GV 408 Contemporary Disputes about Justice

In 1971 John Rawls single-handedly revived the of justice as central to political philosophy through the publication of his “A Liberal Theory of Justice”. Rawls’ substantive claim was immensely powerful, that the idea of justice pertains to ‘the basic structure’ of society. Even more groundbreaking was Rawls’ distinctived method of philosophical justification. Drawing from social contract theory and consequentialist reasoning alike, it sought to apply aspects of Kantian and post-Kantian non-foundationalist thinking to the context of political justification in particular. In the forty years since its first publication Rawls’ book (and its numerous sequels and re-editions) have framed the terms of liberal political debate with respect to both content and form. Followers and detractors alike have taken their cue either from Rawls’ substantive theory of justice as fairness or from his contractualist-cum-constructivist method of justification. In this course we shall examine aspects of Rawls’ theory and the many different reactions it has engendered. Yet while there can be no doubt regarding the enormous importance of Rawls’ work in rejuvenating a discipline once pronounced moribund, our principal underlying concern will be to ask whether Rawlsian liberalism is not now a spent force. Rawls’ theory of justice is decidedly domestic in scope: Rawls envisages a bounded society the citizens of which share basic background values and principles and are able to reach reasonable agreement on those terms. Yet from the mid 1980 onwards the problems of global justice increasingly intruded upon this traditional liberal perception of contained political self-determination. While current global justice debates continue to rely on the Rawlsian framework substantively and methodologically, seeking to extend his substantive principles of justice into the global domain, they generally lack his philosophical originality and power of political imagination. All too often, these approaches offer more or less perfunctory restatements of basic liberal values and commitments; all too often they seem empirically uninformed, and lacking in appreciation of deep structural differences between domestic and global spheres of political agency. We must ask how well the Rawlsian method of approach really does lend itself to approaching what is clearly now the age of global thinking about justice, and to what extent it may be a hindrance, rather than a help, to continue to think politically in Ralwsian terms.

Teaching: Teaching will be by weekly 2 hour seminars during MT. Seminar times are Fridays 11h -13h (Group 1) and Fridays 14h-16h (Group 2).

Assessment: students are expected to write minimally 1 and maximally 2 non-assessed essays of up to 2500 words each. These essays will received comments and a guiding mark, allowing students to gauge their general progress in the course. However, the marks do not count towards formal assessment for this course. Formal assessment consists of an extended essay of up to 5000 words, the deadline for which is week 4 of ST.

Convenor and Office Hours: The course convenor is Dr. Katrin Flikschuh. My office is in Connaught House Room H608. My office hours are on Thursdays 14h-16h or by prior arrangement.

Weekly Topics and Readings

Week 1:

The Rawls Phenomenon I: “Justice as Fairness” – A fresh start for liberalism

Required Reading (one of the following):Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice (OUP 1972), chapters 1 & 2,Rawls, J., Justice as Fairness. A Restatement (Harvard 2001), Part I and II.

Additional Reading:Barry, B. ‘John Rawls and the Priority of Liberty’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 2, (1973), 274-90.Barry, B., The Liberal Theory of Justice (Oxford 1973)Cohen, G.A., ‘On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice’, Ethics 99 (1989), 906-44.Cohen, G.A., ‘Where the Action is: On the Site of Distributive Justice’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 26 (1997), 3-30.Cohen, J., ‘Democratic Equality’, Ethics 99 (1989), 727-51.Cohen J., ‘Taking People as they Are’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 30 (2001).De Marneffe, P., ‘Contractualism, Liberty, and Democracy’, Ethics 104 (1994), 764-783.Harsanyi, J., ‘Can the Difference Principle Serve as the Basis for Morality: A Critique of John Rawls’ Theory, American Political Science Review 69 (1975), 594-606.Nagel, T., ‘Rawls and Liberalism’ in S. Freeman (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Rawls (CUP 2003).Van Parijs, P., ‘Difference Principles’ in Samuel Freeman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Rawls (CUP 2003).Shue, H., ‘Liberty and Self-Respect’, Ethics 85 (1975), 68-78. Shue, H., ‘The Current Fashions: Trickle-Downs by Arrow and Close-Knits by Rawls’, Journal of Philosophy 71 (1974), 319-27.

Week 2:

The Rawls Phenomenon II: From Contractualist to Constructivist Method

Required Reading (two of the following):Rawls, J., A Theory of Justice , chp. 3Rawls, J., Justice as Fairness. A Restatement, Part III.Rawls, J., Political Liberalism (Columbia 1993), Lecture IIIRawls, J. ‘Kantian Constructivism in Moral Theory’, The Journal of Philosophy 88 (1980), 515-72.

Rawls, J. ‘Justice and Fairness: Political, not Metaphysical’, Philosophy and Public Affairs (14), 223-51.

Additional Readings:Baier, K., ‘Justice and the Aims of Political Philosophy’, Ethics 99 (1989), 771-90.Daniels, N., ‘Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in Ethics’, Journal of Philosophy 76 (1979), 236-82.Freeman, S., ‘Reason and Agreement in Social Contract Views’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 19 (1990), 122-57.Gauthier, D., ‘The Social Contract as Ideology’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 6 (1977), 130-64.Hampton, J., ‘Should Political Philosophy be done without Metaphysics?’, Ethics 99 (1989), 791-814.Hampton, J., ‘The Common Faith of Liberalism’, Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 75. (1994), 186-216 (Reprinted in Hampton, The Intrinsic Worth of Persons, CUP 2007).Larmore, C., ‘The Moral Basis of Political Liberalism’, Journal of Philosophy 96 (1999), 599-625.Milo, R., ‘Contractarian Constructivism’, Journal of Philosophy 122 (1995), 181-204.Moore, M., ‘On Reasonableness’, Journal of Applied Philosophy 13 (1996), 167-77.O’Neill, O., ‘Political Liberalism and Public Reason’, Philosophical Review 106 (1998), 411-28.Scheffler, S., ‘The Appeal of Political Liberalism’, Ethics 105 (1994), 4-22Simmons, J., ‘Justification and Legitimacy’, Ethics 109 (1999), 739-71.Stark, C., ‘Hypothetical Consent and Justification’, The Journal of Philosophy 97 (2000), 313-34.

Week 3:

The Libertarian Backlash: Nozick and Left Libertarianism

Required Reading (two of the following): Nozick, R., Anarchy, State, and Utopia (Blackwell 1974), chapter 7.Otsuka, M. Libertarianism without Inequality (OUP 2003), chapter 6.Otsuka, M., ‘Self-Ownership and Equality: A Lockean Reconciliation’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 27 (1998), 65-92.Steiner, H., ‘The Structure of a Set of Compossible Rights’, Journal of Philosophy (1977), 767-75Steiner, H., ‘Capitalism, Jusitce, and Equal Starts,’ Social Philosophy and Policy 5 (1987), 49-71.

Additional Reading:Cohen, G.A., ‘Self-Ownership, World-Ownership, and Equality’, Social Philosophy and Policy 3 (1986), 77-96.Flikschuh, K., Freedom. Contemporary Liberal Perspectives (Polity 2007), chapter 3.

Freeman, S, ‘Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism is not a Liberal View’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 30 (2001), 105-51.Lippert-Rasmussen, K., ‘Self-Ownership and Equality: There are no fact-insensitive ownership rights over one’s body’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 36 (2008), 86-118.Miller, D., ‘Constraints on Freedom’, Ethics 84 (1983), 66-86.Nagel, T., ‘Libertarianism without Foundations’, in J. Paul (ed.) Reading Nozick (Blackwell 1982), 191-205.Narvesson, J., ‘Property Rights: Original Acquistion and Lockean Provisos’, Public Affairs Quarterly 13 (1999), 205-27.Otsuka, M., H. Steiner, and P. Vallentyne, ‘Why Left-Libertarianism isn’t incoherent, indeterminate, or irrelevant’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2005), 201-15.Scanlon, T., ‘Nozick on Rights, Liberty, and Property’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 6, (1976), 3-25.Vallentyne, P. (ed.), Left Libertarianism and its Critics. The Contemporary Debate (Palgarve 2000).Vallentyne, P., ‘Libertarianism and the State’, Social Philosophy and Policy 24 (2007), 187-205,Wolff, J. (Polity 1991), Robert Nozick. Property, Justice, and the Minimal State, chapters 1 and 4.

Week 4:

Domestic Bliss: Luck Egalitarianism

Required Reading (Dworkin and at least one more):Dworkin, R., ‘What is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (1981), 283-345. (Reprinted in Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue, Harvard 2000).Cohen, G.A., ‘On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice’, Ethics 99 (1989), 906-44.Anderson, E., ‘What is the Point of Equality?’, Ethics 109 (1999), 287-337.Frankfurt, H., ‘Equality as a Moral Ideal’, Ethics 98 (1987), 21-43.

Additional ReadingBarry, N., ‘Defending Luck-Egalitarianism’, Journal of Applied Philosophy 23 (2006), 89-107.Cohen, G.A., ‘Expensive Tastes Ride Again’, in J. Burley (ed.), Dworkin and his Critics (Blackwell 2004).Dworkin, R., ‘What is Equality? Part 1: Equality of Welfare’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 10 (1981), 185-246 (Reprinted in Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue).Dworkin, R., ‘Liberalism’, in Dworkin, A Matter of Principle (1985).Fleurbaey, M., ‘Equality of Resources Revisited’, Ethics 113 (2002), 85-105.Heath, J., ‘Dworkin’s Auction’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics 3 (2004), 313-335.Matravers, M., Justice and Responsibility (Polity 2007), chapter 3.Otsuka, M., ‘Luck, Insurance and Equality’, Ethics 113 (2002), 40-54.Sandbu, M., ‘On Dworkin’s Brute-Luck-Option-Luck-Distinction and the Consistency of Brute Egalitarianism’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics 3 (2004), 283-312.

Scheffler, S., ‘What is Egalitarianism?’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (2003), 5-39.Scheffler, S., ‘Choice, Circumstance and the Value of Equality’, Politics, Philosophy & Economics 4 (2005), 5-28.Wolff, J., ‘Fairness, Respect and Egalitarian Ethos’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 27 (1998), 97-122.

Week 5:

A Battle in Method: Constructivists, Contextualists, and the last Man standing

Required Reading:Cohen, G.A., ‘Facts and Principles’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (2003), 211-45.

Additional Reading:Cohen, G.A., Rescuing Justice and Equality (Harvard 2008), Introduction and chapters 6 and 7.Cohen, J., ‘Truth and Public Reason’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (2009).James, A., ‘Constructing Justice for Existing Practice: Rawls and the Status Quo’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2005), 281-316.Kumar, R., ‘Reasonable Reasons in Contractualist Moral Argument’, Ethics 114 (2003)Laden, A. ‘The House that Jack Built: Thirty Years of Reading Rawls’, Ethics 113 (2003), 197-220.Laden, A., ‘Outline of a Theory of Reasonable Deliberation’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy 30 (2000), 551-80.Narveson, J., ‘Cohen’s Rescue’, Journal of Ethics 14 (2010)Pogge, T., ‘Cohen to the Rescue!’ Ratio 21 (2008), 454-75.Sangiovanni, A., ‘Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality’, Journal of Political Philosophy 16 (2008), 137-164.Sen. A., ‘Open and Closed Impartiality’, Journal of Philosophy (2002), 445-69.Williams, A., ‘Justice, Incentives, and Constructivism’, Ratio (2008), 476-93.

Week 6:

The Barbarians are Coming! Global Justice and the Limits of Rawlsian Liberalism

Required Reading (either Beitz or Pogge, and Wenar): Beitz, C. Political Theory and International Relations (2nd ed. 1999), Part III.Pogge, T. Realizing Rawls (Cornell, 1989), Part III.Wenar, L. ‘Property Rights and the Resource Curse’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 36 (2008).

Additional Reading:Beitz, C. ‘International Liberalism and Distributive Justice: A Survey of Recent Thought, World Politics 51 (1999), 269-96.Beitz, C., ‘Cosmopolitanism and Global Justice’, Journal of Ethics 9 (2005), 11-27.

Caney, S., ‘Cosmopolitan Justice and Equalizing Opportunities’, Metaphilosophy 32 (2001), 113-34.Caney, S. Justice Beyond Borders (OUP 2005), chapters 2 and 4.Miller, D., ‘Against Global Egalitarianism’, Journal of Ethics 9 (2005).O’Neill, O., ‘Transnational Economic Justice’ in O’Neill, Bounds of Justice (CUP 2000), 115-43.Pogge, T., ‘Cosmopolitanism and Sovereignty’, Ethics 103 (1992), 48-75.Pogge, T., World Poverty and Human Rights (Polity 2002), chapters 4 and 8.Pogge, T., ‘Real World Justice’, Journal of Ethics 9 (2005), 29-53.Risse, M. ‘How does the global order harm the global poor?’ Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2005), 349-76.Risse, M. ‘Do we owe the poor assistance or rectification?’ Ethics and International Affairs 19 (2005), 9-18.Scheffler, S., ‘Individual Responsibility in a Global Age’, Social Philosophy and Policy 12 (1995), 219-36.Scheffler, S., ‘Conceptions of Comsopolitanism’, Utilitas 11 (1999), 255-76Scheffler, S., Boundaries and Allegiances. Problems of Justice and Responsibility in Liberal Thought (OUP 2001)Singer, P., ‘Famine, Affluence, and Morality’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1972), 229-43.Singer, P., One World (2002), chapter 5.Satz, D., ‘International Economic Justice’, in H.Lafollette (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics (2003), 620-43.

Week 7:

Law yes, Justice, no: Rawls’ Law of Peoples

Required Reading:Rawls, J., The Law of Peoples (Harvard 1999)A shorter first version of Rawls’ ‘Law of Peoples’ can be found in S, Shute and S. Hurley (eds.), On Human Rights: The Oxford Amnesty Lectures 1993.Nagel, T. ‘The Problem of Global Justice’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 33 (2005), 113-47.

Additional Reading:Blake, M., ‘Distributive Justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 30 (2001), 257-96.Buchanan, A., ‘Rawls’ Law of Peoples: Rules for a Vanished Westphalian World’, Ethics (2000), 607-721.Cohen, J. and C. Sabel, ‘Extra Rempublicam Nulla Justitia?’, Philosophy and Pubic Affairs 34 (2006), 147-75.Julius, A., ‘Nagel’s Atlas’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 34 (2006), 176-92.Miller, D., ‘The ethical significance of nationality’, Ethics 98 (1988), 647-62.Miller, D., National Responsibility and Global Justice (OUP 2007), chapter 5.

O’Neill, O., ‘Distant Strangers, Moral Standing, and Porous Boundaries’, in O’Neill, Bounds of Justice (CUP 2000), 186-202Pogge, T. ‘An Egalitarian Law of Peoples’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 23 (1994), 195-224.Sangioanni, A., ‘Global Justice, Reciprocity, and the State’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 35 (2007)Tan, K, ‘The Problem of Decent Peoples’ in R. Martin and D. Reidy (eds.) Rawls’ Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia (2006), 76-94.Tan, K., ‘Cosmopolitanism, impartiality, and patriotic partiality’, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 2005.Wenar, L., ‘Why Rawls is not a Cosmopolitan Egalitarian’, in R. Martin and D. Reidy (eds.), Rawls’ Law of Peoples: A Realistic Utopia (2006), 95-115.Wringe, B., ‘Global Obligation and the Agency Objection’, Ratio 23 (2010).Ypi, L., B. Goodin, B.Barry, ‘Associative Duties, Global Justice, and the Colonies, Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (2009).

Week 8:

Forget the Difference Principle – Human Rights as the “New Black”

Required Reading:Beitz, C., ‘Human Rights and the Law of Peoples’ in D. Chatterjee (ed.), The Ethics of Assistance (CUP 2004), 193-217.Beitz, C. The Idea of Human Rights, (OUP, 2009) chps. 1, 5,6.Beitz, C. ‘Human Rights as a Common Concern’, American Political Science Review 95 (2001), 269-82.Griffin, J., On Human Rights (OUP), chapters 1 and 2.

Additional Reading:Cohen, J., ‘Minimalism about Human Rights’, Journal of Political Philosophy 12 (2004), 190-213.Donnelly, J., ‘International Human Rights: A Regime Analysis’, International Organization 40 (19856), 599-642.Miller, D., National Responsibility and Global Justice (OUP 2007), chapter 7.Moravcsik, A., ‘The Origins of Human Rights Regimes: Democratic Delegation in post-war Europe’, International Organization 54 (2000), 217-52.Nelson, J., ‘Against Human Rights’, Philosophy 65 (1990), 341-8.Nickel, J., ‘Is Today’s International Human Rights System of Global Governance Regime?’ Journal of Ethics 6 (2002), 353-71.O’Neill, O., ‘The Dark Side of Human Rights’, International Affairs 81 (2005), 427-39.Pagden, A., ‘Human Rights, Natural Rights, and Europe’s Imperial Legacy’, Political Theory 31 (2003), 171-99.Raz, J., ‘Human Rights without Foundations’ in The Philosophy of International Law, eds. S. Besson and J. Tasioulas (OUP 2010)

Raz, J., ‘Human Rights in an Emerging World Order’, Transnational Legal Theory 1 (2010) (both Raz articles can be downloaded from his personal website – google ‘Joseph Raz Oxford’ for the link)Rorty,Scanlon, T., ‘Human Rights as a Neutral Concern’, Sen, A., ‘Elements of a Theory of Human Rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 32 (2004), 315-56.Tasioulas, J., ‘Human Rights, Universality and the Value of Personhood: Retracing Griffins Steps’, European Journal of Philosophy 10 (2002), 79-100.Tasioulas, J., ‘The Moral Reality of Human Rights’ in T. Pogge (ed.) Freedom from Poverty as a Human Right (OUP 2007)Tasioulas, J., ‘Taking Rights out of Human Rights’, Ethics 120 (2010)

Week 9:

From Justice to Legitimacy: Policing the (non-liberal) State

Required Reading (two of the following):Applbaum, I., ‘Forcing a People to be free’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 35 (2007).Buchanan, A., ‘Recognitional Legitimacy and the State System’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 28 (1999), 46-78.Buchanan, A., ‘The International Legitimacy of Humanitarian Intervention’, Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (1999), 71-87.Pogge, T., ‘The Influence of the Global Order on the Prospects for Genuine Democracy in Developing Countries’, Ratio Juris 14 (2001), 326-42

Additional Reading:Cohen, M., ‘Moral Scepticism and International Relations’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 13 (1984)Applbaum, ‘Legitimacy without the duty to Obey’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 2010Buchanan, A., ‘Political Legitimacy and Democracy’, Ethics 112 (2002), 689-719.Buchanan, A., Justice, Legitimacy and Self-Determination: Moral Foundations for International Law (OUP 2004).Caney, S. Justice Beyond Borders (OUP 2005), chapter 7.Kennedy, D., The Dark Sides of Virtue. Reassessing International Humanitarianism (Princeton 2004).Luban, D., ‘The Romance of the Nation State’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (1980).Luban, D, ‘Just War and Human Rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 9 (1980).Naticchia, C., ‘Recongition and Legitimacy: A Reply to Buchanan’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 28 (1999), 242-57.Smith, M., ‘Humanitarian Intervention: An Overview of the Ethical Issues’, Ethics and International Affairs 12 (1998), 63-79. Teson, F., ‘Liberal Security’ in Human Rights in the “War on Terror” (ed.) R. Wilson (CUP 2005).

Teson, F. ‘The Rawlsian Theory of International Law’, Ethics and International Affairs 9 (1995).Wheeler, S., Saving Strangers. Humanitarian Intervention in International Society (OUP 2000).

Week 10:

The Dark Side of Liberalism: Colonialism and Reparative Justice

Required Reading: