|
|
political science 410 & 514 Justice and Public Reason:
The Liberalism of John Rawls
fall term, 2011-12
Tuesday
evenings, 6-9 pm
email: Don.Carmichael@ualberta.ca |
|
|
Course Outline John
Rawls (1921-2002) is
widely regarded as the most important liberal political philosopher since
John Stuart Mill. Rawls’ work is not easily
summarized but it is conventionally described in terms of two topics –
justice and the terms of public debate. In A Theory of Justice (1971) Rawls outlined a conception of
justice – deeply liberal and social democratic in character – based upon principles
which, he held were virtually the only principles which a rational person could hold. This argument revolutionized political
philosophy, at least throughout the English-speaking world, but it was and
remains controversial. In dealing with these controversies Rawls was led over
the next twenty-five years to reflect in quite original ways on the
requirements of political justification.
One important result was a conception of ‘public reason’ which holds
that fundamental political issues must be debated and decided in terms that
all citizens could reasonably accept, whatever their (and our) actual views.
This and other reflections appeared as Political Liberalism. It should be noted that the term
‘liberalism’ here has a specific meaning: a commitment to respecting the
freedom and equality of others.
Attention to Rawls’ “liberalism” therefore simply means attention to
views of justice and public justification which take seriously the freedom
and equality of all citizens. Students in this seminar will be
invited to develop their own views of justice and public justification
through critical reflection on Rawls’ arguments. Students will not be asked to agree with
Rawls’ views, nor even to agree with Rawls’
commitment to citizen freedom and equality. Agreement – or disagreement – on
these points is in itself of absolutely no interest. The aim instead is to understand Rawls
critically as a means to developing one’s own views with greater clarity and
depth. There seminar will proceed in
two stages. Part 2 will focus on
issues of public reason and policy justification, through a careful reading
of some of the essays in Rawls’ Political
Liberalism .
Part 1 of the seminar will provide a basis for the work of Part 2, by
inviting students to identify and reflect upon their own views of justice in
relation to Rawls’ A Theory of Justice.
If there are students –
undergraduate or graduate -- who already have the background covered in Part
1, then they should take the advanced seminar on
Political Liberalism on Friday
afternoons (2-5 pm) Pre-requisite: Political
Science 210 or equivalent Readings and Texts On-line articles will be used extensively
in addition these texts: Pol S 410/514 course reader
(course pack) Rawls, Political Liberalism Sandel: Justice: What’s the
Right Thing to Do? These have all been ordered through
the SUB bookstore. But students can
probably get the Rawls and Sandel texts more cheaply
through Chapters and Amazon. All participants (including any auditors) will be expected to
contribute to the seminar discussions and to prepare for these discussions by
careful reading of the assigned material.
Students taking the course for credit will
be asked to do (i) three essays, (ii) an oral commentary on the work of
another student in the seminar, and (iii) digests of selected readings each
week. The essays should be “positional”, as
described below. Two of these papers
(6-7 pp) will due during the term; one of these
papers will be discussed in the seminar. Students will be invited to
develop their own topics and interests through these papers. A third and somewhat longer (7-10 pp) paper will be due at the end of the term; this paper
will be asked to assess Rawls on some specific issue in comparison to one of
the great theorists of the tradition. In the oral commentary, one student opens the discussion of another
student’s seminar paper with a brief (5 minute) statement of possible lines
of criticism and discussion. In the oral commentary, each student will be asked to open the discussion of a
student seminar paper with a brief (5 minute) statement of possible lines of criticism and
discussion. A “digest” is a brief statement (1-1.5 pp)
of the core position in a reading (the main point and the main steps in its
argument). Students will be asked to
do one of these each week on assigned readings – with two weeks off of their on choosing. Essays: (3 @ equal weight) 70% Commentary* 10% contributions to the seminar 10% * Seminar contributions will be evaluated by the quality
of oral contributions, including questions. One can contribute effectively to the
quality of a seminar without speaking much, or even at all. Students who are uncomfortable speaking in
public are invited to discuss alternative forms of contribution with me. All essays should be terse,
analytical, and "positional" -- arguing a definite thesis in
relation to some aspect of the readings. Students are encouraged to develop
their own views in these essays -- eg, by contesting a specific claim made by
the author, or by arguing a rival thesis on the topic, or (in certain cases)
by writing a critical response to a fellow student in the seminar. The only
requirement is that the essay argue a specific and
explicitly stated thesis ("In this essay I will argue that... "). NB: This is a specific style of
essay writing. Students who are unfamiliar with this style are asked to
consult with me for direction before writing their first paper. Essay Deadlines As
noted, three papers are required: (1)
the first,
on any topic covered in Part 1, will be due
on or before Thursday, Oct; 20th;. (2)
a second paper, on any topic in Part 2, will
be due on Thursday, Nov 24th
(3)
the third paper will be due on Thursday,
December 15th There is
an additional deadline. As noted, one
paper (either the first or the second) by each student will be discussed in
the seminar: this paper must be
emailed to everyone in the seminar by midnight on the Sunday before the
Tuesday class in which it will be discussed.
