Call for Papers

Congress: Democracy Today - In Political Philosophy and Theory

3 - 6 November 2010 - Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal

Today western democracies confront social, cultural and political challenges, which call for a reevaluation of our state affairs, our system of practices and our system of discourses. In contemporary pluralist and multicultural societies, there is an increased gap between citizens and political establishments. Traditional approaches of politics of recognition or redistribution, used to translate claims into the public sphere, seem no longer sufficient in this new paradigm of an increased globalized world and trans-national politics. Under this light, the meaning(s) we generally tend to attribute to the concept of democracy need to be re-evaluated and ultimately redefined.

This will be the First International Congress on ‘Democracy Today’ which will take place at Universidade do Minho, Braga. Having as starting point the assumption that the concept of democracy needs to be revised, we intent, during this congress, to accomplish two main tasks: on the one hand, to provide an account of the multiplicity of meanings of ‘democracy’ and its conceptual nuances. On the other hand, to account for the different instantiations of democracy and its intrinsic practices. Under this light we propose four days of reflection, discussion and dialogue, specially under the scope of political philosophy and political theory.

These are some of the questions we expect to explore:

•               different conceptualizations of democracy - democracy, republicanism and liberalism, its relationship, tensions and articulations.

•               relationship between representation and democracy.

•               representation and political equality.

•               citizenship and civic virtue.

•               examples of democratic representation in different countries.

•               participation, abstention, representation and exclusion.

•               workplace democracy.

These are just a few topics we will approach. The first day will be dedicated to a theoretical discussion, aiming at clarifying the roots and transformations that the concept of democracy has suffered. The second day will be dedicated to the practical component, looking at concrete democratic realities of different countries. Third and fourth days will be dedicated to a workshop about workplace democracy.

We count with the special participation of Professor Lawrence Hamilton (South Africa) and David Plotke (USA).

Scientific Committee: Marta Nunes da Costa (Universidade do Minho), João Cardoso Rosas (Universidade do Minho), Acílio Rocha (Universidade do Minho), Axel Gosseries (Universidade de Louvain), Inigo Gonzalez (Universidade de Barcelona), Roberto Merrill (Universidade do Minho)

To apply to participate, before May 15 2010, send the following: (1) Your name, (2) title, (3) department and institution, (4) an abstract of your work (no more than 250 words), (5) five “key words” about your work and (6) email address.

Our email address: nunesdacosta@yahoo.com

Penn State: 25 July-1 August 2010 | Applications by 10 March (grad) or 15 April (undergrad)

Via Eva Kittay:

The Philosophy in an Inclusive Key Summer Institute (PIKSI) is designed to encourage undergraduate students from underrepresented groups to consider future study in the field of philosophy. PIKSI, held 25 July to 1 August, emphasizes both traditional and nontraditional philosophical scholarship, such as feminist philosophy, critical race theory, and disability studies. All undergraduate student participants are fully funded by PIKSI.

PIKSI is a project of the Association for Feminist Ethics and Social Theory (FEAST) and is supported the Rock Ethics Institute and the College of the Liberal Arts at Penn State, as well as a number of graduate programs which have funded their graduate students to serve as Graduate Student Assistant.

The deadline for applications is 10 March for graduate students and 15 April for undergraduates. For more information on the summer institute, institutional co-sponsorship, and the Iris Marion Young Diversity Scholars fund please visit the PIKSI website.

Newcastle University: 25-26 February 2010

The Newcastle Ethics, Legal and Political Philosophy Research Group are holding a conference in honour of Professor Peter Jones. The topic of the conference is “The Value and Limits of Rights.” The conference will be held at the Devonshire Building (G21 & G22) at Newcastle from 25-26 February. The programme is as follows:

Thursday, 25 February
1:30-2:00pm: Registration and Welcome Address
2:00-3:15pm: Albert Weale (UCL)
3:30-4:45pm: Simon Caney (Oxford)

Friday, 26 February
9:30-10:45am: Richard Bellamy (UCL)
10:45-11:00am: Tea/coffee
11:00am-12:15pm: John Horton (Keele)
12:15-1:00pm: Buffet lunch
1:00-2:15pm: Susan Mendus (York)
2:15-3:30pm: David Miller (Oxford)
3:30-3:45pm: Tea/coffee
3:45-5:00pm: Hillel Steiner (Manchester)

All are welcome to attend although there is a registration fee of £10 to cover the cost of the refreshments and buffet lunch. Payments can be made online here. Please address any questions to Dr Ian O’Flynn.

Speaking of non-ideal theory (or ideal theory in less than ideal contexts)… I am curious to hear whether my fellow public reasoners believe that the recent US Supreme Court ruling on campaign finance should have any impact on our work as political philosophers.  To be clear, I don’t mean to start a debate over whether or not the Supreme Court ruled correctly, or whether campaign donations are speech, or even whether corporations are people who have rights like you and me (though I do have opinions on such matters).  Instead, I want to consider whether the American legal landscape should guide our work on theories justice or democracy.

Here’s what I have in mind. Liberal political thought, to this point, has largely ignored a set of concerns that were central to many Labor movements, which might be called concerns over “workplace democracy” or what is sometimes called “democratic corporatism.”  With some notable exceptions (Pateman, Gould, Mansbridge), frequently offered by those operating in a Marxist framework, political philosophers have instead focused on issues of distribution or issues of legitimacy in terms of public reasons or political dialogue.  Relatively little attention has been paid to whether a society with profound inequalities in wealth, where corporations are dominant players in the political landscape, can be meaningfully democratic. There are a number of reasons for this omission, I think, including the assumptions that (1) if distribution problems are taken care of the rest will take care of itself or (2) the ideal society will have stringent campaign finance laws, public election financing, or some other way of insulating the political sphere from the economic sphere.  Given the economic and, following the Supreme Court Ruling, political-legal realities in the US for the indefinite future, I no longer believe that such assumptions will do.

Instead, I believe that if corporations are going to be dominant players in the political landscape for the indefnite future, more work needs to be done to consider whether such organizations need to be more democratic.  Are CEOs or Boards of Directors the “free speakers” for corporations, at liberty to use corporate money to influence election outcomes and policy debates?  Do campaign contributions require the approval of the majority of shareholders?  Do they require the approval of employees? There are of course reasons to favor discretionary decision making by executives - taking a vote for all decisions may leave firms unable to respond efficiently to market demands. Nonetheless, there are also substantial reasons to provide protections for workers or stockholders from what may be arbitrary or self-servingly indefensible decisions made by a board of directors. Also, the need for such rapid, discretionary decision-making with regard to political contributions is far from clear.  Treating corporations, in theory or in practice, as individuals with a right to free speech completely ignores these issues.

Later in his career Rawls himself more clearly distinguishes a property-owning democracy from the idea of a welfare state. A recent symposium in the Journal of Social Philosophy considers the implications of this distinction, in a way that is frequently relevant to the issue at hand. Given Citizens v. FEC, however, I believe that more work on the moral and political implications of corporate involvement in contemporary politics, and the ways in which workplace democracy can further democratic equality without unduly sacrificing market competitiveness, is necessary.  It is no longer plausible (if it ever was) in the American context, to believe that campaign finance law will insulate the political sphere from the economic sphere, such that inequalities in one need not entail inequalities in the other.

Any thoughts?

Many of you have probably seen Simmons’ article just out in PPA on ideal and non-ideal theory. Simmons defends Rawls’ account of the ideal/non-ideal theory distinction and his paper is a must read. That said, I have been ruminating over a slightly different take on the debate over the nature of the ideal/non-ideal theory distinction and so thought I’d throw an idea out there.

Drawing on John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice many have suggested that the ideal/non-ideal theory distinction is akin to the full/partial compliance distinction. In creating his ideal theory, Rawls assumes that people will comply (almost) perfectly with the requirements of justice. He then uses his original position argument to conclude that his first principle of justice should have priority over his second. Next, Rawls weakens his ideal theory assumptions, adding the constraint that people may not abide by the requirements of justice. He concludes that we should only embrace his general conception of justice in non-ideal theory.

Unfortunately, the canonical examples of ideal and non-ideal theories cannot be fully characterized as full and partial compliance theories respectively. As Simmons and others note, even Rawls says ideal theory requires more than perfect compliance. In creating his ideal theory he assumes, for instance, that the circumstances do not prevent justice from being secured. Furthermore, others have more recently provided ideal and non-ideal theories that are not full and partial compliance theories (respectively). The main thing that distinguishes Allen Buchanan’s and Michael Blake’s non-ideal theories from their ideal theories, for instance, is that their non-ideal theories assume that there will be states and consider what we should do given that we are confined to a statist system. Similarly, the main thing that distinguishes Ronald Dworkin’s non-ideal theory from his ideal theory is that he assumes that people only have different talents and disabilities in his ideal theory. Blake’s, Buchanan’s, and Dworkin’s ideal theories do not require perfect compliance. Assuming that there is something to the ideal/non-ideal theory distinction and these authors are not just using the terms in completely different ways, the ideal/non-ideal theory distinction cannot just be the full/partial compliance distinction.

Reflecting on the many ways people seem to use the terms, one might despair at the thought of trying to unify such disparate ideal and non-ideal theories. In the draft of his book manuscript Michael Blake suggests, for instance, that the ideal/non-ideal theory distinction is not that useful because it can mean many different things. He implores others to be careful to explain just what assumptions they are making in advancing any theory. Perhaps this is part of what drives Simmons and others to argue for one or another of these ways of thinking about the ideal/non-ideal theory distinction.

Read the rest of this entry »

According to the BBC, in the latest twist in l’affaire du foulard/voile, a French parliamentary committee has recommended a ban on women wearing Islamic face veils in public [Correction: the proposal applies to public facilities, such as hospitals and mass transit, and not walking about the street]. The reasoning behind the report seems to be that face veils are contrary to the values of the republic, as symbols of women’s repression and extremist fundamentalism.

The proposal strikes me as a very bad idea in a number of ways. I don’t see how the law liberates women from whatever social pressure there exists to wear a veil. Will wearing a balaclava in public be illegal too? If not, then won’t the law just force a change of attire? Nussbaum has some discussion of this general issue in her Liberty of Conscience, pp. 346-53, invoking the ability of Chicagoans (and the Dutch, and presumably the French) to conduct normal social interactions with their faces covered in winter.

What if feminists who believe that make-up is just a manifestation of the objectification of women in patriarchy, and hence symbolic of repression and degradation, are right? Is there a way to support the veil ban, but not think that this claim about make-up would justify a make-up ban?* How about t-shirts with sexist imagery and messages? Quite apart from dress codes, we can recognise prostitution as degrading, and hence contrary to the values of an egalitarian republic, without thinking it should be illegal, primarily because making it illegal may very well just make the lives of those women, so degraded, even worse.

So, a question: can anything be said in support of this proposal (from ideally a feminist perspective), that does not run into these and other problems?

*[I should add I think having to wear a burqa is worse than feeling compelled to wear make-up.]

The Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en philosophie politique de Montréal (GRIPP) is pleased to announce the results of its 2010 book manuscript competition. The Annual Montreal Political Theory Manuscript Workshop Award has been awarded to Hélène Landemore, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University, for her manuscript titled “Democratic Reasons: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many.”Le groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en philosophie politique de Montréal (GRIPP) a le plaisir de vous annoncer les résultats de la concurrence pour son prix annuel. Le lauréat 2010 du Prix annuel de l’atelier de manuscrit de philosophie politique de Montréal est Hélène Landemore, professeure adjointe en sciences politiques à l’Université Yale, pour son manuscrit intitulé “Democratic Reasons: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many.”

Call for Papers from Faculty and Graduate Students

Northwestern University Society for Ethical Theory and Political Philosophy

Fourth Annual Conference: May 20-22, 2010

Keynote Addresses: Elizabeth Anderson and Christine Korsgaard

Submission Guidelines: The deadline is February 15, 2010.  We welcome submissions from faculty and graduate students, as some sessions will be reserved for student presentations.  Please submit an essay of approximately 4000 words and an abstract of at most 150 words.  Essay topics in all areas of ethical theory and political philosophy will be considered, although some priority will be given to essays that take up themes from the works of Anderson and Korsgaard, such as value theory, philosophy and economics, democratic theory, constructivism, practical reason, personal identity, and the moral status of animals.  Essays and abstracts should be prepared for blind review in .doc, .rtf, or .pdf format.  Graduate submissions should be sent by e-mail to leegoldsmith2012@u.northwestern.edu and faculty submissions should be sent by e-mail to garthoff@northwestern.edu.  Notices of acceptance will be sent by March 31, 2010.  For more information, please contact Jon Garthoff at the e-mail address above or visit our website:

http://www.philosophy.northwestern.edu/conferences/moralpolitical/

So, another query: Should the US defend Google?  Why or why not?US to protest formally to China over Google ‘attacks’

JOURNAL OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY:
An International Journal of Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy
(ISSN 1740-4681)Volume 7, Number 1 (2010)

ARTICLES

William Sin, ‘Trivial Sacrifices, Great Demands’, pp. 3-15

Lina Papadaki, ‘What is Objectification?’ pp. 16-36

M. B. E. Smith, ‘Does Humanity Share a Common Moral Faculty?’ pp. 37-53

Jonathan Seglow, ‘Associative Duties and Global Justice’, pp. 54-73

Miriam Ronzoni, ‘Constructivism and Practical Reason: On Intersubjectivity, Abstraction, and Judgment’, pp. 74-104

Kenneth R. Westphal, ‘From “Convention” to “Ethical Life”: Hume’s Theory of Justice in Post-Kantian Perspective’, pp. 105-32

REVIEW ARTICLE

Wim de Muijnck, ‘Thinking about Normativity: Ralph Wedgwood on “Ought”‘, pp. 133-44

BOOK REVIEWS

Clare Chambers on Gender, Class, and Freedom in Modern Political Theory, pp. 145-47

Anca Gheaus on Disadvantage, pp. 148-50

Paul Bou-Habib on Climate Change, Justice, and Future Generations, pp. 151-53

All issues of the Journal of Moral Philosophy are available on Swetswise here and IngentaConnect here.

Subscription information can be found on our Brill website here.

Please direct all enquiries regarding article or discussion submissions to the Editor, Thom Brooks (Newcastle).

Please direct all enquiries regarding review articles and books for review to the Reviews Editor, Christian Miller (Wake Forest).

JOURNAL OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY:
An International Journal of Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy
(ISSN 1740-4681)

Volume 6, Number 4 (2009)ARTICLES

Ty Landrum, ‘Persons as Objects of Love’, pp. 417-39

Elizabeth Tropman, ‘Renewing Moral Intuitionism’, pp. 440-63

David Alm, ‘Deontological Restrictions and the Good/Bad Asymmetry’, pp. 464-81

Carl Knight, ‘Egalitarian Justice and Valuational Judgment’, pp. 482-98

Geoffrey Scarre, ‘The “Banality of Good”?’ pp. 499-519

REVIEW ARTICLE

Sean Coyle, ‘The Ideality of Law’, pp. 521-34

BOOK REVIEWS

Stefan Bird-Pollan on The Founding Act of Modern Ethical Life: Hegel’s Critique of Kant’s Moral and Political Philosophy by Ideo Geiger, pp. 535-37

Justin Jeffrey on A Theory of Virtue: Excellence in Being for the Good by R. M. Adams, pp. 538-40

Adam Rawlings on Reasons and the Good by Roger Crisp, pp. 541-43

BOOKS RECEIVED

REFEREES FOR VOLUME 6

All issues of the Journal of Moral Philosophy are available on Swetswise here and IngentaConnect here.

Subscription information can be found on our Brill website here: http://www.brill.nl/jmp

Please direct all enquiries regarding article or discussion submissions to the Editor, Thom Brooks (Newcastle).

Please direct all enquiries regarding review articles and books for review to the Reviews Editor, Fabian Freyenhagen (Essex).

Dear all,

I post here in pdf format a paper of mine in which I argue, well, that Rawls’s theory of justice implies the justification of slavery and genocide and is therefore an abysmal failure as far as reflective equilibrium is concerned. Comments are highly welcome

All the best, Uwe  Unsavory Implications of A Theory of Justice and The Law of Peoples

A question: do people think international humanitarian intervention (or any international intervention, for that matter; perhaps even any intervention at all) has to be coercive?  That is, as a conceptual issue, is intervention necessarily coercive?

The Monist 94 (4): October 2011 | CFP: 31 October 2010

Via Gillian Brock, a CFP for an issue of the Monist on cosmopolitanism due out in 2011:

According to cosmopolitanism, every person has global stature as the ultimate unit of moral concern and is therefore entitled to equal respect and consideration no matter what her citizenship status or other affiliations happen to be. This issue of The Monist is intended as a forum for debates about the pros and cons of cosmopolitanism. It will address questions such as: What does cosmopolitanism require by way of obligations of justice to all? What kinds of reforms to our global and local institutions do cosmopolitan concerns require? Are these requirements feasible? In addition to our obligations to everyone, do we have further, more demanding, obligations to compatriots or to family members? Do non-cosmopolitan theories provide a better account of our obligations and allow us a more useful framework for mediating the interests of compatriots and non-compatriots?

Inquiries should be directed to Gillian at gbrock [at] auckland.ac.nz

St. Anne’s College, Oxford: 2-4 July 2010 | CFP: 9 January 2010

Moving up to the top because the deadline is soon — SCM.

The 2010 Society for Applied Philosophy annual conference will be held at St. Anne’s College from 2-4 July 2010. It will be an open themed applied philosophy conference (papers will be considered from the full range of topics in applied philosophy). Plenary speakers include Professor Thomas Pogge (Yale), Professor Judith Lichtenberg (Georgetown), Professor Catherine Lu (McGill), and Professor Ingmar Persson (Gothenburg).

Read the rest of this entry »

Princeton: 9-10 April 2010 | CFP: 18 January 2010

The deadline for this conference has now been extended to 18 January 2010 — SCM.

The Committee for the Graduate Conference in Political Theory at Princeton University welcomes papers concerning any period, methodological approach or topic in political theory, political philosophy, or the history of political thought. Approximately eight papers will be accepted.

Read the rest of this entry »

THE APT CONFERENCE 2010 – PROPOSAL GUIDELINES

Reed College, Portland, Oregon, October 21-23, 2010

Proposals Due February 20, 2010

The Association for Political Theory welcomes paper proposals, panel proposals, and proposals for roundtable discussions from all approaches and on all topics in political theory, political philosophy, and the history of political thought. Faculty, advanced PhD candidates, and independent scholars are eligible to apply. We also encourage faculty to volunteer to serve as chairs and/or discussants.

Individual and co-authored paper proposals: To propose a paper, you must submit an abstract of 300-400 words and a copy of your CV via the appropriate link on the APT website. Please note the pre-circulation requirement, explained below, and please note that you should limit the length of your paper to 30 pages of text so that discussants may provide suitable feedback.

Panel proposals: To propose a partial or full panel, you must submit a proposal for the panel as well as proposals for each paper that it includes. In other words, each paper on a panel must be proposed individually (with abstract and CV as described above), and all must also be listed on the separate form for panel proposals (on the APT website).

Read the rest of this entry »

Linköping, Sweden: 8-12 June 2010 | CFP: 8 March 2010

The European Science Foundation (ESF), in partnership with LFiU is organising a conference on the “Responsibility to Protect: From Principle to Practice” to be held at the Scandic Hotel Linköping Väst, Linköping, Sweden, from 8-12 June 2010. The conference chair is Prof. Andre Nollkaemper, of the Amsterdam Center for International Law, University of Amsterdam.

The closing date for application is the 8 March, 2010. This conference is part of the 2010 ESF Research Conferences Programme and is accessible at its website.

Veniamin Zatsepin

University of Melbourne, Faculty of Education

Table of Contents - Part 2:

Personality types as the elements of anthroposystem

What is human nature?

Where is the concept of evil human nature from?

Afterword

Acknowledgments

References

Personality types as elements of the anthroposystem

The anthroposystem and the social system are two aspects of the same developed human society. Both of them represent humankind as a single whole and both of them are organized and structured. But their structural and organizational elements, and consequently the objects of their attention, are different. The social system’s constructive elements are social institutions, each performing their specific functions of maintaining and regulating economic, political, legal, moral and other relations. The anthroposystem’s “cells”, the “points of references”, are informal social-psychological groups of personality types. The anthroposystem and social system are closely tangled, so these two systems influence each other, but at the same time they still remain relatively independent.

Read the rest of this entry »

Veniamin Zatsepin

University of Melbourne, Faculty of Education

Table of Contents - Part 1:

Preface

Creation of the concept of the social system

The social system in Marxist philosophy

Post-Marxist concepts of the social systems

Testing the social system theories

Into the fabric of social institutes

The basic personality types

Psychopath (sociopath)

Authoritarian personality

Machiavellian personality

“Technocratic”, “practical” or “hoarding” personality

Amiable, friendly or agreeable personality

Altruistic personality

Creative personality

Part 2:

Personality types as the elements of anthroposystem

What is human nature?

Where is the concept of evil human nature from?

Afterword

Acknowledgments

References

Preface

It has always made me feel uneasy reading or hearing someone trying to explain people’s inhumane acts, and even brutish violence, by recourse to the concept of “human nature”. On this explanation, there are really only two possibilities: either one is a criminal (or at least a potential criminal) or one is simply not a human being. At the same time, I still find it bewildering that our primeval ancestors, the illiterate people of the stone and bronze ages (and our contemporaries, the Aborigines of Australia and the Americas), while poorly versed in the theory of nature’s laws, knew and expressed in their everyday lives closer kinship with nature than do even the most educated of us today. Their attitude to each and every part of nature was more humane and respectful than that of the majority of our contemporaries, despite the fact that these people burned trees for fire and killed animals for food. So what has happened to modern people, to society? Does civilization, indeed, spoil us? Why have we been breaking our contracts or mutual understanding with the animate natural world? What has been pitting us against each other and why do we degrade and eliminate other people? Is it true that mankind is a malignant tumor of the body that is earth? Are we, human beings, indeed evil from our very childhood? And who and what exactly are ‘we’?

These are the questions that the following discussion is concerned with.

Read the rest of this entry »

“Basic Income at a Time of Economic Upheaval: A Path to Justice and Stability?”, 15-16 April 2010, Université de Montréal.  

Dear Colleagues,

You might be interested in participating in an upcoming conference on ”Basic Income at a Time of Economic Upheaval: A Path to Justice and Stability?”, to be held on 15-16 April 2010 at the Université de Montréal. Jointly organized by CRÉUM, BIEN Canada and USBIG, this conference will examine the role of the Basic Income Guarantee (BIG) as a radical new approach to rethink the economic fabric of our society in the current economic turmoil.

The conference includes keynote addresses from Dr. Louise Haagh (University of York), Prof. Guy Standing (University of Bath), and Senator Eduardo Suplicy (São Paulo,Brasil), and a roundtable discussion featuring Senators Art Eggleton and Hugh Segal, Amélie Châteauneuf (FCPASQ), Rob Rainer (Canada Without Poverty), Sheila Regehr (National Council of Welfare) and Allan Sheahen (USBIG).

We invite panel presentations from academic scholars, practitioners and policy advocates on a wide variety of topics dealing with the challenges of designing, promoting or instituting a BIG in the current economic climate.Everyone is welcome to attend. For further information please visit the conference website at: http://bigmontreal.wordpress.com/

best wishes,

Jurgen De Wispelaere

BIG Montreal conference organizer

Jacob Levy has put up a link to the podcasts from the recent memorial colloquium on Jerry Cohen’s life and work organised by the Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en philosophie politique at Montreal. The presentations are from Daniel Weinstock, William Clare Roberts, Joseph Carens, Jurgen De Wispelaere, and Jacob Levy.

Bristol: 30 June - 2 July 2010 | CFP: 1 March 2010

The third International Global Ethics Association conference will be held at the University of the West of England in Bristol from 30 June to 2 July 2010. Confirmed speakers include Simon Caney (University of Oxford) and Darrel Moellendorf (Director, Institute for Ethics and Public Affairs, San Diego State University).

Papers and panels on all aspects of global ethics are invited. The organisers encourage multidisciplinary papers which address the theory and practice of Global Ethics and global justice from academic, policy and practice perspectives. Issues include:

• Development issues like progress towards achieving the MDGs and impact of post-colonial and post-development critiques on development ethics
• Ecological crises such as global warming and the distribution of increasingly scarce natural resources
• War and peace concerns such as the ethical issues arising from the War on Terror, humanitarian intervention, privatization of the military and the ethics of peace-keeping
• Gender issues 20 years since CEDAW, for example, transnational feminism and reproductive rights
• Human rights issues 60 years after the UDHR
• Economic injustices and the global market
• Global networks and civil society
• Identity politics, multiple identities and transnationalism

Please e-mail panel proposals and abstracts (no more than 500 words) to global-ethics [at] uwe.ac.uk by 1 March 2010. For further information please contact Dr Christien van den Anker and Professor Heather Widdows at the same email address.

Prato, Italy: 25-29 August 2010| CFP: 8 March 2010

Karen Green, Lisa Curtis-Wendlandt and Paul Gibbard are organising a conference on on the contribution of women to the history of political thought in Europe during the Enlightenment period. Papers may discuss the political ideas of individual women such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Catherine Macaulay, Mary Hays, Sarah Churchill, Mary Delariviere Manley, Marie Jodin, Emilie du Châtelet, Madame Dupin, Olympe de Gouges, Felicité Keralio-Robert, Madame Roland, Germaine de Staël, Dorothea Erxleben Leporin, Amalie Holst, Johanna Charlotte Unzer, Luise Gottsched, Mariana von Ziegler, Elise Reimarus, Elisabetta Caminer Turra, and others. Papers placing the work of such women in the broader context of political writing by men are encouraged. ‘Political thought’ is broadly interpreted to include sexual politics as well as political theory, and discussions of the political ideas of women as expressed in genres other than the political treatise are welcome.

Submissions of title and one page abstract should be sent by 8th March 2010 to Karen Green by email or in hard copy to her at the School of Philosophy and Bioethics, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia. Up to five bursaries of up to $500 will be available to help post-graduates and early career researchers to attend the conference. Applicants who wish to be considered for one of these should indicate this with their submission.

An edited volume on women’s political thought in Europe during the eighteenth century is proposed, and contributions to the conference may be submitted for publication in this volume. Contributors who are unable to attend the Prato Conference, but would like to contribute a paper to the volume are invited to submit papers for consideration by September 30th 2010.

Boulder: 5-8 August 2010 | CFP: 1 February 2010

The third annual Rockey Mountain Ethics Congress will be held from 5-8 August 2010 at the University of Colorado, Boulder. ?The conference is hosted by the Center for Values and Social Policy. Papers from all areas of ethics and political theory are invited. To encourage the participation of junior scholars, the University of Colorado will be awarding a Young Ethicist Prize of $500 for most meritorious submission. The prize competition is open to any participating untenured philosopher (including, but not limited to, tenure-track faculty, instructors, and graduate students).

Abstract (750-1000 words) should be submitted electronically (in Word format) to Benjamin Hale and Alastair Norcross. Here is a pdf of the CFP.

Southampton: 8-10 April 2010 | CFP: 31 January 2010

The 2010 Association for Legal and Social Philosophy conference will be held at the University of Southampton from 8-10 April 2010. The theme of the conference is the future(s) of democratic citizenship. From the ALSP website:

In the contemporary world the ideal of democratic citizenship appears to be confronted with many challenges and opportunities, and there is substantial disagreement about how it should respond to them. In the light of changing forms of democratic engagement, the globalisation of political power, the continuing challenge of maintaining a common citizenship in the face of cultural diversity and mass migration, the form democratic citizenship will take in the future is open to question. Contributions to this conference will seek to think through the forms that democratic citizenship might, and should, take in the future. We focus on four sets of themes:

* democratic innovations,
* democratic citizenship: from local to global?
* democratic citizenship: threats and insecurities
* competing visions of democratic citizenship.

Keynotes confirmed thus far include Rainer Baubock (European University Institute) and Stuart White (University of Oxford). Selected papers from the conference will be published in a special issue of the Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.

Washington University St. Louis 1-25 June 2010 | Apply by 2 March 2010

Andrew Altman and Kit Wellman will be running a four-week National Endowment for the Humanities Seminar on Philosophical Perspectives on Liberal Democracy and the Global Order from 1-25 June 2010.

Sixteen participants (fourteen faculty and two graduate students) will be chosen from among eligible applicants interested in liberalism, democracy and international justice. The seminar will feature appearances by Arthur Applbaum (Harvard), David Estlund (Brown), Debra Satz (Stanford), and Thomas Pogge (Yale), who will discuss their recently-published work and/or work-in-progress. Ample time will be allowed for participants to pursue individual projects on Seminar-related topics.

Summer Stipend: $3,300. Stipends are intended to help cover the cost of travel and living expenses during the course of the Seminar. Applications must be postmarked (or submitted electronically) no later than March 2nd, 2010.

Hi all-

Just thought I would let people know that if you happen to have undergrads who you think might be well served by an excellent MA program, Georgia State is now accepting applications for acceptance with Fellowships and Scholarships. Our program is well positioned to help those who would like to improve their philosophical skills before applying to Phd programs or those who simply wish to pursue an MA only. We have a large contingent of philosophers working in social, political, and legal philosophy–5 in the Department alone and others in the Poli Sci Dept and Law School.

Please see:

our Departmental website and
Informational PDF.

CFP: 4th Annual Northwestern Ethics Conference

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
SOCIETY FOR ETHICAL THEORY AND POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY
FOURTH ANNUAL CONFERENCE
MAY 20-22, 2010

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS:

Elizabeth Anderson, University of Michigan
Christine Korsgaard, Harvard University

SUBMISSION GUIDELINES: The deadline is February 15, 2010. We welcome submissions from faculty and graduate students, as sessions will be reserved for student presentations. Essays should be roughly 4000 words, with an abstract of at most 150 words. Essays in all areas of ethical theory and political philosophy will be considered, though some priority will be given to those that take up themes from the works of Elizabeth Anderson and Christine Korsgaard, such as value theory, philosophy and economics, democratic theory, practical reason, constructivism, personal identity, and the moral status of animals. Essays and abstracts should be prepared for blind review in word, rtf, or pdf format. Students should submit by e-mail to leegoldsmith2012 [at] u.northwestern.edu; faculty should submit by e-mail to garthoff [at] northwestern.edu. Notices of acceptance will be sent by March 31, 2010. For more information, please contact Jon Garthoff at the e-mail address above or visit the conference webpage.

CALL FOR PAPERS
 
The fourth annual meeting of the Felician Ethics Conference will be held at the Rutherford Campus of Felician College

223 Montross Ave
Rutherford, NJ 07070

on Saturday, April 24, 2010, 9 am - 6 pm
 
 
Plenary Speaker: Christopher Morris (University of Maryland, College Park)

“Why Be Just?”
 
 
 
Submissions on any topic in moral philosophy (broadly construed) are welcome, not exceeding 25 minutes’ presentation time (approximately 3,000 words). Please send submissions via email in format suitable for blind review by Feb. 1, 2010 to: felicianethicsconference@gmail.com.

**Undergraduate submissions are invited for a proposed session consisting of undergraduate papers.**

Alternatively, send surface mail to:

Irfan Khawaja, Conference Coordinator
Dept. of Philosophy
Felician College
262 S. Main St.
Lodi, NJ 07644
 
 
If you have any questions, or would be interested in serving as a commentator and/or chair for individual sessions, please contact Irfan Khawaja, (201) 559-6000 (x6288), or felicianethicsconference@gmail.com.

–
Irfan Khawaja
Assistant Professor of Philosophy
Conference Coordinator, Felician Ethics Conference
Department of Philosophy
Felician College
262 S. Main St.
Lodi, NJ 07644
201-559-6000 (x6288)
felicianethicsconference@gmail.com

PBS‘ Frontline this week aired an interesting episode on the credit card industry, which began with a discussion of some of the controversial practices initiated by Providian and soon adopted by the bulk of its competitors. I think the episode raises some interesting philosophical questions about the nature and moral force (to borrow Alan Wertheimer’s term) of exploitation.

For instance, one of the practices Providian is said to have developed involved substituting what they called “stealth pricing” for explicit annual fees. Instead of charging all its customers a flat fee of, say, $50 per year, Providian offered cards with zero annual fee but with steep penalties for late payments, going over your credit limit, etc. To many customers, Providian’s cards thus appeared to be free. But Providian knew that many of its customers - especially the low-income, high credit-risk customers it was targeting - would wind up paying much more in penalties than they would have with a flat annual fee, even if most customers (wrongly) believed the opposite to be true.

So, at least at first glance, it looks like Providian was exploiting several kinds of vulnerability on the part of these customers.  First, the customers were vulnerable insofar as they were likely to do the things that would incur penalties. And secondly, they were vulnerable insofar as they tended to underestimate the extent to which they would do this, and hence underestimate the true cost of the cards Providian was offering. Providian took advantage of these vulnerabilities to enhance its own profit (which, at its peak according to the documentary, were around $1 billion per year).

Is this a case of wrongful exploitation? It might be, but the story raises a few questions in my mind.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Society for Social and Political Philosophy is pleased to issue a

CALL FOR PARTICIPANTS
for a Roundtable on Marx’s Capital

Texas A&M University,
College Station, Texas
February 24-27, 2011

SSPP’s second Roundtable will explore Volume One of Marx’s Capital (1867).  We chose this text because the resurgence in references to and mentions of Marx – provoked especially by the financial crisis, but presaged by the best-seller status of Hardt and Negri’s Empire and Marx’s surprising victory in the BBC’s “greatest philosopher” poll – has only served to highlight the fact that there have not been any new interpretive or theoretical approaches to this book since Althusser’s in the 1960s.

The question that faces us is this: Does the return of Marx mean that we have been thrust into the past, such that long “obsolete” approaches have a newfound currency, or does in mean, on the contrary, that Marx has something new to say to us, and that new approaches to his text are called for?

Read the rest of this entry »

Via Sally Haslanger:

All professional philosophers are invited to participate in a survey on publishing in philosophy. It should take about 10 minutes. It will be useful to have your CV handy as you fill it out. Please go here to find it.

If all goes well, Sally Haslanger will report on the results at the December APA in a symposium on philosophy publishing (Wednesday 30 December, 11:15-1:15).

Thanks for your help. Please help spread the word.

Continuum Ethics
A series of books exploring key topics in contemporary ethics and moral philosophy.

Continuum Ethics presents a series of books that will bridge the gap between new research work and undergraduate textbooks. They will provide close examination of key concepts in contemporary moral philosophy. Aimed largely at upper-level undergraduates and research students, they will also appeal to researchers in the field. Authors will be expected to combine philosophical sophistication with an accessible style that can engage the educated reader.
Each volume will introduce its subject within the context of recent developments in moral philosophy. Each book will cover the major thinkers and their key ideas, outline questions raised within the area of concern, and explore possible answers to those questions. Authors will be encouraged to argue for a particular view or views and each volume will present an original contribution to the field. Each book will explore - either throughout the text or in the final chapter(s) - the future of the topic in contemporary ethics and other research areas.

The authors of individual volumes will be experienced teachers of the subject, based in respected departments and will possess a good, accessible written style. Each volume will also feature a brief preface from the series editor.

The series will benefit from a coherent series look, a striking design and effective marketing.
Possible Topics:

Duty
Error Theory
Expressivism
Freedom and Morality
Global Justice
Just War
Moral Knowledge
Moral Motivation
Moral Narrative and Personality
Moral Psychology and Character
Moral Realism
Punishment
Reasons and Rationality
Rights
Utility
Virtue

Anyone interested in contributing to this series should contact the series editors:

Thom Brooks (Newcastle) (t.brooks@newcastle.ac.uk)

Simon Kirchin (Kent) (S.T.Kirchin@kent.ac.uk)

Announcing two new book series with Edinburgh University Press:

STUDIES IN GLOBAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Series Editor: Thom Brooks

“Global justice and human rights” is perhaps the hottest topic today. Studies in Global Justice and Human Rights is a new book series published by Edinburgh University Press. The series aims to publish groundbreaking work in this increasingly popular field. This series will publish leading monographs and edited collections on key topics in the area of global justice and human rights that will be of broad interest to theorists working in politics, international relations, philosophy, and related disciplines.

Topics of particular importance are democracy, global gender justice, global justice, global poverty, human rights, international environmental justice, and just war theory amongst others. This series aspires to publish the leading work in this area with broad interdisciplinary appeal.

TEXTBOOKS IN GLOBAL JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS
Series Editor: Thom Brooks

“Global justice and human rights” is perhaps the hottest topic today. Textbooks in Global Justice and Human Rights is a new book series published by Edinburgh University Press. The series aims to publish groundbreaking work in this increasingly popular field. This series will publish leading introductory textbooks on key topics in the area of global justice and human rights that will be of broad interest to both undergraduate and graduate students in politics, international relations, philosophy, and related disciplines.

We are particularly interested in publishing work in the fields of

• global justice
• human rights
• women and global justice
• global justice and global poverty
• international environmental philosophy

This series aspires to publish the leading textbooks in this area with broad interdisciplinary appeal.

Expressions of interest for BOTH series are most welcome and should be directed to the series editor, Thom Brooks (email: t.brooks@newcastle.ac.uk).

