GOVT E-1052/WContemporary Topics in Political Philosophy

Fall, 2014

***This is a Draft: Assignments and Due Dates are Subject To Change***

Logistics

Lectures: Monday 7:40pm - 9:40pm in Maxwell-Dworkin G115

InstructorChristopher Robichaud (Ph.D. in Philosophy, MIT)Lecturer in Ethics and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School of Gov-ernmentOffice Hours: Mondays 4-6pm and by appointmentOffice: Littauer 214, Harvard Kennedy School of GovernmentEmail: christopher_robichaud@harvard.eduPhone: (617) 384-8120

Administrative AssistantRosita ScarfoPhone:617-496-1739Email: rosita_scarfo@harvard.eduOffice: Belfer 117C, Harvard Kennedy School

Teaching AssistantsMark Diaz Truman, Head TA (Master’s in Public Policy, Harvard)mark_truman@hks13.harvard.eduOffice Hours: TBASection Meetings: TBA

Wynne Lanros (Master’s in Philosophy, Tufts)wynne.lanros@gmail.comOffice Hours: TBASection Meetings: TBA

1

1

Overview

Should the Westboro Baptist Church be allowed to protest military fu-nerals? Is it permissible for certain soda containers to be banned in New York City in order to promote public health? Are drone strikes de-fensible, abroad or here? Ought the United States be involved in mili-tary conflicts on strictly humanitarian grounds? Would a preventive air strike against Iran be permissible? Is the current unequal distribution of wealth in this country defensible? What responsibility does a country like the United States bear in addressing global climate change? Do un-documented immigrants have a claim on the US to let them become citizens?

These are but a few of the pressing questions that are currently being debated in the public arena. And there are many dimensions to con-sider when answering them—what’s legal, what’s politically feasible, but also, what’s moral. Political ethics asks questions about what is jus-tice, fairness, equality, freedom and autonomy; it considers what a well-functioning democracy ought to be like, when, if ever, it’s permis-sible to curtail individual freedoms to promote the public good, what economic and international justice amount to, and so forth. This course will introduce students to a battery of ideas and arguments within po-litical philosophy by way of addressing the moral issues that underlie some of the popular and challenging questions arising in domestic and international politics today.

Course Expectations and Requirements

1. Students are expected to fulfill the requirements of a writing inten-sive course. GOVT E-1052/W focuses on providing students with the writing skills needed to argue philosophically about matters of political interest; specifically, it teaches students how to 1) clearly articulate their views about the content of political values and norms, 2) argue for their position about these values and norms, and 3) use their posi-tion to illuminate and defend public policy decisions that are grounded on these values and norms.

Writing-intensive courses at the Harvard Extension School offer stu-dents the opportunity to develop writing skills for a specific academic discipline. These courses feature common elements. Students will:

Develop core writing skills, as defined by the instructor, in the discipline of the course;

2

2

Complete multiple writing assignments of varying lengths, at least two of which must be revised;

Produce a minimum of 10-12 pages of polished writing, beyond required rough drafts, over the course of the term;

Meet at least once in individual conference (in person, by phone, or online) with the instructor or TA to discuss writing in progress;

Receive detailed feedback on their drafts and revisions, on both content and expression.

2. Students are expected to complete all the readings assigned for the course.

3. Students are expected to listen to the lectures each week.

4. Students are expected to exercise academic integrity in the course. There is zero tolerance for plagiarism. Please consult the link below for more on this important matter:

http://www.extension.harvard.edu/resources/career-academic-re-source-center/plagiarism-proper-use-sources

5. Students are expected to fulfill all the formal requirements of the course, detailed below.

Formal Course Requirements:

(1) Three Response Papers

Each response paper is to be three pages long (typed, double-spaced, 12pt font), and each will count toward 15% of your final grade.

To succeed at the type of philosophical reasoning this course empha-sizes, three skills are needed. (1) You must be able to read selections of philosophical reasoning and articulate accurately what the main ar-guments from the reading are. (2) You must be able to offer criticisms of philosophical arguments by diagnosing their weakness. (3) You must be able to offer your own arguments for a philosophical position, de-fending them against anticipated objections.

A central goal of this course is to develop these three skills.

They will be illustrated in various ways in the lectures. The papers will ask you to put these skills into practice. Each of the three paper as-signments will require you to focus primarily, though not exclusively, on one of these three skills. The first paper will therefore involve you writing about the specific argument or arguments an author that we’re

3

3

reading makes. The second paper will ask you to look at a different au-thor, and focus on criticizing the argument or arguments that the au-thor makes. The third paper will ask you to develop your own position on an issue in light of the arguments another author has made.

