‹ Northwestern: 2nd SETPP Conference Call for Papers •
The December 2007 issue of the Journal of Political Philosophy is available. The links should work.
Cécile Fabre (Politics, Edinburgh), “Mandatory Rescue Killings“: 363-84. Argues that “killing in defence of another is sometimes mandatory at the bar of justice.”
Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (Philosophy, Copenhagen), “Nothing Personal: On Statistical Discrimination“: 385-403. Rejects three arguments for the claim that statistical discrimination is intrinsically wrong, but claims that unjustified patterns of action can prevent justifying differential treatment by appeal to statistical facts brought about by those patterns of action.
Rahul Sagar (Government, Harvard), “On Combating the Abuse of State Secrecy“: 404-27. Rejects the assumption that democratic theory comtains the resources to overcome the challenge posed by state secrecy, and points to role of private institutions and personal virtues in making democratic oversight effective.
Michael Garnett (Philosophy, Birkbeck College), “Ignorance, Incompetence and the Concept of Liberty“: 428-46. Argues that liberty can be quantified (hence maximised, equalised, etc.) only if purely agential constraints such as ignorance and physical incompetence are regarded as obstacles to liberty.
Danlel Munro (Council of Canadian Academies), “Norms, Motives and Radical Democracy: Habermas and the Problem of Motivation“: 447-72. Argues that Habermas fails to provide a normatively and practically compelling solution to the problem of motivation in his deliberative theory.
Greg Dinsmore (Government, Cornell), “Debate: When Less Really is Less - What’s Wrong with Minimalist Approaches to Human Rights“: 473-83. Argues that human rights minimalism is self-defeating in that it actually undermines, rather than shores up, the legitimacy of human rights discourse.
Katherine Curchin (Political Science, ANU), “Debate: Evading the Paradox of Universal Self-Ownership“: 484-94. Argues against Hillel Steiner’s solution to the paradox of universal self-ownership (why do people own the product of their labour, but parents do not own their children?), thereby posing a challenge to left libertarianism generally.
I’d be very interested in seeing whether political philosophers would be inclined to post short, rough, informal discussions of published journal articles on a fairly regular basis, in the manner of Thom’s post on Scheffler’s P&PA immigration paper below. It’s a real pity that the BEARS website is not active anymore, because it promised to speed up the reaction time to interesting articles considerably. Was BEARS too formal?
You must be registered and logged in to post a comment. Public Reason welcomes participation from members of the academic community with an interest in political philosophy and theory. Your registration as a participant is subject to approval. Please specify your academic institutional affiliation on the registration form.
6 comments
Comments feed for this article
Trackback link
http://publicreason.net/2007/11/19/journal-of-political-philosophy-15-4-december-2007/trackback/
1 - Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 12:45 pm
Jacob T. Levy
I think BEARS was primarily too soon.
2 - Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 3:54 pm
Thom Brooks
I am all for more commentary on recent papers and hope to contribute on more shortly.
On BEARS, I suspect there may be a case for begging Dave Estlund to re-start it.
Speaking of Estlund, shall we formally agree a reading group on his new book (as suggested in previous posts)? Public Reason bloggers might each agree to lead discussion on a chapter, not unlike the blog Ethics Etc online reading group.
3 - Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 4:41 pm
Simon Cabulea May
Yes, I think that there may be a case for bringing BEARS out of hibernation, now we’re in Web 2.0 and all that. In any event, I’d like to hear more about what happened there. The curious thing is that they had a lot of reviews in the first year or two, then it seemed to slow down a lot before picking up at the end. Hopefully, this site will provide some impetus to getting interesting articles discussed both quickly and broadly, which may in turn help in provide impetus to publishing high quality article reviews on the internet.
Re: the Estlund reading group, Jonathan is organising that. The idea is to start in January, but he’ll provide more information in due course. My copy of the book has shipped from Amazon.com — hopefully Amazon.co.uk is on the same schedule.
4 - Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 5:54 pm
Thom Brooks
All fair enough. Either way, delighted about the reading group and looking forward to hearing more in due course!
5 - Tuesday, 20 November 2007 at 10:02 pm
David J Watkins
I’d be very interested in seeing whether political philosophers would be inclined to post short, rough, informal discussions of published journal articles on a fairly regular basis
For my money, this is one of the most promising areas for academic blogs; it’s something traditional academic publishing has very limited opportunities for.
6 - Monday, 26 November 2007 at 5:09 am
Dave Estlund
BEARS didn’t receive enough submissions, so we had to rustle up symposia, which were a lot of work (but very good I think). Jamie Dreier and I have retired BEARS and moved over to the new online journal, The Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy (www.jesp.org). We’re intending to start up a new version of the BEARS idea on that journal, and this conversation will spur me to remind the other editors that we had agreed to do that. I’m glad people would value it, and I’ll sign you all up to contribute article reviews…
I’m thrilled about the reading group on my book too. I’ll try not to chime in too much.