Conflicts and Political Legitimacy
A.Y. 2020/2021
Learning objectives
The main objective of the course consists in familiarizing students with questions at the centre of contemporary philosophical debates and in providing them with competences to address and critically discuss issues concerning political legitimacy in societies characterized by the presence of conflicting claims and moral views. More precisely, on the one hand, the course aims at providing students with tools to frame the notion of conflict, to identify its different sources, to understand its dynamics and its implications for politics and for political philosophy. The course also intends to familiarize students with the various approaches and strategies available to tackle conflict and with the relevant criteria to comparatively assess them. On the other hand, the course proposes to enlighten the close link between conflict and political legitimacy and to offer an overview of the major conceptions of political legitimacy developed in recent years.
Expected learning outcomes
Knowledge and understanding:
Students are expected to acquire in-depth knowledge and clear understanding about the controversial questions concerning political legitimacy in societies characterized by the presence of conflicting claims and moral views. Students are also expected to acquire familiarity with the relevant criteria to examine different forms of conflict or disagreement and to critically assess their implications, on the one hand, and with different conceptions of political obligation and political legitimacy, on the other.
Applying knowledge and understanding:
At the end of the course, students are expected to be able to apply their acquired knowledge and competences about the philosophical reflection to issues animating public debates. To this end, the course offers several occasions for in-depth class discussion, which will provide a suitable space for debating the relevance and import of the philosophical notions and approaches under examination with respect to more concrete issues and questions. Moreover, during classes, the theoretical notions and models under investigations will be illustrated through references to actual cases of political conflict and to situations that call into question the notion of political legitimacy. This will enable students to better appreciate the relevance of the philosophical arguments addressed by the course for tackling specific problems and addressing controversial public questions.
Making judgements:
The structure of the course and the selected readings is expected to increase students' propensity for autonomous judgment. On the one hand, the course will address essays providing opposite arguments concerning, for instance, the role of conflict in politics or the strategies to manage it and defending different conceptions of political legitimacy and political obligation. Students will be therefore introduced to a plurality of perspectives and this is expected to improve their capacity to adjudicate among competing arguments by autonomously assessing their relative merits and limits. On the other hand, the bulk of the course will consist in the analysis of philosophical arguments - of their premises and their internal structure - and, during both their individual presentations and class discussions, students will be required to critically examine the arguments at stake, thus enhancing their capacity to autonomously judge their validity.
Communication:
Through individual presentations and class discussions, students are expected to strengthen their communication skills. Indeed, they will be required to summarize complex arguments in a clear and effective way, and they are expected to actively take part in discussions, by proposing critical insights on the topics under scrutiny and by engaging with arguments proposed by their classmates.
Students are expected to acquire in-depth knowledge and clear understanding about the controversial questions concerning political legitimacy in societies characterized by the presence of conflicting claims and moral views. Students are also expected to acquire familiarity with the relevant criteria to examine different forms of conflict or disagreement and to critically assess their implications, on the one hand, and with different conceptions of political obligation and political legitimacy, on the other.
Applying knowledge and understanding:
At the end of the course, students are expected to be able to apply their acquired knowledge and competences about the philosophical reflection to issues animating public debates. To this end, the course offers several occasions for in-depth class discussion, which will provide a suitable space for debating the relevance and import of the philosophical notions and approaches under examination with respect to more concrete issues and questions. Moreover, during classes, the theoretical notions and models under investigations will be illustrated through references to actual cases of political conflict and to situations that call into question the notion of political legitimacy. This will enable students to better appreciate the relevance of the philosophical arguments addressed by the course for tackling specific problems and addressing controversial public questions.
Making judgements:
The structure of the course and the selected readings is expected to increase students' propensity for autonomous judgment. On the one hand, the course will address essays providing opposite arguments concerning, for instance, the role of conflict in politics or the strategies to manage it and defending different conceptions of political legitimacy and political obligation. Students will be therefore introduced to a plurality of perspectives and this is expected to improve their capacity to adjudicate among competing arguments by autonomously assessing their relative merits and limits. On the other hand, the bulk of the course will consist in the analysis of philosophical arguments - of their premises and their internal structure - and, during both their individual presentations and class discussions, students will be required to critically examine the arguments at stake, thus enhancing their capacity to autonomously judge their validity.
Communication:
Through individual presentations and class discussions, students are expected to strengthen their communication skills. Indeed, they will be required to summarize complex arguments in a clear and effective way, and they are expected to actively take part in discussions, by proposing critical insights on the topics under scrutiny and by engaging with arguments proposed by their classmates.
Lesson period: Second trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course cannot be attended as a single course. Please check our list of single courses to find the ones available for enrolment.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
Second trimester
UNIT 1
1. Course organization
Due to the current sanitary emergency, starting from Tuesday November 10th, all classes will be held online via Zoom. Classes will be recorded and made available on the Ariel website of the course.
On Ariel, students can also find indications on the use of Zoom as well as the link to attend online classes.
2. Program and material
The program and the material for the course will not change due to the sanitary emergency.
3. Exams:
Even if the sanitary emergency persists, attendant students will be regularly assessed on the basis of participation in class and online discussion, presentation and a final written test. If regulations allow, the written test will be held in class. Otherwise, the written test will be held on the exam.net platform. For attendant students unable to be physically present, it will be anyway possible to sit for the written test through exam.net. Instructions on the use of exam.net will be provided on the Ariel website of the course.