The paper may be revised for grading after that date if the student
wishes.
Apparently
course outlines are required to include an explicit statement of the course
objective(s). I’d have thought this
was obvious, but in case it isn’t, the objective of this course is to help
each student to develop a clear, critical understanding of her/his own
position on justice and public justification, using Rawls’ work. That’s my objective in teaching the course;
and I hope through doing this to develop such an understanding for myself. As to the objectives of any students taking
the course, well that’s for them to decide for themselves. But I hope their
objectives are, as mine, to develop such an understanding as well as they
can. Topics and
Readings (Tuesday Seminar) All readings are required unless indicated as
‘recommended’. Readings refer to the course texts (Sandel,
Justice and Rawls, Political Liberalism), to articles in the course pack (indicated
as “course pack”) and to other articles (indicated as “web”) which are
available on line through the university library and may also be found
through the “on line readings” link on the course web page. A rough guide to length is indicated beside
each article. Part
1 – Justice Essential
background reading: In the first
two weeks, students are asked to read ch 2 of Kloppenberg, Reading Obama (“From Universalism to
Particularism”). If you want to break
it up, you might read pp 85-106 and then pp 106-49 Sept 13 Introduction Sept
20 Traditional Liberalism (1) Liberty 7 Mill, selections from On Liberty (web) 6 Plato, “The
Democratic Character”, 557b-562a (web) 26 8 Berlin,
“Two Concepts of Liberty” (course
pack) 26 Skinner,
“The Paradoxes of Political Liberty” (web) 20 Kloppenberg, Reading Obama, pp 85-106 (web) 7 Illustration: Decisions
of the Supreme Court in Sharpe (web) 74 seminar paper: Aaron Aitken commentary: Patricia Payne digest:
Skinner Sept 27 Traditional Liberalism (2) Distributive Justice – Utilitarianism 5 Mill, selections from Utilitarianism, ch 2 (web) 27 Sandel, ch 2 7 Plato, selections from Gorgias, 481b-495a (web) 43 Kloppenberg, Reading Obama, pp 106-49 (web) 8 illustration: Decisions
of the Supreme Court in Rodriguez v BC (euthanasia) (web)
90 digest: Mill,
Sandel, Plato seminar
paper: Michael Doyle commentary: Aaron Aitken Oct 4 Libertarianism; Market Distributions 40 Sandel, chs 3-4 14 Nozick, “Distributive Justice” (course
pack) 12 Gottlieb,
“The Tasks of Embodied Love” (web) 66 digest:
Nozick, Gottlieb seminar
paper: Trenton Broens commentary: Philip Stachnik Oct 11 Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1): the principles 28 pp 1-28 (stop here) of Freeman, “John Rawls – An
Overview” in The Cambridge Companion to Rawls (web) 8 Rawls, selections from A Theory of Justice
(sections 1-4, 11) (course pack) 20 Audard, John
Rawls, pp 89-109 (sections 3-4 in ch 2) (web) 22 Barry,
“Education” (ch 5 in Why Social Justice
Matters). Skip ch
4 (course pack) 78 digest:
Rawls, Barry seminar
paper: Philip Stachnik commentary: Neekoo Collett Oct 18 Rawls, A Theory of Justice (2): the argument 8 Rawls, “The Reasoning:” (A Theory of Justice
section 26) (course pack) 26 Audard, John
Rawls, pp 133- 59 (sections 2-4 in ch 3 (web) 25 Sandel, ch 6 59 digest: Rawls, Sandel seminar
paper: Arun Bhaumik commentary:
Trenton Broens, ESSAY # 1 Due: Thurs,
Oct 20th Part
2 – Problems of Rights and Community (the course was revised from here) Oct 25 (unchanged) Rawls, A Theory of Justice (3): community
and goodness vs justice 28 Mulhall and Swift, “Rawls and Communitarianism”, Cambridge
Companion, 460-87 (web) 8 Sandel, “The
Procedural Republic and the Unencumbered Self” (course pack) 23 Nagel,
“Rawls and Liberalism”, Cambridge Companion, 62-85 (web) 59 Digest: Mulhall-Swift,
Sandel, Nagel seminar
papers: Neekoo Collett & Jenna Killam commentary:
Arun Bhaumik & Allison
Querengesser Nov 1 Rights (1): Positive and Negative
Rights, Rawls vs Nozick This will
include a general discussion and two applications: (i)
a lecture on the analysis of
rights (the different types and components) of rights, (ii)
negative and positive rights with special
reference to the obligations of ‘Good Samaritans’ as raised by the recent
case in China) (iii)
assessment
of Nozick’s entitlement theory and Rawls’
statement of the difference 8 review:
Decisions of the Supreme Court in Rodriguez v BC (euthanasia) (web) 14 review:
Nozick, “Distributive Justice” (course pack) 13 Jones, Forms of
Right (distributed) 14 Rawls,
“The Basic Structure as Subject” (1977), sections 2-3 and 5-7 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15331773 Recommended: Sandel, ch 5 49 seminar
paper: Michael Sydora commentary: Michael Doyle Digest: either
(i) digest the Rawls essay or (ii) write one page on (a) how Rawls tries to
answer Nozick, briefly indicating (b) whether Rawls
is successful. Nov 8 Rights (2): Human Rights – problems,
application, justification Further attention to the
nature and justification of rights, with application to issues of human rights
using Pocklington’s “Against Inflating Human
Rights. 20 Beitz, “What Human Rights Mean” (2003) (web) 6 Nussbaum, “Patriotism and
Cosmopolitanism” (distributed) 10 Pocklington, “Against Inflating Human
Rights” (web)* 36 Digest: Beitz, Nusssbaum, Pocklington seminar
papers: Justin Selner &
Patricia Payne commentary: Jenna Killam & Michael Sydora Nov 15 Public Reason (1) - Rawls’ Later Work In this
first (of two) sessions on Rawls’ later work, the focus will be on
understanding Rawls’ ‘public reason’ and his reasons for it. 8 Freeman,
“Public Reason”, pp 37-44 in Cambridge Companion
(web) 15 Rawls, “Public
Reason Revisited”, 765-80 [ just the
intro and sections 1-2] (web) 26 Sandel, pp 208-34 in ch 9 (the rest will be done next week) 49 Digest:
Rawls seminar
paper: Ryder Prat commentary:
Michael Mendoza Nov 22 Public Reason (2) – Applications, Multiculturalism This session will continue the analysis of “public reason”
with particular attention to the priority of what has been called “the
priority of the right over the good” and with application to examples such as
multiculturalism.. 12 Larmore,
“Public Reason”, Cambridge Companion, pp
380-91 (web) 13 Rawls,
“Public Reason Revisited”, 794-807
[sections 6-7] (web) 14 Taylor,
“The Politics of Recognition” (course pack) 9 Sandel, pp 234-43 in ch 9 48 Digest:
Rawls, Taylor Recommended:
Rawls, “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical” seminar
paper: Dongwoo Kim commentary:
Justin Selner ESSAY # 2 Due: Wed, Nov 23rd
(note the change) Nov
29 Taylor and Liberal Individualism
(1): The Self as Individual The seminar will conclude by considering two
issues (both raised by Charles Taylor) in relation to Rawls and liberal
justice. The topic this week is (i) the
political implications of different ways of understanding the self (eg as
atomistic individual [Nozick]) or instead as
community member [Sandel]). Next week the topic will be (ii) whether the good (individual or community) should
be subordinated to justice. 12 Taylor,
Sources of the Self, section 2.3 (“
The Self in Moral Space” (web) 25 Hampshire, “Justice is
Conflict” (web) 11 Sandel, pp 184-95 in ch 8 48 Digest: Taylor seminar
paper: Allison Querengesser commentary:
Ryder Prat Dec 6 Conclusion: Taylor and Liberal
Individualism (2): Just State v Good
Community As noted for last week, the seminar will conclude
by considering the idea of a ‘good community’ and whether it might be more
important than justice. 15 Taylor,
Sources of the Self, section 3.3 (“ Ethics of Inarticulacy”) (web) 25 Sandel,
ch 10 40 Digest:
Taylor seminar
paper: Michael Mendoza commentary: Dongwoo Kim ESSAY # 3 Due: Wed, Dec 14th
(note the change) |
||
Possible
topics (essay one) ….
1.
Take any (one) criticism of Rawls, and assess
it.
2.
Is the liberty to consume pornography a liberty
worth protecting? (substitute different
examples)
3.
In Rodriguez, the Supreme Court held that a
person’s right to control the terms of their own life (specifically, the right
to assistance in ending one’s life) can be limited to protect others from
possible abuse. This would appear to be
a utilitarian case (limiting individual rights for the sake of the good of
others). Defend or oppose this
utilitarianism. (we didn’t discuss the case, but it was on the reading for Sept
27)
4.
What’s wrong with Nozick?
5.
With reference to any of the general perspectives
identified thus far, show how that perspective gives the best answer to one of
the following:
(a)
Ms. Higgins’ dilemma
(b)
The Rodriguez issue
(c)
The child pornography issue (under the conditions
stipulated in Sharpe)
(d)
The financing (ie the tuition cost +
scholarship/bursary support) of higher education.