All response papers will include feedback from the teaching assistants. The second of these three papers will involve a rewrite as well. Since it will be the first place where you put forward your own reasoning—in the form of objections—and where at the same time you must also il-lustrate an understanding of the material—in order for your objections to work—this is a good paper to go through the process of a formal re-vision. You will be working with one of the course’s teaching assistants in doing this.

More details on what the papers exactly will involve will be presented in lecture. The specific assignments will be made available online at the start of the semester. Sample papers for each of the three assign-ments will also be made available online.

(2) Final Paper Draft

Your final paper will be ten pages long if you are an undergraduate stu-dent and fifteen pages long if you are a graduate student. You will need to submit a complete draft of it. A complete draft is ten pages if you are an undergraduate and fifteen pages if you are a graduate stu-dent. A complete draft is a complete version of your final paper, and must contain all the elements expected in the final paper. This draft will count for 15% of your final grade.

(3) Final Paper

Your final paper will be a revision of your complete draft. It will count for 25% of your final grade. Standards will be provided for what counts as an acceptable revision.

No research will need to be done for the final paper. I will provide a topic and readings that go along with it. You will be asked to write a paper that defends a position related to the topic, arguing it by way of engaging the articles attached to the topic. In short, you’ll be asked to write a paper that brings the skills developed in writing the response papers together. As such, the written response papers should be viewed as giving you the building blocks you’ll need to succeed in writ-ing the final paper.

NOTE: It is the policy of this course that, barring medical or other seri-ous emergencies (computer malfunctions and internet delays are not

4

4

serious emergencies), late papers or papers written on the wrong topic or papers that do not fulfill the requirements provided in class or by email by me or the teaching assistants will receive a zero. Please be sure to do the correct assignment, on the correct reading, and submit it on time.

(4) Participation

You will be expected to participate on a regular basis. This means at-tending and contributing to the sections run by the teaching assistants each week. Participation counts for 15% of your final grade.

Additionally, non-distance and hybrid students who attend lecture in person for at least 10 of the 14 sessions will have their lowest response paper grade raised one letter grade (B- to a B, B to a B+, B+ to an A-, etc.). Attendance will be taken each class and to be eligible students must attend the entire lecture. This policy does not affect papers that did not originally receive a passing grade.

Distance students who make at least one substantive contribution to the online forum for at least 10 of the 14 weeks of the semester will have their lowest response paper grade raised one letter grade (B- to a B, B to a B+, B+ to an A-, etc.). This policy does not affect papers that did not originally receive a passing grade.

To be clear: these incentives are aimed at promoting interaction. It seeks to get local students into the classroom interacting with me and each other on a weekly basis, and to get distance students on the course forum interacting with the TAs and each other on a weekly ba-sis. Local students are more than welcome to comment on the forums and distance students are more than welcome to drop in on a class if they're in town, of course.

Required Texts

A course packet will be available for this course. No additional texts are required beyond that. The readings for this course are primarily philosophy; as such, the ma-terial is very dense, and adequately engaging it will require reading it at least once with time and care and, more often than not, reading it again after that. The challenge is worthwhile. Serious discussion about questions of value in public policy requires at least some exposure to serious writings, both to build a conceptual vocabulary and to see ex-amples of good moral reasoning.

5

5

For a fun and easily-accessible introduction to some of the ideas cov-ered in this course, explored by way of seeing how these ideas appear in superhero narratives, I invite you to read the following articles of mine at your leisure, included in the course packet:

“With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility: On the Moral Du-ties of the Super-Powerful and the Super-Heroic,” Chapter 14 in Superheroes and Philosophy (2005), edited by Tom Morris and Matt Morris, pp. 177-193.

“What Kind of Justice Does Superman Stand For?” in Superman and Philosophy, edited by Mark D. White, Wiley-Blackwell Press, 2013.

“Fighting the Good Fight: Military Ethics and the Kree-Skrull War,” in The Avengers and Philosophy, edited by Mark D. White, Wiley-Blackwell Press, 2012.

“The Superman Exists, and He’s American: Morality in the Face of Absolute Power” in Watchmen and Philosophy, edited by Mark D. White, Wiley Press, 2009.

“The Joker’s Wild: Can We Hold the Clown Prince Morally Respon-sible?” in Batman and Philosophy, edited by Mark D. White and Robert Arp, Wiley Press, 2008.

If you would like to explore in greater depth some of the topics covered in the course, I suggest the following two books as a good starting place.

Adam Swift, Political Philosophy: A Beginner’s Guide for Students and Politicians, 3rd Edition. (Polity Press, 2013).

Will Kymlicka. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduc-tion, 2nd Edition (Oxford University Press, 2002)

I also recommend that you look at the following helpful guidelines on writing and reading philosophy:

James Pryor, “Guidelines on Reading Philosophy”http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/reading.html#Evalu-ate

James Pryor, “Guidelines on Writing a Philosophy Paper” http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html

6

6

Due Dates For Assignments

Readings

All readings are to be read prior to the class in which they are dis-cussed.

First Response Paper: due September 21 at 11:59pm

Provide a three page argument analysis of the Dworkin reading, “Free Speech and the Dimensions of Democracy.” [Details on this assign-ment will be forthcoming.]

Second Response Paper, First Draft: due October 19 at 11:59pm

Provide a three page argument critique of "Personal and Social for Health" by Daniel Wikler [Details on this assignment will be forthcom-ing.]

Second Response Paper, Revised Draft: due Nov 2 at 11:59pm

This is a revision of your second response paper. You must meet with your teaching assistant prior to handing in this revised draft. [Details on this assignment will be forthcoming.]

Third Response Paper: due November 16 at 11:59pm

Provide a three page argument position paper, developing your view by way of engaging Brennan's "Arguments for a Duty to Vote." [Details on this assignment will be forthcoming.]

Final Paper, First Draft: Due November 30 at 11:59pm

Write a ten page (undergrad) or fifteen page (grad) paper (an argu-ment analysis, plus critique, plus position) on the Edward Snowden case, engaging the readings assigned for the December 15th class, an-swering the central question: according to the principles of political ethics, did Edward Snowden act permissibly in whistleblowing on the NSA? [Details on this assignment will be forthcoming]

Final Paper, Revised Draft: Due December 14 at 11:59pm

7

7

This is a revision of your final paper. You must meet with your teaching assistant prior to handing in this revised draft. [Details on this assign-ment will be forthcoming.]

Addendum: Social Network Policy

I have an online presence through various social networks and am de-lighted if you’re interested in connecting with me via these sites. I’m also perfectly content if you are not. The views I express on these sites are entirely my own and are not to be confused in any way with me speaking in the capacity of my role at the Harvard Kennedy School or the Harvard Extension School. In light of that, while I’ll happily accept Facebook friend requests, Twitter followers, etc., I will not initiate such contact. The idea is to do whatever you’re comfortable with.

8

8

Schedule of Topics and Readings

I. LIBERTY

1. Free Speech and Hate SpeechSeptember 8

Frederick Schauer, “The Phenomenology of Speech and Harm,” Ethics 103:4 (1993), pp. 635-653.

Jeremy Waldron, “Protecting Dignity or Protection from Offense,” Chap-ters Four and Five in The Harm in Hate Speech (Harvard: Harvard Uni-versity Press, 2012), pp. 65-143.

Caroline West, “Words that Silence? Freedom of Expression and Racist Hate Speech,” in Speech and Harm (Ishani Maitra and Mary Kate Mc-Gowan, eds.).

2. Tolerance and Religious FreedomSeptember 15

Gordon Graham, “Tolerance, Pluralism, and Relativism” in Toleration, edited by David Heyd (Princeton University Press, 1996.)

John Horton, “Toleration as a Virtue” in Toleration, edited by David Heyd (Princeton University Press, 1996.)

Timothy Scanlon, “The Difficulty of Tolerance” in The Difficulty of Toler-ance, Cambridge University Press, 2003. (Scanlon)

3. Free Speech and Money in PoliticsSeptember 22

Ronald Dworkin, "Free Speech and the Dimensions of Democracy," in If Buckley Fell: A First Amendment Blueprint For Regulating Money In Pol-itics (1999), edited by EJ Rosenkranz, pp. 63-101, 191-193.

Kathleen M. Sullivan, “Political Money and Freedom of Speech,” U.C. Davis Law Review 30 (1997), pp. 663-690.

Lawrence Lessig, “Why So Damn Much Money” and “What So Damn Much Money Does,” Chapters Nine and Ten of Republic, Lost (New York: Twelve Publishing, 2011), pp. 89-171.

9

9

4. Paternalism: Saving Us From OurselvesSeptember 29

Dennis F. Thompson, “Paternalistic Power,” in Political Ethics and Pub-lic Office (1987), pp. 148-177.

Cass Sunstein and Richard Thaler, “Libertarian Paternalism is not an Oxymoron,” University of Chicago Law Review 70(4) (2003), pp. 1159-1202.

Mark. D. White. “Why Nudges Are Unethical,” Chapter 5 in The Manipu-lation of Choice: Ethics and Libertarian Paternalism, Palgrave Macmil-lan, 2013, pp. 81-102.

II. JUSTICE

5. Economic JusticeOctober 6

Will Kymlicka, “Liberal Equality,” Chapter 3, sections 1-3, in Contempo-rary Political Philosophy, 2nd ed. (2002), pp. 53-75.

Will Kymlicka, “Libertarianism,” Chapter 4, sections 1-2, in Contempo-rary Political Philosophy, 2nd ed. (2002), pp. 102-27.

6. Is Health Care a Right?October 20

Norman Daniels, “Three Questions of Justice” and “What Is the Special Moral Importance of Health?” Chapters 1 and 2 of Just Health (2007), pp. 11-78.

Daniel Wikler, “Personal and Social Responsibility for Health,” Chapter 6 in Public Health, Ethics, and Equity (2004), edited by S. Anand, F. Pe-ter, and A. Sen, pp. 109-34.

7. Immigration and FairnessOctober 27

Joseph Carens, “Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders” in Global Justice: Seminal Essays, edited by Pogge and Moellendorf (Paragon House, 2008).

David Miller, “The Ethical Significance of Nationality” in Global Justice: Seminal Essays, edited by Pogge and Moellendorf (Paragon House, 2008).

10

10

8. Environmental JusticeNovember 3

Peter Singer, “One Atmosphere,” Chapter 2 of One World: The Ethics of Globalization, 2nd Edition (2004).

Simon Caney, “Cosmopolitan Justice, Responsibility, and Global Cli-mate Change” in Leiden Journal of International Law 2005, pp. 747-72, 774-5

Richard Miller, “Global Harm and Global Equity: The Case of Green-house Justice,” Chapter 2 of Globalizing Justice (2010), pp. 84-117

III. DEMOCRACY

9. Disagreement and CompromiseNovember 10

Edward Langerak, “Laws and Dissenters,” Chapter Four of Civil Dis-agreement, Georgetown University Press, 2014. (Langerak)

Richard Weisberg, “The Politics of Compromise,” Chapter 2 of In Praise of Transigence, Oxford University Press, 2014. (Weisberg)

Avishai Margalit, “The Morality of Rotten Compromises,” Chapter 5 of On Compromise and Rotten Compromises, Princeton University Press 2013. (Margalit)

10. Voting and Public KnowledgeNovember 17

Jason Brennan, “Arguments for a Duty to Vote,” Chapter One of The Ethics of Voting, Princeton University Press, 2011. (Brennan)

Ilya Somin, “Do Voters Know Enough?” Chapter Two of Democracy and Political Ignorance, Stanford University Press, 2013. (Somin)

11. Truth and PoliticsNovember 24

Jennifer Saul, “Is Lying Worse Than Merely Misleading,” Chapter 4 (se-lections) of Lying, Misleading, and What is Said (Saul) pp. 69-86

Harry Frankfurt, “On Bullshit, ” in The Importance of What We Care About (Frankfurt)

11

11

Jason Stanley, “The Ways of Silencing,” “Media and Mistrust: A Re-sponse,” and “Speech, Lies and Apathy” in NYT

IV. SECURITY

12. Preventive and Humanitarian WarsDecember 1

Michael Walzer, “Law and Order in International Society” and “Inter-ventions” Chapters 4 & 6 in Just and Unjust Wars, 4th ed. (1977; 2006), pp. 51-73; 86-108.

David Luban, “Preventive War,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 32 (2004), pp. 207-48.

Fernando R. Teson, “The Liberal Case for Humanitarian Intervention,” Chapter 3 in Humanitarian Intervention: Ethical, Legal and Political Agendas, edited by Holzgrefe and Keohane (2003), pp. 93-129.

13. Torture and DronesDecember 8

Alan Dershowitz, “Tortured Reasoning,” Chapter 14 of Torture: A Col-lection, edited by Sanford Levinson (2004), pp. 257-80.

David Luban, “What Would Augustine Do? The President, Drones, and Just War Theory” in The Boston Review, June 6, 2012.

14. Whistleblowing and National SecurityDecember 15

Laura Winig and Christopher Robichaud, “Edward Snowden, Hero or Traitor” Harvard Kennedy School Case, 2014.

Rahul Sagar. “Should We Rely on Whistleblowers?” Chapter 5 in Se-crets and Leaks, Princeton University Press, 2013. (Sagar)

William E. Scheuerman, “Snowden and the Ethics of Whistleblowing,” May 2014, Boston Review.

Ronald Dworkin, “Civil Disobedience and Nuclear Protest,” in A Matter of Principle (1985), pp. 104-116.

12

12

13

13