For non-attendant students, instead, until in-class activities resume regularly, the exam will consist in one single oral exam held online on Zoom. The oral exam will cover both the material usually addressed through the written test and the material that is usually the focus of the oral exam (the three readings selected from the provided list).
UNIT 2
1. Course organization
Due to the current sanitary situation, of the two lectures per week of the course, one will take place in class and the other online via Teams. However, all lectures will be live streamed, recorded and made available on the Ariel website of the course. Indications on the use of Teams as well as the links to take part in online lectures will be available on Ariel before the beginning of the course.
2. Program and material
The program and the material for the course will not change due to the sanitary emergency.
3. Exams:
Even if the sanitary emergency persists, attendant students will be regularly assessed on the basis of a presentation and a paper. A final oral exam will be scheduled to discuss the paper and to interview about a set of the readings assigned. Non-attendant students will be assessed on the basis of a paper and of a final oral exam in which they will be interviewed about the readings assigned. More details about the two categories of students will be published on the Ariel website. The oral exam will be held on Teams.
1. Course organization
Due to the current sanitary emergency, starting from Tuesday November 10th, all classes will be held online via Zoom. Classes will be recorded and made available on the Ariel website of the course.
On Ariel, students can also find indications on the use of Zoom as well as the link to attend online classes.
2. Program and material
The program and the material for the course will not change due to the sanitary emergency.
3. Exams:
Even if the sanitary emergency persists, attendant students will be regularly assessed on the basis of participation in class and online discussion, presentation and a final written test. If regulations allow, the written test will be held in class. Otherwise, the written test will be held on the exam.net platform. For attendant students unable to be physically present, it will be anyway possible to sit for the written test through exam.net. Instructions on the use of exam.net will be provided on the Ariel website of the course.
For non-attendant students, instead, until in-class activities resume regularly, the exam will consist in one single oral exam held online on Zoom. The oral exam will cover both the material usually addressed through the written test and the material that is usually the focus of the oral exam (the three readings selected from the provided list).
UNIT 2
1. Course organization
Due to the current sanitary situation, of the two lectures per week of the course, one will take place in class and the other online via Teams. However, all lectures will be live streamed, recorded and made available on the Ariel website of the course. Indications on the use of Teams as well as the links to take part in online lectures will be available on Ariel before the beginning of the course.
2. Program and material
The program and the material for the course will not change due to the sanitary emergency.
3. Exams:
Even if the sanitary emergency persists, attendant students will be regularly assessed on the basis of a presentation and a paper. A final oral exam will be scheduled to discuss the paper and to interview about a set of the readings assigned. Non-attendant students will be assessed on the basis of a paper and of a final oral exam in which they will be interviewed about the readings assigned. More details about the two categories of students will be published on the Ariel website. The oral exam will be held on Teams.
Prerequisites for admission
No specific preliminary knowledge is required to fruitfully attend the course or take the exam.
Assessment methods and Criteria
The course is organized into two units, each one contributing equally to the final evaluation. Marks will be officially registered only after students achieve positive evaluation for both the two units of the course.
1. Assessment methods for Unit 1
The exam structure is different for a) attendant and b) non-attendant students.
a) Attendant students
Attendant students will be assessed on the basis of their class participation and presentations, and they will be required to deliver an in-class written test at the end of the course.
Participation is assessed by taking into account students' contribution to class discussion. The evaluation is meant to ascertain the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to autonomously assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons, and to propose insights for further reflection.
For what regards presentations, students will be required to summarize and discuss the central arguments proposed in the assigned readings and/or to critically discuss concrete cases of conflict. The evaluation is intended to ascertain, on the one hand, students' capacity to identify the relevant points of the texts under scrutiny, to reconstruct their argumentative structure and their conclusions. The evaluation is also meant to assess students' capacity to assess the internal coherence of the arguments at stake, to enlighten and critically examine their implications. On the other hand, the evaluation aims at assessing students' capacity to apply theoretical categories and analytical frames to real-world cases in order to understand their peculiarity and to discuss their relevance and their implications.
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in class and of the reading assignments. The written test is also meant to ascertain students' ability to establish connections between the various topics covered by the course and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
Final grades for each Unit 1 will be awarded by weighting participation, presentation and written test as follows:
- Participation: 25 %
- Presentation: 35 %
- Written test: 40 %
b) Non-attendant students
The exam for non-attendant students is divided into two parts: a written test and an oral exam (provided the written test is passed).
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the assigned readings. More precisely, the written test is meant to assess students' familiarity with the basic notions and the theoretical approaches addressed in the relevant material. The written test is intended to ascertain also students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the different topics covered by the assigned readings and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
The oral exam consists in a critical discussion of the reading assignments selected be by the students. The oral exam is meant to ascertain students' capacity to summarize the main points of the selected texts, to autonomously assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons.
The written test and the oral exam contribute to the mark for Unit 1 each for 50%.
2. Assessment methods for Unit 2
The exam structure is different for a) attendant and b) non-attendant students.
a) Attendant students
Attendant students will be assessed on the basis of their presentations, and they will be required to deliver a paper at the end of the course. Finally, they will be required to discuss their work during an oral exam.