Edinburgh University Press website: http://www.eupjournals.com/
Global Justice and Human Rights Group: http://www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/glbljst/Glbjst.aspx

The American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP) is pleased to announce that it will hold its annual meeting in conjunction with that of the Association of American Law Schools in New Orleans on January 6, 2010. The topic is “Getting to the Rule of Law.” All three sessions of the program will be held in Hilton New Orleans Riverside, 2 Poydras Street, Belle Chasse Room, Third Floor. Below is the program:

I. Getting to the Concept of the Rule of Law: 10:30 a.m.-12:15 p.m.

Principal paper (philosophy): Jeremy Waldron, New York University

Commentator (law): Robin West, Georgetown University

Commentator (political science): Corey Brettschneider, Brown University

Chair: James E. Fleming, Boston University

II. Maintaining or Restoring the Rule of Law After September 11, 2001: 1:30p.m.-3:15 p.m.

Principal paper (political science): Benjamin Kleinerman, Michigan State University

Commentator (law): Curtis Bradley, Duke University

Commentator (philosophy): Lionel McPherson, Tufts University

Chair: Nancy Rosenblum, Harvard University

III. Building the Rule of Law After Military Interventions: 3:30 p.m.-5:15 p.m.

Principal paper (law): Jane Stromseth, Georgetown University

Commentator (political science): Tom Ginsburg, University of Chicago

Commentator (philosophy): Larry May, Vanderbilt University

Chair: Allen Buchanan, Duke University

Reception: 6:30 p.m.-8:30 p.m. Elmwood, Third Floor, Hilton New Orleans Riverside

The principal papers and commentaries - together with additional papers on the topic - will be published in Nomos, the annual yearbook of the ASPLP. If you have questions about the program, please contact Professor James E. Fleming, who is Editor of Nomos: jfleming@bu.edu. If you are interested in political and legal philosophy, and would like to join the ASPLP and subscribe to NOMOS, please go to http://www.political-theory.org/asplp/ or email theasplp@gmail.com.

Manchester Metropolitan University, 1-3 September 2010 

A call for workshop convenors for the 2010 Workshops in Political Theory conference in Manchester:

Following the successful sixth annual series of Workshops held in Manchester, September 2009, at which over a hundred and fifty papers were given by participants from over twenty countries, another conference is being held next year. These workshops reflected the wide diversity of interests and idioms within the discipline and gave delegates plenty of time to discuss their papers in a relaxed setting as well as to attend other panels.  Panels can vary from three to twelve paper givers. The 2009 conference page is here. If interested in organising a panel contact either Professor Joe Femia or Professor Jules Townshend. 

Via an email from CUP:

Columbia University Press is pleased to announce the publication of Sibyl Schwarzenbach’s On Civic Friendship: Including Women in the State.

In this innovative new work Schwarzenbach argues that women have performed the vast majority of often unpaid friendship labor for centuries. Embodying the freedom, equality, and ideals of the Constitution, civic friendship emerges as a necessary condition for genuine justice. Through a critical examination of social and political relationships from ancient times to today, Sibyl Schwarzenbach develops a truly innovative, feminist theory of the democratic state.

You can find out more about the book here.

James P. Sterba at the University of Notre Dame praises the text:
“Sibyl Schwarzenbach’s attempt to show the importance of women’s experiences and feminist theory for the justification of the democratic state is the most successful I have seen. Its achievement should be widely recognized and commented upon by feminist political philosophers and, hopefully, by political philosophers more generally, attracting as much attention as Susan Okin’s Justice, Gender, and the Family.”

(le français suit)THE ANNUAL MONTREAL POLITICAL THEORY MANUSCRIPT WORKSHOP AWARD

Call for applications: The Groupe de recherche interuniversitaire en philosophie politique de Montréal (GRIPP), spanning the departments of political science and philosophy at McGill University, l’Université de Montréal, Concordia University, and l’Université du Québec à Montréal, invites applications for its 2010 manuscript workshop award. The recipient of the award will be invited to Montreal for a day-long workshop in March/April 2010 dedicated to his or her book manuscript. This “author meets critics” workshop will comprise four to five sessions dedicated to critical discussion of the manuscript; each session will begin with a critical commentary on a section of the manuscript by a political theorist or philosopher who is part of Montreal’s GRIPP community. The format is designed to maximize feedback for a book-in-progress. The award covers the costs of travel, accommodation, and meals.

Read the rest of this entry »

Stanford, 2010-11 | Application deadline: 8 January 2010

The McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society and the Program on Global Justice seek up to three post-doctoral fellows for 2010-11. We welcome candidates with substantial normative research interests from diverse backgrounds including philosophy, the social sciences, and professional schools. We are especially interested in candidates with research interests in international topics including human rights, immigration, and environmental justice. But we are interested in all candidates with strong normative interests that have some practical implications. Fellows will teach one class, participate in the Political Theory and/or Global Justice Workshops, interact with undergraduates in the Ethics in Society program and help in developing an inter-disciplinary ethics community across the campus. Salary is competitive. Appointment is for one year, but may be renewed for an additional year. Applicants must have their doctoral degree in hand no later than 30 days prior to the appointment start date and be no more than 3 years after the awarding of the degree. The application deadline is January 8, 2010.

For inquiries, please contact Joan Berry.

Applicants should submit an application cover sheet and then send a cover letter, CV, three letters of recommendation and a short writing sample (about 25 pages) to:

Post-doctoral Fellowship Committee
Bowen H. McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society
482 Galvez Street
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305-6079

Stanford is an equal opportunity, affirmative action employer.