Methods in Political Philosophy
Core Course, 2 Credits DSPP, Fall 2021
Anca Gheaus, gheausa@ceu.edu QS. A411
Classes on Wednesdays at 10.50
Office Hours: Tuesdays 15.10-16.40 and Thursdays 12.30-14.10 Please make an appointment by e-mail 24 hrs before.
Introduction
This course, mandatory for doctoral students in Political Theory, introduces the main methods used in political philosophy. It is also open to other doctoral students and to MA students with a solid background in moral and political philosophy.
Course requirements and assessment
Attendance and active participation (40%) The course will be centred on weekly discussions of philosophical texts, that detail and/or exemplify philosophical methods. It class requires constant, and extensive, active participation. You are expected to come prepared, having read the and commented the text in Perusall. For each session, you are expected to have prepared beforehand one question about the required reading, and be ready to explain your take on it.
Each doctoral student will be in charge with leading the discussion during two meetings from week four onwards. On these occasions, you will introduce the required reading. You should take no more than 10 minutes to (1) present the topic of the reading and its main question(s);
(2) reconstruct its main thesis/theses and arguments; and (3) provide a brief evaluation of it. (Is its thesis clear? Does the argument work? Is the view in any way inconsistent with widely held beliefs? If so, what does this mean?) I advise you to prepare the presentation a few days before you are due to deliver it; if you struggle with any of the (1)-(2)-(3) I can provide some guidance during office hours.
Reflection papers (20%) I would like you to write two short essays (of about 700 words each) on course topics of your choice.
Final assessment: a draft of your doctoral proposal (40%) This course is meant to help you with the writing of your doctoral prospectus.
If you are not a PhD student in political theory, you should write an essay no longer than 2500 words, addressing an issue studied in class. You should check the topic with me. For more on how to write a philosophy paper see “Some Guidelines For Writing Philosophy Papers”, in The Norton Introduction to Philosophy, 2nd Edition Alex Byrne, Gideon Rosen, Elizabeth Harman, Joshua Cohen & Seana Shiffrin (eds.). Let me know if you’re interested in more material on how to write philosophy.
Grades
F= Fail. Poor. You fail to participate in class discussions, and/or to address a (relevant) question in the papers.
C+ Minimum Pass. You make a very modest contribution to class, and the papers have significant unclarities of issue and argument, and are written poorly.
B- Satisfactory. You participate in class consistently. Your papers identify appropriate topics, provide some cogent argument.
B Good. You participate in class frequently. Your papers reflect a solid understanding of the material covered in class, articulate well the main thesis and argument, avoid unclarities and imprecision.
B+ Very good. You participate in class frequently and often make relevant points. Your papers reflect a solid understanding of the material covered in class, articulate well the main thesis and argument, the reasoning displays some level of sophistication, avoid unclarities and imprecision.
A- Excellent. You participate in class frequently and often make relevant points and highlight unusual connections between the various ideas discussed during the course meetings. Your papers reflect a solid understanding of the material covered in class, articulate well the thesis and argument, display sophistication in reasoning and some degree of originality, avoid unclarities and imprecision. They also shows very good analytical skill and critical engagement with the material.
A outstanding. You participate in class frequently, often make relevant points and highlight unusual connections between the various ideas discussed during the course meetings, and occasionally ask new, interesting questions. Your papers reflect a solid understanding of the material covered in class, articulate well the main thesis argument, display sophistication in reasoning and originality, avoid unclarities and imprecision. They also shows very good analytical skill and deep understanding of the material, which results in original critical engagement.
Course programme
Description:
During the first part of the course, we shall discuss forms of argument, basic concepts in normative analysis, the role of intuitions, thought experiments and counterfactuals and reflective equilibrium. Then we shall spend three weeks discussing chapters from G.A.
Cohen’s Rescuing Justice and Equality, on facts and values, constructivism and publicity. The last four weeks are dedicated to the ideal-non-ideal theory debate and the question of status quo bias.
Week one, Wednesday the 22nd of September Basic concepts in normative analysis
Required reading
Shelly Kagan. 1998. Normative Ethics (Boulder: Westview) chapter 1.
Optional reading
Leif Wenar. 2021. “Rights”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/rights
Week two, Wednesday the 29th of September Forms of argument
Required reading
G.A. Cohen. 2011. “How to do Political Philosophy”. In Mike Otsuka (ed.) On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice, and Other Essays in Political Philosophy. Princeton University Press.
Optional reading
Matthew McKeon. “Argument”, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://iep.utm.edu/argument/
Week three, Wednesday the 6th of October Moral intuitions
Required reading
Henry Sidgwick. 1907. The Methods of Ethics, 7th edn. London: Macmillan, excerpts.
Optional reading
Joel Pust. 2019. “Intuition”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2019/entries/intuition
Week four, Wednesday the 13th of October Thought experiments and counterfactuals Required reading
Kimberley Brownlee and Zsosia Stemplowska. 2017. “Thought experiments”, in Adrian Blau (ed.) Methods in Analytical Political Theory, Oxford University Press, pp.21-45.
Optional readings
Frances Kamm. 2016. The Trolley Problem Mysteries, Oxford University Press.
James Robert Brown and Yiftach Fehige.2019. “Thought Experiments”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Edward N. Zalta (ed.),
https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/thought-experiment
Week five, Wednesday the 20th of October Reflective equilibrium
Required readings
Norman Daniels. 1996. Justice and Justification: Reflective Equilibrium in Theory and Practice.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, excerpts.
Optional reading
Carl Knight. 2017. “Reflective equilibrium”, in Adrian Blau (ed.) Methods in Analytical Political Theory, Oxford University Press, pp. 46-64.
Week six, Wednesday the 27th of October Facts and values
Required reading
G.A. Cohen. 2009. Rescuing Justice and Equality, Harvard University Press, chapter 6.
Optional readings
David Miller. “Political philosophy for Earthlings”, in David Leopold and Marc Stears (eds.) Political Theory: Methods and Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 29-48.
Thomas Pogge. 2008. “Cohen to the rescue!”, Ratio 21(4): 454-47.
Week seven, Wednesday the 3rd of November Constructivism
Required reading
G.A. Cohen. 2009. Rescuing Justice and Equality, Harvard University Press, chapter 7.
Optional reading
Stephen Darwall, Allan Gibbard and Peter Railton. 1992. “Toward Fin de siecle Ethics:
Some Trends”, The Philosophical Review 101(1): 115-189.
Week eight, Wednesday the 10th of November Publicity
Required reading
G.A. Cohen. 2009. Rescuing Justice and Equality, Harvard University Press, chapter 8.
Optional reading
Axel Gosseries and Tom Parr. 2018. “Publicity”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edward N. Zalta (ed.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/publicity
Week nine, Wednesday the 17th of November
Ideal versus non-ideal theory 1: compliance versus non-compliance Required reading
John Simmons. 2010. “Ideal and Non-ideal Theory”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 38(1): 5-36.
Optional reading
Laura Valentini. 2012. “Ideal vs. Non-ideal Theory: A Conceptual Map”, Phil Compass 654- 644.
Week ten, Wednesday the 24th of November
Ideal versus non-ideal theory 2: Idealisations and feasibility worries Required reading
Zofia Stemplowska and Adam Swift. 2012. “Ideal and nonideal theory”, in David Estlund (ed.) The Oxford handbook of political philosophy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Optional reading
Amartya Sen. 2009. The Idea of Justice. London: Penguin Books.
Week eleven, Wednesday the 1st of December
Facts and values in empirically-informed political philosophy Required reading
Adam Swift. 1999. “Public opinion and political philosophy: The relation between social- scientific and philosophical analyses of distributive justice”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 2:337–363.
Optional Reading
Adan Swift and Stewart White. 2008. “Political theory, social science, and real politics”, in David Leopold and Marc Stears (eds.) Political Theory: Methods and Approaches, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 49-69.
Week twelve, Wednesday the 8th of December Biases
Required reading
Nick Bostrom and Toby Ord. 2006. “The Reversal Test: Eliminating Status Quo Bias in Applied Ethics”, Ethics 116: 656-679.
Optional Reading
Thomas Nagel. 2021. “Types of Intuition”, London Review of Books.
