Faculty of Humanities s1

N.B. This is an old version of the course guide and important information has been redacted. Current students should contact the convenor for a current and full version.

COURSE UNIT OUTLINE 20012/13

Arguing About Politics – POLI 20602

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

Lecturers on this course:

Dr Liam Shields () Convenor

Dr Stephen de Wijze ()

Dr James Pattison ()

Dr Tom Porter ( )

Dr Richard Child ()

Dr Stephen Hood ()

Venue of Lectures: Martin Harris (John Casken)

Venue of Tutorials: Thursday 11-12 and 12-1 Roscoe 4.3

Thursday 2-3 Roscoe 2.2

Friday 11-12 and 12-1 University Place 6.207

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: Justice & Children 2, Punishment and Intergenerational Justice

Section B: Just War, Markets 1 and Markets 2

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

Key to lecturers initials: sdw = Steve de Wijze; tp = Tom Porter; jp = James Pattison; rc = Richard Child; ls = Liam Shields; sh = Stephen Hood

31st Jan – Introduction (LS)

7th Feb - Dirty Hands (SDW)

14th Feb - Justice & Children 1 (LS)

21st Feb - Justice & Children 2 (LS)

28th Feb - Punishment (RC)

7th March Intergenerational Justice (TP)

14th March - Markets 1 (SH)

21st March - Market 2 (SH)

EASTER BREAK

18th April - Just War (JP)

25th April – Conclusion (LS)
9. Outline of each topic

Lecture 1. The Political Morality of Dirty Hands - Dr Steve de Wijze

Lecture theme: 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 Mercanaries’ 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) Is the political world a place where morality is suspended?

ii) Are claims about dirty hands conceptually confused?

iii) Could an action be morally justified but nevertheless also morally wrong

Lecture 2. Social Justice and Children 1: Justifying the Right to Rear

– Dr Liam Shields

Lecture Theme: It is common practice for some adult or adults – parents – to have custody of a child where this means making a number of important decisions about what the child does. The exercise of these powers has a profound effect on the child. This week’s lecture will explore arguments in favour of answers to the question of how child-rearing arrangements should be organised. Questions include whether children should be reared by adults as opposed to institutions and whether these adults should be their biological parents, the best possible parent, or any good enough parent.

Required Reading:

· Brighouse, H. & Swift, A. 2006b. “Parents’ Rights and the Value of the Family”. Ethics 117: 80-108.

· Shoeman, F. 1980. “Rights of Children, Rights of Parents, and the Moral Basis of the Family”. Ethics 91: 6-19.

· Vallentyne, P. “The Rights and Duties of Childrearing” in William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal Vol. 11 2003:991-1009.

Additional Reading:

· Hannan, S. & Vernon, R. 2008. Parental Rights: A Role Based Approach. Education Theory and Research: 173-89.

· Gheaus, A. “The Right to Parent One’s Biological Baby” Journal of Political Philosophy: 1-24

· Liao, S. M. 2006. The Right of Children to be Loved. The Journal of Political Philosophy: 420-40.

· MacLeod, C. 2010. Primary Goods, Capabilities and Children.in Brighouse, H. & Robeyns, I. (ed.s). Measuring Justice. Cambridge University Press: 174-92.

· Munoz-Darde, V., 1999. Is the family to be abolished then? Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 99, 37–56.

· MacLeod, C. 1997. Conceptions of Parental Autonomy. Politics and Society 25: 117-40.

· Reshef, Y. 2013. Rethinking the value of families. Critical review of international social and political philosophy, 16 (1). pp. 130-150 < http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fcri20

Seminar Questions:

1. Who has an interest in the way that children are reared in society?

2. What kind of interest does each party have?

3. Many adults want to have and rear children, is this an important factor when evaluating child-rearing practices?

4. What are the reasons for rearing children in state run orphanages?

Lecture 3. Social Justice and Children 2: What can parents do for their children – Dr Liam Shields

Lecture Theme: Many people believe that we have special permissions to favour our own children but there must be limits to this. This lecture will focus on the limits to the right to rear with particular attention given to autonomy and religious enrolment, and equality of opportunity and private education, bequest and reading bedtime stories.

Required Reading:

· Brighouse, H. & Swift, A. 2009a. “Legitimate Parental Partiality” Philosophy and Public Affairs 37: 43-80.

· Clayton, M. 2012. Debate: The Case against the Comprehensive Enrolment of Children. Journal of Political Philosophy 20: 353–364.

· Schrag, F. 1976. Justice and the Family. Inquiry 19: 193-208.

Additional Reading on Equality of Opportunity and Conferring Advantage:

· Archard, D. 2002. Children, Multiculturalism and Education.in Archard, D. & MacLeod, C. (ed.s). The Moral and Political Status of Children. Oxford University Press: 142-60.

· Brighouse, H. & Swift, A. 2006b.Parents’ Rights and the Value of the Family. Ethics 117: 80-108.

· Lazenby, H. 2010. One Kiss Too Many? Giving, Luck Egalitarianism and Other-affecting Choice. Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 271-86.

· MacLeod, C. 1997. Conceptions of Parental Autonomy. Politics and Society 25: 117-40.

· Miller, D. 2009. Equality of opportunity and the family. In: D. Satz and R. Reich, eds. Toward a humanist justice: the political philosophy of Susan Moller Okin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Additional Reading on Autonomy and Comprehensive Enrolment:

· Brighouse, H. 2006. On Education. Routledge. Part One and Two

· Clayton, M.

· Fowler, T. 2010. “The Problems of Liberal Neutrality in Upbringing” Res Publica 16 (4):367-381

· MacLeod, C. & Archard, D. (ed.s).The Moral and Political Status of Children. Oxford University Press. Especially pieces by Noggle and Callan.

Seminar Questions:

1. What is a good reason for sending your child to private school? Why is this a good reason?

2. Should parents consider the possible disruption of equality of opportunity when interacting with their children?

3. Should parents be permitted to enrol their children into religious organisations?

4. Is autonomy an important constraint on what parents should be allowed to do for their children?

Lecture 4. Punishment – Dr Richard Child

Focus of Lecture : On what grounds (if any) may states permissibly punish their citizens? In this lecture we consider the strengths and weaknesses of various answers that have been offered to this question.

Required Reading

·Hart, H.L.A. (1960) ‘Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment’, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, 60: 1-14 & 16-26.

·Goldman, A.H., (1979) ‘The Paradox of Punishment’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9 (1): 42-58.