For what regards presentations, students will be required to summarize and discuss the central arguments proposed in the assigned readings. The evaluation is intended to ascertain students' capacity to identify the relevant points of the texts under scrutiny, to reconstruct their argumentative structure and their conclusions. The evaluation is also meant to assess students' capacity to assess the internal coherence of the arguments at stake, to enlighten and critically examine their implications.
The paper should engage with a comparison among two or more authors in order to discuss their positions and provide an articulated comment about them. The evaluation of the paper is meant to assess the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons, and to propose insights for further reflection.
Final grades for Unit 2 will be awarded by weighting presentation, paper and a final oral exam as follows:
- Presentation: 25 %
- Paper: 50 %
- Final oral exam: 25%
b) Non-attendant students
Non-attendant students will be assessed on the basis of a paper and of an oral exam.
The paper should engage with a comparison among three or more authors in order to discuss their positions and provide an articulated comment about them. The evaluation of the paper is meant to assess the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons, and to propose insights for further reflection.
The oral exam is meant to discuss the paper; the, it is meant both to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the assigned readings, and to ascertain also students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the different topics covered by the assigned readings and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
Final grades for Unit 2 will be awarded by weighting presentation, paper and a final oral exam as follows:
- Paper: 50 %
- Final oral exam: 50%
1. Assessment methods for Unit 1
The exam structure is different for a) attendant and b) non-attendant students.
a) Attendant students
Attendant students will be assessed on the basis of their class participation and presentations, and they will be required to deliver an in-class written test at the end of the course.
Participation is assessed by taking into account students' contribution to class discussion. The evaluation is meant to ascertain the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to autonomously assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons, and to propose insights for further reflection.
For what regards presentations, students will be required to summarize and discuss the central arguments proposed in the assigned readings and/or to critically discuss concrete cases of conflict. The evaluation is intended to ascertain, on the one hand, students' capacity to identify the relevant points of the texts under scrutiny, to reconstruct their argumentative structure and their conclusions. The evaluation is also meant to assess students' capacity to assess the internal coherence of the arguments at stake, to enlighten and critically examine their implications. On the other hand, the evaluation aims at assessing students' capacity to apply theoretical categories and analytical frames to real-world cases in order to understand their peculiarity and to discuss their relevance and their implications.
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in class and of the reading assignments. The written test is also meant to ascertain students' ability to establish connections between the various topics covered by the course and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
Final grades for each Unit 1 will be awarded by weighting participation, presentation and written test as follows:
- Participation: 25 %
- Presentation: 35 %
- Written test: 40 %
b) Non-attendant students
The exam for non-attendant students is divided into two parts: a written test and an oral exam (provided the written test is passed).
The written test comprises open questions, which are meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the assigned readings. More precisely, the written test is meant to assess students' familiarity with the basic notions and the theoretical approaches addressed in the relevant material. The written test is intended to ascertain also students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the different topics covered by the assigned readings and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
The oral exam consists in a critical discussion of the reading assignments selected be by the students. The oral exam is meant to ascertain students' capacity to summarize the main points of the selected texts, to autonomously assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons.
The written test and the oral exam contribute to the mark for Unit 1 each for 50%.
2. Assessment methods for Unit 2
The exam structure is different for a) attendant and b) non-attendant students.
a) Attendant students
Attendant students will be assessed on the basis of their presentations, and they will be required to deliver a paper at the end of the course. Finally, they will be required to discuss their work during an oral exam.
For what regards presentations, students will be required to summarize and discuss the central arguments proposed in the assigned readings. The evaluation is intended to ascertain students' capacity to identify the relevant points of the texts under scrutiny, to reconstruct their argumentative structure and their conclusions. The evaluation is also meant to assess students' capacity to assess the internal coherence of the arguments at stake, to enlighten and critically examine their implications.
The paper should engage with a comparison among two or more authors in order to discuss their positions and provide an articulated comment about them. The evaluation of the paper is meant to assess the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons, and to propose insights for further reflection.
Final grades for Unit 2 will be awarded by weighting presentation, paper and a final oral exam as follows:
- Presentation: 25 %
- Paper: 50 %
- Final oral exam: 25%
b) Non-attendant students
Non-attendant students will be assessed on the basis of a paper and of an oral exam.
The paper should engage with a comparison among three or more authors in order to discuss their positions and provide an articulated comment about them. The evaluation of the paper is meant to assess the acquisition of argumentative skills apt to effectively engage in discussion about the topics at stake and about the assigned readings, to assess the validity of the arguments under examination, to challenge or defend them on the basis of appropriate reasons, and to propose insights for further reflection.
The oral exam is meant to discuss the paper; the, it is meant both to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the assigned readings, and to ascertain also students' capacity to establish meaningful connections among the different topics covered by the assigned readings and to comparatively assess different approaches and arguments.
Final grades for Unit 2 will be awarded by weighting presentation, paper and a final oral exam as follows:
- Paper: 50 %
- Final oral exam: 50%
Unit 1
Course syllabus
The first unit of the course focuses on conflict and on its relevance for both politics and political philosophy.
After a preliminary analysis about the notion of conflict, the course examines the sources of conflict, by paying particular attention to conflicts generated by competing interests, on the one hand, and conflicts that can be traced back to incompatible moral commitments, on the other. The analysis is meant to provide insights about the specificity of the challenges and of the normative implications connected to conflicts triggered by different factors.
The course also emphasizes the implications connected to understanding conflict as the main constitutive feature of the political domain. Similar conceptions of politics invite to question whether conflict should be conceived, not just as a necessary characteristic of the political sphere, but also as a valuable element to be preserved or, alternatively, as a disruptive element to be tamed and kept under control. To better enlighten what is at stake, the course examines and comparatively assess different approaches and strategies to deal with conflict. More precisely, the analysis will focus on approaches that intend to emphasize and vindicate the agonistic character of politics, on approaches aimed at neutralizing the most unsettling effects of conflict, and on approaches that, acknowledging the inevitability of conflict, propose strategies to cope with specific instances of conflict or to establish peaceful forms of coexistence despite conflict.
Moreover, the course provides a frame to distinguish different forms of conflict, considering, on the one hand, whether the confrontation among conflicting perspectives remains within the boundaries of institutionalized political practices or not; and, on the other hand, when similar boundaries are transcended, whether conflict expresses itself through violence or not. Such an investigations is meant to provide insights to normatively assess whether, to prove acceptable and fruitful, conflict must respect certain constraints and to discuss which constraints are relevant.
Syllabus (provisional)
Lecture 1 - Conflict, politics and political philosophy
Lecture 2 - Competing interests and conflict
Lecture 3 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 4 - Pluralism and disagreement
Lecture 5 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 6 - Politics as conflict
Lecture 7 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 8 - Conflict as a value?
Lecture 9 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 10 - Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
Lecture 11 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 12 - Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
Lecture 13 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 14 - Political dissent
Lecture 15 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 16 - Conflict and violence
Lecture 17 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 18 - Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
Lecture 19 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 20 - Recap lecture
Please note: The previous syllabus is provisional. The syllabus will be fine-tuned at the beginning of the course taking into account the number of students attending the course. The final version of the syllabus, completed with more precise indications about the relevant dates, will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
After a preliminary analysis about the notion of conflict, the course examines the sources of conflict, by paying particular attention to conflicts generated by competing interests, on the one hand, and conflicts that can be traced back to incompatible moral commitments, on the other. The analysis is meant to provide insights about the specificity of the challenges and of the normative implications connected to conflicts triggered by different factors.
The course also emphasizes the implications connected to understanding conflict as the main constitutive feature of the political domain. Similar conceptions of politics invite to question whether conflict should be conceived, not just as a necessary characteristic of the political sphere, but also as a valuable element to be preserved or, alternatively, as a disruptive element to be tamed and kept under control. To better enlighten what is at stake, the course examines and comparatively assess different approaches and strategies to deal with conflict. More precisely, the analysis will focus on approaches that intend to emphasize and vindicate the agonistic character of politics, on approaches aimed at neutralizing the most unsettling effects of conflict, and on approaches that, acknowledging the inevitability of conflict, propose strategies to cope with specific instances of conflict or to establish peaceful forms of coexistence despite conflict.
Moreover, the course provides a frame to distinguish different forms of conflict, considering, on the one hand, whether the confrontation among conflicting perspectives remains within the boundaries of institutionalized political practices or not; and, on the other hand, when similar boundaries are transcended, whether conflict expresses itself through violence or not. Such an investigations is meant to provide insights to normatively assess whether, to prove acceptable and fruitful, conflict must respect certain constraints and to discuss which constraints are relevant.
Syllabus (provisional)
Lecture 1 - Conflict, politics and political philosophy
Lecture 2 - Competing interests and conflict
Lecture 3 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 4 - Pluralism and disagreement
Lecture 5 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 6 - Politics as conflict
Lecture 7 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 8 - Conflict as a value?
Lecture 9 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 10 - Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
Lecture 11 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 12 - Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
Lecture 13 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 14 - Political dissent
Lecture 15 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 16 - Conflict and violence
Lecture 17 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 18 - Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
Lecture 19 - Students' presentations and class discussion
Lecture 20 - Recap lecture
Please note: The previous syllabus is provisional. The syllabus will be fine-tuned at the beginning of the course taking into account the number of students attending the course. The final version of the syllabus, completed with more precise indications about the relevant dates, will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Teaching methods
The course combines lessons, students' presentations, and class discussion.
Teaching Resources
The exam material is different for a) attendant students and b) non-attendant students
a) Attendant students
For attendant students, the exam material is organized with reference to the topics included in the syllabus. Readings are indeed expected to be completed in advance of the relevant session devoted to presentations and class-discussion.
· Conflict, politics and political philosophy
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
· Competing interests and conflict
‒ Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviathan, excerpts.
‒ Gauthier, D. (1986), Morals by agreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, excerpts.
· Pluralism and disagreement
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Larmore, C. (1994), "Pluralism and reasonable disagreement", Social Philosophy and Policy, 11(1): 61-79.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
· Politics as conflict
‒ Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest, excerpts
‒ Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political, excerpts
· Conflict as a value?
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy, Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories, Book III, chapter 1.
‒ Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso, excerpts.
· Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ Gutman, A. and Thompson, D. (1990), "Moral conflict and political consensus", Ethics, 101(1): 64-88.
‒ Mouffe, C. (1994), "Political liberalism. Neutrality and the political", Ratio Juris, 7(3): 314-324.
· Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
‒ Mansbridge, J. et al. (2010), "The place of self‐interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy", Journal of political philosophy, 18(1): 64-100.
‒ Rosenblum, N.L. (2008), On the side of angels. An appreciation of parties and partisanship, Princeton University Press, excerpts.
‒ White, J. and Ypi, L. (2016), The meaning of partisanship, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
· Conflict and violence
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts.
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178.
· Political dissent
‒ Thoreau, D. (1849), Civil disobedience
‒ Lyons, D. (1998), "Moral judgment, historical reality, and civil disobedience", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27(1): 31-49.
‒ Celikates, R. (2016), "Democratizing civil disobedience", Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(10): 982-994.
· Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
‒ Berlin, I. (1988), "The pursuit of the ideal", in The crooked timber of humanity: Chapters in the history of ideas, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-19.
‒ Nozick, R. (1974), "A Framework for Utopia", in Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books.
For attendant students, the material for the written test includes all reading assignments listed above plus the slides with the lecture notes, which will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
2. Non-attendant students
· Material for the written test
The written test for non-attendant students will focus on the following reading assignments:
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
‒ Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviathan, excerpts.
‒ Gauthier, D. (1986), Morals by agreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ R. Chang, "Value pluralism", in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.
‒ Ceva, E. (2012), "Pluralism", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to poltical philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 195-205.
‒ Wong, "Agreement/disagreement", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to poltical philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 217-226.
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Larmore, C. (1994), "Pluralism and reasonable disagreement", Social Philosophy and Policy, 11(1): 61-79.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
‒ Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest, excerpts
‒ Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political, excerpts
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy, Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories, Book III, chapter 1.
‒ Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso, excerpts.Honig, B. (1993), Political theory and the displacement politics, Cornell University Press, excerpts.
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ Mouffe, C. (1994), "Political liberalism. Neutrality and the political", Ratio Juris, 7(3): 314-324.
· Material for the oral exam
The oral exam for non-attendant students will focus on 3 readings freely selected by each student from the following list:
‒ Gutman, A. and Thompson, D. (1990), "Moral conflict and political consensus", Ethics, 101(1): 64-88.
‒ Mansbridge, J. et al. (2010), "The place of self‐interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy", Journal of political philosophy, 18(1): 64-100.
‒ Rosenblum, N.L. (2008), On the side of angels. An appreciation of parties and partisanship, Princeton University Press, excerpts.
‒ White, J. and Ypi, L. (2016), The meaning of partisanship, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Thoreau, D. (1849), Civil disobedience
‒ Lyons, D. (1998), "Moral judgment, historical reality, and civil disobedience", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27(1): 31-49.
‒ Celikates, R. (2016), "Democratizing civil disobedience", Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(10): 982-994.
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178
‒ Berlin, I. (1988), "The pursuit of the ideal", in The crooked timber of humanity: Chapters in the history of ideas, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-19.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
a) Attendant students
For attendant students, the exam material is organized with reference to the topics included in the syllabus. Readings are indeed expected to be completed in advance of the relevant session devoted to presentations and class-discussion.
· Conflict, politics and political philosophy
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
· Competing interests and conflict
‒ Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviathan, excerpts.
‒ Gauthier, D. (1986), Morals by agreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, excerpts.
· Pluralism and disagreement
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Larmore, C. (1994), "Pluralism and reasonable disagreement", Social Philosophy and Policy, 11(1): 61-79.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
· Politics as conflict
‒ Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest, excerpts
‒ Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political, excerpts
· Conflict as a value?
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy, Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories, Book III, chapter 1.
‒ Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso, excerpts.
· Managing conflict: fairness, deliberation and agonism
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ Gutman, A. and Thompson, D. (1990), "Moral conflict and political consensus", Ethics, 101(1): 64-88.
‒ Mouffe, C. (1994), "Political liberalism. Neutrality and the political", Ratio Juris, 7(3): 314-324.
· Impartiality, partisanship and conflict
‒ Mansbridge, J. et al. (2010), "The place of self‐interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy", Journal of political philosophy, 18(1): 64-100.
‒ Rosenblum, N.L. (2008), On the side of angels. An appreciation of parties and partisanship, Princeton University Press, excerpts.
‒ White, J. and Ypi, L. (2016), The meaning of partisanship, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
· Conflict and violence
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts.
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178.
· Political dissent
‒ Thoreau, D. (1849), Civil disobedience
‒ Lyons, D. (1998), "Moral judgment, historical reality, and civil disobedience", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27(1): 31-49.
‒ Celikates, R. (2016), "Democratizing civil disobedience", Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(10): 982-994.
· Politics without conflict: utopia or dystopia?
‒ Berlin, I. (1988), "The pursuit of the ideal", in The crooked timber of humanity: Chapters in the history of ideas, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-19.
‒ Nozick, R. (1974), "A Framework for Utopia", in Anarchy, State and Utopia, Basic Books.
For attendant students, the material for the written test includes all reading assignments listed above plus the slides with the lecture notes, which will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
2. Non-attendant students
· Material for the written test
The written test for non-attendant students will focus on the following reading assignments:
‒ Lukes, S. (1989), "Making sense of moral conflict", in N.L. Rosenblum (ed.), Liberalism and the moral life, Harvard University Press, pp. 127-142.
‒ Hobbes, T. (1651), Leviathan, excerpts.
‒ Gauthier, D. (1986), Morals by agreement, Oxford: Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ R. Chang, "Value pluralism", in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences.
‒ Ceva, E. (2012), "Pluralism", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to poltical philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 195-205.
‒ Wong, "Agreement/disagreement", in A. Besussi (ed.), A companion to poltical philosophy. Methods, tools, topics, Ashgate, pp. 217-226.
‒ Berlin, I. (2002), Liberty, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Larmore, C. (1994), "Pluralism and reasonable disagreement", Social Philosophy and Policy, 11(1): 61-79.
‒ Gray, J. (1998), "Where pluralists and liberals part company", International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 6(1): 17-36.
‒ Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848), The Communist Manifest, excerpts
‒ Schmitt, C. (1932), The concept of the political, excerpts
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1531), Discourses on the first ten books of Titus Livy, Book I, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 37.
‒ Machiavelli, N. (1525), Florentine Histories, Book III, chapter 1.
‒ Mouffe, C. (2013), Agonistics. Thinking the world politically, Verso, excerpts.Honig, B. (1993), Political theory and the displacement politics, Cornell University Press, excerpts.
‒ Hampshire, S. (1996), "Justice is conflict", Tanner lectures on human values.
‒ Mouffe, C. (1994), "Political liberalism. Neutrality and the political", Ratio Juris, 7(3): 314-324.
· Material for the oral exam
The oral exam for non-attendant students will focus on 3 readings freely selected by each student from the following list:
‒ Gutman, A. and Thompson, D. (1990), "Moral conflict and political consensus", Ethics, 101(1): 64-88.
‒ Mansbridge, J. et al. (2010), "The place of self‐interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy", Journal of political philosophy, 18(1): 64-100.
‒ Rosenblum, N.L. (2008), On the side of angels. An appreciation of parties and partisanship, Princeton University Press, excerpts.
‒ White, J. and Ypi, L. (2016), The meaning of partisanship, Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Thoreau, D. (1849), Civil disobedience
‒ Lyons, D. (1998), "Moral judgment, historical reality, and civil disobedience", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 27(1): 31-49.
‒ Celikates, R. (2016), "Democratizing civil disobedience", Philosophy & Social Criticism, 42(10): 982-994.
‒ Arendt, H. (1970), On violence, Harcourt, excerpts
‒ Delmas, C. (2018), A duty to resist: When disobedience should be uncivil. Oxford University Press, excerpts.
‒ Coady, C.A.J. (2008), "The morality of terrorism", in Morality and political violence, Cambridge University Press, pp. 154-178
‒ Berlin, I. (1988), "The pursuit of the ideal", in The crooked timber of humanity: Chapters in the history of ideas, Oxford University Press, pp. 1-19.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Unit 2
Course syllabus
The second part of the course focuses on political legitimacy.
After a preliminary analysis about the notion of legitimacy, the course examines the relationship between legitimacy and authority as the normative concept of political legitimacy is often seen as related to the justification of authority. Indeed, the main function of political legitimacy is to explain the difference between merely effective or de facto authority and legitimate authority. The analysis is also meant to provide insights about the issue of obedience to political authority from both moral and political perspective as - in the normative interpretation here propounded - legitimate political authority entails political obligations.
Insofar as legitimacy defines which political institutions and which decisions made within them are acceptable, and, in some cases, what kind of obligations people who are governed by these institutions incur, there is the question what grounds the normative notion of legitimacy. To deal with such a question, this unit offers a review of classical and contemporary accounts that have been given of the sources of legitimacy. Among these accounts the unit will be focusing on the following: consent; consequences; public reason; democracy. In conclusion, some reflections are devoted to global crisis and migration.
Syllabus (provisional)
Lecture 1 - Political legitimacy: meanings and sources
- Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1
- Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 6, 7
Lecture 2 - Authority and political obligation
- Horton J., Political Obligation, 1992: Chapters 1, 2, 4, 6
Lecture 3 - Political legitimacy: universalist standards and contextual approaches
- Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory: Methods and Approaches (eds. Leopold & Stears), 2008
Lecture 4 - Sources of political legitimacy: idealist to realist accounts
- Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed, 2005: Chapter 1
Lecture 5 - Students' presentations and class discussion
- See references of Lectures 3 & 4
Lecture 6 & 7 - Consent: Hobbes and Locke
- Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
- Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters VII.87-IX; XIV
Lecture 8 & 9 - Consequentialist source of legitimacy: Mill to Raz
- Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Chapter 1
- Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
Lecture 10 & 11 - Public reason's approaches to political legitimacy: Rawls
- Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993. Lecture 4: §1, 2, 4, 5.
- Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
Lecture 12 & 13 - Approaches to political legitimacy: after Rawls and against
- Walzer M., Spheres of Justice, Preface
- Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7 ( "Appendix" excluded)
Lecture 14 & 15 - Democratic legitimacy: meanings and forms
- Buchanan A., Political Legitimacy and Democracy, 2002
- Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality, 2008: Chapter 6
Lecture 16 & 17 - Beyond democratic legitimacy: the epistocratic alternative
- Estlund D., Democratic Authority, 2009: Chapter 1
- Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy, 2010
- Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy, 2004
Lecture 18 & 19 - Rethinking political legitimacy in times of global crisis and migration
- Nagel T., The Problem of Global Justice, 2005
- Dryzek J., Transnational Democracy, 1999
- Ferrara A., Democratic Horizon, 2014: Introduction, Chapter 8
Lecture 20 - Recap lecture
After a preliminary analysis about the notion of legitimacy, the course examines the relationship between legitimacy and authority as the normative concept of political legitimacy is often seen as related to the justification of authority. Indeed, the main function of political legitimacy is to explain the difference between merely effective or de facto authority and legitimate authority. The analysis is also meant to provide insights about the issue of obedience to political authority from both moral and political perspective as - in the normative interpretation here propounded - legitimate political authority entails political obligations.
Insofar as legitimacy defines which political institutions and which decisions made within them are acceptable, and, in some cases, what kind of obligations people who are governed by these institutions incur, there is the question what grounds the normative notion of legitimacy. To deal with such a question, this unit offers a review of classical and contemporary accounts that have been given of the sources of legitimacy. Among these accounts the unit will be focusing on the following: consent; consequences; public reason; democracy. In conclusion, some reflections are devoted to global crisis and migration.
Syllabus (provisional)
Lecture 1 - Political legitimacy: meanings and sources
- Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1
- Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 6, 7
Lecture 2 - Authority and political obligation
- Horton J., Political Obligation, 1992: Chapters 1, 2, 4, 6
Lecture 3 - Political legitimacy: universalist standards and contextual approaches
- Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory: Methods and Approaches (eds. Leopold & Stears), 2008
Lecture 4 - Sources of political legitimacy: idealist to realist accounts
- Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed, 2005: Chapter 1
Lecture 5 - Students' presentations and class discussion
- See references of Lectures 3 & 4
Lecture 6 & 7 - Consent: Hobbes and Locke
- Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
- Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters VII.87-IX; XIV
Lecture 8 & 9 - Consequentialist source of legitimacy: Mill to Raz
- Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Chapter 1
- Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
Lecture 10 & 11 - Public reason's approaches to political legitimacy: Rawls
- Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993. Lecture 4: §1, 2, 4, 5.
- Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
Lecture 12 & 13 - Approaches to political legitimacy: after Rawls and against
- Walzer M., Spheres of Justice, Preface
- Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7 ( "Appendix" excluded)
Lecture 14 & 15 - Democratic legitimacy: meanings and forms
- Buchanan A., Political Legitimacy and Democracy, 2002
- Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality, 2008: Chapter 6
Lecture 16 & 17 - Beyond democratic legitimacy: the epistocratic alternative
- Estlund D., Democratic Authority, 2009: Chapter 1
- Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy, 2010
- Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy, 2004
Lecture 18 & 19 - Rethinking political legitimacy in times of global crisis and migration
- Nagel T., The Problem of Global Justice, 2005
- Dryzek J., Transnational Democracy, 1999
- Ferrara A., Democratic Horizon, 2014: Introduction, Chapter 8
Lecture 20 - Recap lecture
Teaching methods
The course combines lessons, students' presentations, and class discussion.
Teaching Resources
The exam material is different for a) attendant students and b) non-attendant students
a) Attendant students
For attendant students, readings are expected to be completed in advance of the relevant session devoted to presentations and following discussion.
· Material for the presentation, the paper and the oral exam:
Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1
Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 6, 7
Horton J., Political Obligation, 1992: Chapters 1, 2, 4, 6
Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory, 2008
Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed, 2005: Chapter 1
Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters VII.87-IX; XIV
Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Chapter 1
Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993: Lecture 4: §1, 2, 4, 5
Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
Walzer M., Spheres of Justice, Preface
Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7 ( "Appendix" excluded)
Buchanan A., Political Legitimacy and Democracy, 2002
Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality, 2008: Chapter 6
Estlund D. Democratic Authority, 2009: Chapter 1
Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy, 2010
Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy, 2004
Nagel T. (2005) The Problem of Global Justice. "Philosophy & Public Affairs", 33/2 (Spring):113-147
Dryzek J., Transnational Democracy. "Journal of Political Philosophy", 7/1: 30-51
Please note:
The paper should be of no more than 5000 words, footnotes and bibliography included
The paper should discuss TWO authors of choice in order to compare their contribution on political legitimacy, to argue for or against author's positions, to conclude with one's own position. The authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the presentations.
Finally, individual oral exam will be planned to discuss the paper and TWO readings of choice from the list above (the authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the presentations and for the paper)
b) Non-attendant students
· Material for the paper and the oral exam:
Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1
Chambers S., Theories of Political Justification, 2010
Erman E., Moller N., Political Legitimacy in the Real Normative World, 2015
Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 6, 7
Horton J., Political Obligation, 1992: Chapters 1, 2, 4, 6
Stilz A., Liberal Loyalty, 2009: Chapters 3, 4
Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory, 2008
Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed, 2005: Chapter 1
Zuolo F., Realism and Idealism, in Companion to Political Philosophy, ed. Besussi, 2012
Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters VII.87-IX; XIV
Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Chapter 1
Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993: Lecture 4: §1, 2, 4, 5
Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
Walzer M., Spheres of Justice, Preface
Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7 ("Appendix" excluded)
Enoch D., Against Public Reason, 2015
Buchanan A., Political Legitimacy and Democracy, 2002
Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality, 2008: Chapter 6
Cohen J., An Epistemic Conception of Democracy, 1986
Estlund D. Democratic Authority, 2009: Chapter 1
Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy, 2010
Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy, 2004
Manin B., Stein E., Mansbridge J., On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation, 1987
Nagel T., The Problem of Global Justice, 2005
Dryzek J., Transnational Democracy. 1999
Please note:
- The paper should be of no more than 7000 words, footnotes and bibliography included
- The paper should discuss FOUR authors of choice (see the list above) in order to compare their contribution on political legitimacy, to argue for or against author's positions, to conclude with one's own position.
- Finally, individual oral exam will be planned to discuss the paper and SIX readings among the ones listed above (the authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the paper)
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
a) Attendant students
For attendant students, readings are expected to be completed in advance of the relevant session devoted to presentations and following discussion.
· Material for the presentation, the paper and the oral exam:
Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1
Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 6, 7
Horton J., Political Obligation, 1992: Chapters 1, 2, 4, 6
Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory, 2008
Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed, 2005: Chapter 1
Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters VII.87-IX; XIV
Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Chapter 1
Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993: Lecture 4: §1, 2, 4, 5
Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
Walzer M., Spheres of Justice, Preface
Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7 ( "Appendix" excluded)
Buchanan A., Political Legitimacy and Democracy, 2002
Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality, 2008: Chapter 6
Estlund D. Democratic Authority, 2009: Chapter 1
Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy, 2010
Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy, 2004
Nagel T. (2005) The Problem of Global Justice. "Philosophy & Public Affairs", 33/2 (Spring):113-147
Dryzek J., Transnational Democracy. "Journal of Political Philosophy", 7/1: 30-51
Please note:
The paper should be of no more than 5000 words, footnotes and bibliography included
The paper should discuss TWO authors of choice in order to compare their contribution on political legitimacy, to argue for or against author's positions, to conclude with one's own position. The authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the presentations.
Finally, individual oral exam will be planned to discuss the paper and TWO readings of choice from the list above (the authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the presentations and for the paper)
b) Non-attendant students
· Material for the paper and the oral exam:
Beetham D., The Legitimation of Power, 1991: Chapters 1
Chambers S., Theories of Political Justification, 2010
Erman E., Moller N., Political Legitimacy in the Real Normative World, 2015
Simmons J., Justification and Legitimacy, 2000: Chapters 6, 7
Horton J., Political Obligation, 1992: Chapters 1, 2, 4, 6
Stilz A., Liberal Loyalty, 2009: Chapters 3, 4
Miller D., Political Philosophy for Earthlings, in Political Theory, 2008
Williams B., In the Beginning Was the Deed, 2005: Chapter 1
Zuolo F., Realism and Idealism, in Companion to Political Philosophy, ed. Besussi, 2012
Hobbes T., Leviathan [1651]: Chapters XIV, XVII
Locke J., Second Treatise on Government [1689]: Chapters VII.87-IX; XIV
Mill J. S., On Liberty [1859]: Chapter 1
Raz J., Authority and Justification, 1985
Rawls J., Political Liberalism, 1993: Lecture 4: §1, 2, 4, 5
Rawls J., The Idea of Public Reason Revised, 1997
Walzer M., Spheres of Justice, Preface
Newey G., After Politics, 2001: Chapters 7 ("Appendix" excluded)
Enoch D., Against Public Reason, 2015
Buchanan A., Political Legitimacy and Democracy, 2002
Christiano T., The Constitution of Equality, 2008: Chapter 6
Cohen J., An Epistemic Conception of Democracy, 1986
Estlund D. Democratic Authority, 2009: Chapter 1
Urbinati N., Unpolitical Democracy, 2010
Pettit P., Depoliticizing Democracy, 2004
Manin B., Stein E., Mansbridge J., On Legitimacy and Political Deliberation, 1987
Nagel T., The Problem of Global Justice, 2005
Dryzek J., Transnational Democracy. 1999
Please note:
- The paper should be of no more than 7000 words, footnotes and bibliography included
- The paper should discuss FOUR authors of choice (see the list above) in order to compare their contribution on political legitimacy, to argue for or against author's positions, to conclude with one's own position.
- Finally, individual oral exam will be planned to discuss the paper and SIX readings among the ones listed above (the authors of choice cannot be the ones already chosen for the paper)
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Unit 1
SPS/01 - POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - University credits: 6
Lessons: 40 hours
Professor:
Pasquali Francesca
Unit 2
SPS/01 - POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - University credits: 6
Lessons: 40 hours
Professor:
Sala Roberta
Professor(s)
Reception:
Upcoming office hours: Wednesday May 14th, 18:00-19:30, online and on campus; Tuesday May 20th, 14:30-16:00, online; Wednesday May 21st, 15;00-16:30, on campus; Wednesday May 28th, 14:30-16:00, on campus; May 28th, 16:00-17:30, online.
No appointment required to attend office hours, which are held online (on MS Teams: https://tinyurl.com/549e8pje) or on campus (Dept. of Social and political science, 2nd floor, room 205). For info about theses, check the following link: