answers? Why
or why not?
3. Can you identify the Kantian reasoning in the court’s judgment? Do you think
we should ask all passengers to sign a document upon boarding that would
give the government the right to shoot them down in a case of a hijacking?
Writing Assignment
What are the main reasons the court lists for striking down the Aviation
Security Act? Present several objections to the court’s reasoning. Assess how
the court could respond and formulate a view on the judgment.
Class 4: Wednesday, February 4: A Competing Approach – Utilitarianism
Readings
William Shaw, “The Consequentialist Perspective,” in James Dreier, ed.,
5
Contemporary Debates in Moral Theory (2006), pp 5-20
Peter Singer, “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs
1:3 (1972), pp 229-243
Recommended:
Jeremy Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation,
Chapters I and IV
John Stuart Mill, Utilitarianism, Chapters I-III
Guiding Questions
1. Singer’s fundamental principle is the following: “If it is in our power to
prevent something bad from happening, without thereby sacrificing
something of comparable moral importance, we ought, morally, to do it.”
Explain how this principle is intelligible as a form of utilitarianism. Do you
find it acceptable?
2. Is Singer’s criticism of our way of life correct? Is it true that all of us are,
when you get down to it, moral monsters for not donating more income to
Oxfam?
3. Is there room within Singer’s approach for a notion of responsibility? If the
drowning child had entered the puddle as a result of his own foolish choices,
would that make a difference to our duties? If a bully had pushed the child,
would that make a difference?
Writing Assignment
“If it is in our power to prevent something bad from happening, without
thereby sacrificing anything of comparable moral importance, we ought,
morally, to do it” (Singer, p. 231). Singer concludes that we are obligated to
give away large sums of money for famine relief, up to the point where the
marginal cost to us of doing so equals the marginal benefit to starving
recipients. Certainly, according to Singer, we are morally obligated to spend
our money on famine relief, rather than on new clothing for ourselves. Are
we morally obligated to give away a large share of our discretionary income
to relieve famine? Why or why not?
Class 5: Monday, February 9: A Competing Approach – Virtue Ethics
Readings
Confucius, Excerpts from The Analects
6
Bryan Van Norden, Introduction to Classical Chinese Philosophy, Chapters 2
and 3
Mark Timmons, Moral Theory: An Introduction, Chapter 10 (“Virtue Ethics”)
Guiding Questions
1. Confucius’s style of philosophizing is very different from what we have
encountered so far. How do you characterize the differences? Do you find
this style of philosophizing helpful?
2. In Van Norden, what are the two senses of “gentleman” that he ascribes to
Confucius? Is this character an inspiration for you? Why or why not?
3. What is “virtue” ethics, and how is it different from the moral theories we
have encountered so far? Do you find it appealing?
Writing Assignment
Choose one of the aphorisms (sections) in the Confucius chapters and
identify a question that this aphorism answers or a subject matter on which
it gives advice. What is the answer/advice provided by the passage? How
could one support that answer? How could one object? What is your view?
Human Rights and Democracy
Class 6: Wednesday, February 11: Is there a Human Right to Democracy?
Readings
UN Website on human rights and democracy
http://www.un.org/en/globalissues/democracy/human_rights.shtml
Thomas Christiano, “An Instrumental Argument for a Human Right to
Democracy,” Philosophy and Public Affairs 39 (2): pp 142-176
Joshua Cohen, “Is There a Human Right to Democracy?” In Christine
Sypnowich (ed.), The Egalitarian Conscience, pp 226-248
Guiding Questions
1. Does the UDHR actually support a human right to democracy? What
precisely would such a right amount to? Does it matter if there is a human
to democracy?
7
2. What is Christiano’s instrumental argument for democracy? Does it
persuade you? Why or why not?
3. Why does Cohen not think there is a human right to democracy?
Writing Assignment
Morally speaking, is there a human right to democracy? What is the best
argument in favor, and what is the best argument against? Which side do you
support, and why? Consider the best objection to your position.
Monday, February 16 is President’s Day (Holiday)
Class 7: Wednesday, February 18: Meritocracy?
Readings (plus two videos):
Daniel Bell, “Political Meritocracy is a Good Thing,” Parts 1 and 2
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-a-bell/political-meritocracychina_b_1815245.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-a-bell/political-meritocracychina_b_1815288.html
Daniel Bell on a Vertical Model Political System
http://www.ideacityonline.com/video/daniel-bell-vertical-modelpoliticalsystem/
Joseph Chan, Talks on “Democracy, Human Rights and Confucian Values”
(March 2012)
http://www.cornell.edu/video/joseph-chan-democracy-human-rights-andconfucian-values
Guiding Questions
1. What is Chan’s “Second Chamber,” and how do its members get selected?
Do you think having such a chamber would be a good idea?
2. What does Chan regard as “Confucian civility,” and how might it help with
improving democracy? Do you think promoting Confucian civility would
be sensible?
3. According to Bell, how does meritocracy in China work, and what lessons
does it teach to the rest of the world
8
4. How does Bell see the relationship between meritocracy and the oneperson-one-vote principle? Do you think the one-person-one-vote system
is a good thing?
Writing Assignment
What do you think is the strongest argument for the one-person-one-vote
principle? Drawing on Bell or Chan (or other theorists/views you are familiar
with), how do you think one could resist that principle? What is your view on
the matter?
Class 8: Monday, February 23: Reflecting on Singapore’s role in the World
Readings
Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (1993), pp 146-160 and pp 227-248
(chapters 6 and 10)
Lee Kuan Yew, From Third World to First, Chapter 30 (pp 487-500)
Lee Kuan Yew, One Man’s View of the World, pp 205-216
Mathias Risse, “From Third World to First - What's next? Singapore’s
Obligations to the Rest of the World From a Human Rights Perspective”
(Speech given to the National University of Singapore Society, October 2013)
Guiding Questions
1. How do Amartya Sen and Lee Kuan Yew differ on their views on
democracy (if at all)? With whose views do you tend to agree more?
2. Lee Kuan Yew thinks that Singapore will become mediocre if it no longer
is a one-party system. Why does he think that? Should he be worried?
3. What do Sen and Lee say about the notion of “Asian values?” What do you
think about their views?
Writing Assignment
What are Risse’s arguments for the thesis that Singapore should ratify more
human rights treaties? How could one argue against that thesis? What is your
view?
Putting Human Rights in Perspective
Class 9: Wednesday, February 25: Human Rights and the Importance of Order
and Stability
9
Readings
Bernard Williams, “Realism and Moralism in Political Theory,” In Williams, In
the Beginning was the Deed (Princeton University Press, 2005)
John Mearsheimer, “The False Promise of International Institutions,”
International Security 19 (3): pp 5-49
Kathryn Sikkink, The Justice Cascade, pp 1-7, pp 96-129, pp 289-292
Guiding Questions
1. Why does Mearsheimer not think liberal institutionalism can successfully
promote stability in the world? Do you agree?
2. How does Williams distinguish between moralism and realism? What are
his concerns about moralism? Do you agree or disagree?
3. What, according to Sikkink, is the Justice Cascade and why does she think
there is one? Do you agree?
Writing Assignment
“The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” This is
the sobering position of the Athenian delegation in the Melian Dialogue. (See
Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, Chapter XVII (Sixteenth Year
of the War; the Melian Conference; Fate of Melos)). Suppose you are Eleanor
Roosevelt. How would you respond to the Athenians? What would the
Athenians say in response? And who is right?
Class 10: Monday, March 2:
Psychology
Human Rights and Recent Work in Moral
Readings (and videos)
Daniel Kahneman, Thinking Fast and Slow (2011), pp 19-30, 39-49, 450, 452453
Joshua Greene, “Beyond Point-and-Shoot-Morality”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sChdbsbTNxI
Jonathan Haidt, “The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives”
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind
Jonathan Haidt, The Righteous Mind, pp 111-130
10
Recommended
Jonathan Haidt, “How Common Threats Can Make Common (Political)
Ground”
http://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_how_common_threats_can_make
_common_political_ground
Guiding Questions
1. What are Kahneman’s systems 1 and 2? How does this distinction affect
what we have discussed so far in this class?
2. According to Greene, what is “point-and-shoot-morality,” and why does
he use that name? Why should we go beyond it? Do you agree or
disagree?
3. According to Haidt, what are the moral roots of liberals and
conservatives? Does his discussion reflect your own experiences in public
life?
4. What, according to Haidt, is WEIRD morality, and what is problematic
about it? Would you say that you yourself endorse WEIRD moralit?
Writing Assignment
What is WEIRD Morality? How could a supporter of WEIRD morality make
her case? What should such a supporter learn from Haidt and the other moral
psychologists we have discussed in this class? What should we do about
WEIRD morality?
Human Rights in the World
Class 11: Wednesday, March 4: American Exceptionalism
Harold Hongju Koh, “America’s Jekyll-and-Hyde Exceptionalism”, in Michael
Ignatieff, American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (2005)
Jeremy Rabkin, “American Independence and the Opinions of Mankind,”
Chapter 9 of Law Without Nations (2005)
Michael Ignatieff, “Introduction: American Exceptionalism and Human
Rights,” in Igantieff (ed.), American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (2005)
11
Guiding Questions
1. Why does Koh talk about Jekyll-and-Hyde exceptionalism? What are the
good sides of American exceptionalism? Do you agree that there are any?
2. What does Rabkin think American judges and policy-makers should make
of the “opinions of mankind”? Do you agree or disagree? Why?
3. Is American exceptionalism is good thing or a bad thing? Why?
Writing Assignment
The Unites States government declined even to seek ratification of the Rome
Statute because they were concerned that politically motivated trials would
be brought against Americans. (Often, Henry Kissinger is mentioned as a very
plausible target of such trials.) Given the provisions of the Rome Statute (i.e.,
those articles that you were asked to read), how warranted do you think such
concerns were? What do you think are the best arguments that would justify
the decision of the United States not to ratify the Rome Statute? What are the
best arguments for the opposing view? Do you think the US should ratify the
Statute?
Class 12: Monday, March 9: Human Rights in Confucianism and Buddhism
Readings:
Joshua Cohen, “Minimalism About Human Rights: The Best We Can Hope
for?” Journal of Political Philosophy, 12, 2 (2004): 190-213
Henry Rosemont, “Why Take Rights Seriously? A Confucian Critique.” In L. S.
Rouner, Human Rights and the World’s Religions
Christopher Gowans, Buddhist Moral Philosophy, pp 231-259
Guiding Questions
1. Explain Cohen’s distinction between justificatory and substantive
minimalism. Why is this an important distinction? In particular, why
would it be important that human rights are minimal in the justificatory
sense?
2. Why does Cohen think human rights are acceptable to Confucianism?
Does his argument persuade you?
12
3. What is social engaged Buddhism, and how can it integrate human rights,
according to Gowan? Would you agree that Buddhism and human rights
go together well?
4. Rosemont thinks that Confucianism is incompatible with human rights.
Why does he think so? Do you agree with his reasoning?
Writing Assignment
Why does Cohen characterize his account of human rights as “unfoundational” and “free-standing?” Do you think he offers a successful
justification of human rights? How could one object to him, and how could he
respond? What is your verdict on the plausibility of his view?
Class 13: Wednesday, March 11: Human Rights and African Political Theory
Readings
Frances Deng, “Human Rights in the African Context,” in Kwasi Wiredu (ed.),
A Companion to African Philosophy
Anthony Appiah, In My Father’s House, pp 173-180
Kwasi Wiredu, “What Can Philosophy Do For Africa?,” in Kawsi Wiredu,
Philosophy and an African Culture
Thaddeus Metz, “Human Dignity, Capital Punishment, and an African Moral
Theory: Towards a New Philosophy of Human Rights,” Journal of Human
Rights 9 (2010), pp 81-99
Guiding Questions
1. How does Deng think that traditional African notions of participatory
governance can be combined with the human rights language and
thereby be used to criticize autocratic power in African countries?
2. What does Wiredu think philosophy can do for Africa?
3. What do Africans share, according to Appiah, and what do they not
share?
4. Why, according to Metz, does ubuntu rule out the death penalty but
allows killing in the defense of others?
Writing Assignment
Immanuel Kant is famously supportive of the death penalty: certain crimes
are so heinous that the appropriate response is to executive the perpetrator.
13
They deserve to be killed, and if the world came to an end tomorrow we
should execute people on death row to bring as much desert into the world
as possible. Much like Kant, Metz’s reconstruction of ubuntu makes the
notion of dignity central. Why does Metz think imposing the death penalty is
wrong? How could one resist Metz’s argument, both in terms of dignity and
in other ways? What is your view: is Kant right, or Metz?
Special Topic: Ethics of Drone Warfare
Class 14: Monday, March 23: Drones
Readings
Ward Thomas, “Norms and Security: The Case of International
Assassination,” International Security, Vol. 25, no. 1 (Summer 2000).
Frances Kamm, “Taking Just War Serious in Gaza.”
http://www.bostonreview.net/books-ideas/fm-kamm-taking-just-warseriously-gaza
John Kaag and Sarah Kreps, “The Ethics of Drone Warfare.” Chapter 5 of
Drone Warfare (2014)
Guiding Questions
1. What is proportionality in the context of just war ethics, and why it is
important? Can you give some examples of cases where proportionality is
satisfied, and other cases where it is not? What are Kamm’s criticisms of
the current references to proportionality?
2. Do you think using drones in warfare is permissible? Why or why not?
3. Do you think political assassination is permissible under certain
circumstances? Why or why not?
Writing Assignment
What are Kaag and Kreps’s main concerns about the ethics of drone warfare?
Do you agree or disagree? Why?
Advocating Human Rights in Difficult Times: The Case of Alberto Mora (with
Guest Lecturer Alberto Mora)
Class 15: Wednesday, March 25: Role Morality
14
Readings
Sir Michael Quinlan, “Controversy: Ethics in the Public Service,” Governance
6:4 (1993), pp. 538-544
Arthur Isak Applbaum, “The Remains of the Role,” in Ethics for Adversaries
(1999), pp. 61-75
Philippe Sands, “Torture Team” (2006), chapter 16, pp 131-140
Jane Mayer, “The Memo,” The New Yorker, 27 February 2006, available at:
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/02/27/the-memo (18 pages)
Guiding Questions
1. Quinlan says: “One may think a particular policy concept to be a square
circle, and indeed within the confidence of Whitehall one may argue
fervently to that effect; but once the decision is taken, it is a matter not
just of duty but of professional pride to help make the very best square
circle that effort and imagination can contrive” (p 544).
2. Where do Applbaum and Quinlan differ? With whom do you agree more,
and why?
3. Do you agree with Mora’s actions as described in Mayer’s piece? Why or
why not? Would you have acted in the same way under similar
circumstances?
Writing Assignment
“These were enormously hardworking, patriotic individuals,” he said. “When
you put together the pieces, it’s all so sad. To preserve flexibility, they were
willing to throw away our values.” This quote by Alberto Mora is the
concluding sentence of “The Memo.” Choose one of the administrators whom
Mora refers to here and make the best possible argument for their behavior
(using the assigned readings). How could one object to their behavior? How
could they defend themselves? Where do you stand, and why?
Class 16: Monday, March 30: Role Morality
Readings
Thomas Nagel, “Ruthlessness in Public Life,” In Nagel, Mortal Questions
(1979)
15
C.A.J. Coady, “Dirty Hands,” in Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit, eds, A
Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy (1993), pp. 422-30
Guiding Questions
1. Coady writes the following about Machiavelli: “Machiavelli makes it clear
that one of the situations generating the need for the ruler to act wickedly
is the fact that others with whom one interacts cannot be relied upon to
act morally, and hence conformity to morality is foolish and dangerous
for survival” (p 425). Would you agree with Machiavelli on this subject?
Why or why not?
2. If politics is the art of compromise, aren’t “dirty hands” inevitable? Can
one succeed in politics without getting one’s hands “dirty”?
3. How does Nagel explain the moral peculiarity of official roles? Do you
agree or disagree? And why?
Writing Assignment
In Jean-Paul Sartre’s play “Dirty Hands,” a Communist leader called
Hoerderer makes the following statement: “I have dirty hands right up to the
elbows. I’ve plunged them in filth and blood. Do you think you can govern
innocently?” What is your own answer to this question? Substantiate that
answer with arguments drawing on the readings and defend your answer
against objections.
Human Rights and Business
Class 17: Wednesday, April 1: Exploitation
Readings
Karl Marx, “Wage Labor and Capital,” In David McLellan, Karl Marx: Selected
Writings, pp 273-294
Karl Marx, “On Money,” in McLellan, pp 118-120
Robert Mayer, “What’s Wrong with Exploitation?” Journal of Applied
Philosophy 24: 137-150. (2007)
16
Matt Zwolinski, “Structural Exploitation.” Social Philosophy and Policy 29 (1):
154-179 (2012)
Recommended:
Robert Mayer, “Sweatshops, Exploitation, and Moral Responsibility.” Journal
of Social Philosophy 38: 605-619 (2007)
G. A. Cohen, “The Labor Theory of Value and the Concept of Exploitation.”
Philosophy and Public Affairs 8 (4): 338-360 (1979)
Guiding Questions
1. How does Marx define exploitation? Does his reasoning strike you as
persuasive? Why or why not?
2. According to Mayer, what is wrong with exploitation, and why? Do you
find his account persuasive?
3. Why does Zwolinski think that there’s nothing much wrong with
transactional exploitation in many sweatshops? Do you agree or
disagree?
Writing Assignment
Are sweatshops (as understood by Zwolinski) exploitative? If so, what would
this mean, would it be wrong, and what should be done about it? Feel free to
distinguish different conditions under which sweatshops would be
exploitative, and feel free to distinguish also between different senses of
exploitation. Consider the two strongest objections to the view you offer and
explain how to respond to them.
Class 18: Monday, April 6: Obligations from Trading -- Business and Human
Rights?
Readings
John Ruggie, Just Business: Multinational Corporations and Human Rights, pp
81-106
United Nations
http://www.ohchr.org/documents/publications/GuidingprinciplesBusiness
hr_en.pdf
Mathias Risse, “Fairness in trade I: obligations from trading and the PauperLabor Argument Politics, Philosophy & Economics 6: 355-377 (2007)
17
Guiding Questions
1. Do you think businesses should have human rights obligations? Why or
why not?
2. How does Ruggie think about the human rights obligations of businesses?
How would this be different from the status quo? How promising do you
think this strategy is?
3. What kind of a policy priority should Ruggie’s proposals have in your
home country?
4. What is the pauper-labor argument, and how does Risse assess it? Do you
agree or disagree? Why?
Writing Assignment
Some people think that only governments have human rights obligations, and
that the business of business is business. How could one argue for this view?
How could one object? Where do you stand? How does your relate to the
views presented by Ruggie and Risse?
Class 19: Monday, April 8: Protectionism
Readings
“The Great Catfish War,” New York Times (July 22, 2003), pp. A18
Malgorzata Kurjanska and Mathias Risse, “Fairness in Trade II: Subsidies and
the Fair-Trade Movement.” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 7 (2008): pp
29-56
Oxfam, Executive Summary, Rigged Rules and Double Standards: Trade,
Globalization, and the Fight Against Poverty (2002), pp 1-18
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization (1994),
Preamble and Articles I-III, http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/04wto_e.htm
Guiding Questions
1. It is sometimes argued that the WTO’s mission is merely to contribute to
the liberalization of trade. According to the WTO’s preamble, do you find
this view vindicated? What kind of moral obligations do you think the
WTO has, if any?
2. Do you buy Fair Trade coffee at the cafeteria? Would you do so if it were,
say, 30% more expensive than other coffee? Why or why not? (Consider
18
here the discussion in Kurjanska and Risse.) How much responsibility
does a consumer have to know about the circumstances under which the
product she buys was produced?
3. Do you think that Kurjanska and Risse are right that farmers in the EU
and Japan have a prima facie bigger claim to subsidies than farmers in the
US?
Writing Assignment
Think about the duties that we have to others. Some duties we owe to all
persons, simply in virtue of their status as moral equals. Others we acquire in
virtue of cooperative ventures we have entered into, promises we have
made, benefits we have received, harms we have inflicted, or other forms of
interaction and relation. Still more stringent duties are owed to our fellow
citizens in order to justify the coercion that we subject each other to under
law—a singularly encompassing system of social cooperation. Now think
about international trade, the effect on people in other countries of various
policies to open or restrict trade, and whether people in other countries are
owed anything more than what is owed to persons simply as persons. Is the
US government justified in pursuing policies that favor Louisiana catfish
farmers over Vietnamese catfish farmers? Why or why not? (Assume—
perhaps contrary to fact—that these protectionist measures do not violate
any law or treaty.)
Class 20: Wednesday, April 10: Trade as a Subject of Justice
Aaron James, “Economic Skepticism,” Chapter 2 of Fairness in Practice: A
Social Contract for a Global Economy (2012)
Christian Barry and Sanjay Reddy, Sections 1-3 and 7 of International Trade
and Labor Standards (2008), pp 1-11 and 80-85
Guiding Questions
1. What is the “economic skepticism” that James talks about in his chapter
title? Do you think that skepticism is warranted?
2. How do Barry and Reddy seek to integrate trade and labor standards? Do
you thinks that is advisable?
Writing Assignment
A topic related to the exercise of the G20 exercise of the week – TBD
19
20