Differences, Inequalities and the Politics of Law
A.Y. 2025/2026
Learning objectives
This course aims to provide students with a critical understanding of liberalism as a political theory, considering both its conception of constitutional rights and its approach to political justice. Students will engage with key philosophical debates on the limits and potential of liberalism when it comes to addressing social justice issues, particularly those concerning liberty, differences, and inequalities. Another objective is to enable students to critically assess liberal theories of justice, examining their internal tensions, the critiques they face, and the extent to which they can respond to different forms of social injustice. The course also seeks to enhance students' ability to apply normative political theories to contemporary debates, as well as their critical reasoning and informed discussion skills.
Expected learning outcomes
By the end of the course, students are expected to:
Knowledge and understanding
- Demonstrate a clear understanding of liberalism as a theory of constitutional rights and political justice, as well as its limitations in achieving social justice.
- Demonstrate an understanding of key liberal principles such as the priority of basic liberties, liberty-limiting principles, liberal neutrality, and principles of distributive justice.
Applying knowledge and understanding
- Critically apply liberal theory to assess real-world issues related to basic liberties, economic inequality, sexism and racism, and identity politics.
- Analyse institutional mechanisms, such as judicial review, the rule of law, and judicial guarantees, from a normative perspective.
Making judgements
- Evaluate the strengths and limitations of liberalism when it comes to responding to contemporary demands for social justice.
- Formulate well-argued positions on contested issues such as meritocracy, equal opportunity and structural injustice.
Communication skills
- Present complex theoretical arguments in a clear, structured and persuasive manner.
- Engage constructively in academic debate, demonstrating an openness to alternative viewpoints.
Learning skills
- Demonstrate the ability to read, understand and summarise academic texts on political philosophy and legal theory.
- Reflect critically on the relationship between normative theory and political practice, developing habits of independent and lifelong learning.
- Demonstrate the ability to independently locate relevant philosophical literature using search engines and bibliographic repositories.
Knowledge and understanding
- Demonstrate a clear understanding of liberalism as a theory of constitutional rights and political justice, as well as its limitations in achieving social justice.
- Demonstrate an understanding of key liberal principles such as the priority of basic liberties, liberty-limiting principles, liberal neutrality, and principles of distributive justice.
Applying knowledge and understanding
- Critically apply liberal theory to assess real-world issues related to basic liberties, economic inequality, sexism and racism, and identity politics.
- Analyse institutional mechanisms, such as judicial review, the rule of law, and judicial guarantees, from a normative perspective.
Making judgements
- Evaluate the strengths and limitations of liberalism when it comes to responding to contemporary demands for social justice.
- Formulate well-argued positions on contested issues such as meritocracy, equal opportunity and structural injustice.
Communication skills
- Present complex theoretical arguments in a clear, structured and persuasive manner.
- Engage constructively in academic debate, demonstrating an openness to alternative viewpoints.
Learning skills
- Demonstrate the ability to read, understand and summarise academic texts on political philosophy and legal theory.
- Reflect critically on the relationship between normative theory and political practice, developing habits of independent and lifelong learning.
- Demonstrate the ability to independently locate relevant philosophical literature using search engines and bibliographic repositories.
Lesson period: Second trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course can be attended as a single course.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
Second trimester
Course syllabus
The course focuses on liberalism as a political theory and examines its capacity to offer a distinctive account of individual rights and social justice. A central aim of the course is to clarify the dual nature of liberalism, which can be understood both as a theory of constitutional justice and as a more comprehensive political theory of justice. As a theory of constitutional justice, liberalism articulates a framework of fundamental rights and institutional constraints that limit the exercise of political power and structure political competition in pluralistic societies. In this role, liberalism does not provide answers to all political questions, but rather defines the boundaries within which different and sometimes competing conceptions of justice may be pursued.
Understood as a comprehensive political theory, liberalism offers more substantive principles intended to regulate social and economic inequalities. At this level, liberalism appears as one among several competing theories of justice, and even within liberalism itself a plurality of liberal theories can be identified, reflecting different answers to the political questions left open by the constitutional framework. The course uses this distinction to situate liberal theories of social justice within a broader liberal constitutional context.
Against this general background, the course examines liberalism through an in-depth analysis of John Rawls's theory of justice, which is taken as a paradigmatic liberal account of both constitutional rights and social justice. Rawls's work provides a systematic framework for understanding how the protection of basic liberties can be combined with a demanding conception of distributive justice, and it serves as the main reference point for the discussion of liberal rights and equality throughout the course.
The course is structured into an introductory lecture, two main blocks of lectures, and a concluding lecture. The introductory lecture presents the aims of the course and situates Rawls's theory within the broader landscape of liberal political philosophy. The concluding lecture draws together the main themes discussed throughout the course and assesses the relevance and limits of liberal theories of justice.
The first block of lectures is devoted to a systematic presentation of Rawls's theory of justice. It introduces the idea of a theory of justice and its object, method, and status, and examines the fundamental ideas of society and the person, the original position, and its constructivist interpretation. It then analyses Rawls's principles of justice, their justification, and their implications for individuals and social institutions. Particular attention is devoted to the liberal elements of justice as fairness, political liberalism, political neutrality, Rawls's conception of distributive justice, and the ideal of a property-owning democracy. The block also addresses Rawls's extension of his theory beyond the domestic context through the Law of Peoples.
The second block of lectures is dedicated to the critical discussion of Rawls's theory and to issues that arise beyond it. It examines influential critiques of Rawls's account of both social and global justice, as well as alternative approaches such as neoliberalism and luck egalitarianism. It also explores questions of justice that Rawls does not address or addresses only superficially, such as questions concerning justice and redistributive policies, the social division of labour, and justice for people with disabilities. Finally, moving from ideal to non-ideal theory, the course addresses forms of injustice that Rawls does not discuss, or does not discuss adequately, including those related to sexism, racism, and identity politics.
Understood as a comprehensive political theory, liberalism offers more substantive principles intended to regulate social and economic inequalities. At this level, liberalism appears as one among several competing theories of justice, and even within liberalism itself a plurality of liberal theories can be identified, reflecting different answers to the political questions left open by the constitutional framework. The course uses this distinction to situate liberal theories of social justice within a broader liberal constitutional context.
Against this general background, the course examines liberalism through an in-depth analysis of John Rawls's theory of justice, which is taken as a paradigmatic liberal account of both constitutional rights and social justice. Rawls's work provides a systematic framework for understanding how the protection of basic liberties can be combined with a demanding conception of distributive justice, and it serves as the main reference point for the discussion of liberal rights and equality throughout the course.
The course is structured into an introductory lecture, two main blocks of lectures, and a concluding lecture. The introductory lecture presents the aims of the course and situates Rawls's theory within the broader landscape of liberal political philosophy. The concluding lecture draws together the main themes discussed throughout the course and assesses the relevance and limits of liberal theories of justice.
The first block of lectures is devoted to a systematic presentation of Rawls's theory of justice. It introduces the idea of a theory of justice and its object, method, and status, and examines the fundamental ideas of society and the person, the original position, and its constructivist interpretation. It then analyses Rawls's principles of justice, their justification, and their implications for individuals and social institutions. Particular attention is devoted to the liberal elements of justice as fairness, political liberalism, political neutrality, Rawls's conception of distributive justice, and the ideal of a property-owning democracy. The block also addresses Rawls's extension of his theory beyond the domestic context through the Law of Peoples.
The second block of lectures is dedicated to the critical discussion of Rawls's theory and to issues that arise beyond it. It examines influential critiques of Rawls's account of both social and global justice, as well as alternative approaches such as neoliberalism and luck egalitarianism. It also explores questions of justice that Rawls does not address or addresses only superficially, such as questions concerning justice and redistributive policies, the social division of labour, and justice for people with disabilities. Finally, moving from ideal to non-ideal theory, the course addresses forms of injustice that Rawls does not discuss, or does not discuss adequately, including those related to sexism, racism, and identity politics.
Prerequisites for admission
No prior knowledge is required.
Teaching methods
Although class attendance is not compulsory, it is highly recommended. Based on previous years' experience, students who attend are more likely to pass the exam at their first attempt and achieve a higher grade.
Teaching for attending students will consist of lectures, class discussions, and recommended reading on the topics covered in the lectures.
Lecture slides will be available on the course MyAriel website.
Students who do not attend should prepare for the exams by studying the texts indicated in the bibliography section of the syllabus.
Teaching for attending students will consist of lectures, class discussions, and recommended reading on the topics covered in the lectures.
Lecture slides will be available on the course MyAriel website.
Students who do not attend should prepare for the exams by studying the texts indicated in the bibliography section of the syllabus.
Teaching Resources
All students, whether attending or non-attending, are required to read the following texts:
- Rawls, J. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA), 2001.
- Rawls, J. "The Law of Peoples." Critical Inquiry, vol. 20, no. 1, 1993, pp. 36-68.
In addition, attending students are required to read the texts included in two of the thematic reading lists below, while non-attending students are required to read the texts included in four of these lists. Students may choose the reading lists according to their interests. The reading lists are equivalent in terms of length.
(a) Equality of Resources, Welfare, and Luck
- Dworkin, R. "What Is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 10, no. 4, 1981, pp. 283-345.
- Arneson, R.J. "Liberalism, Distributive Subjectivism, and Equal Opportunity for Welfare". Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19, 2, 1990, pp. 158-194.
These readings develop two influential post-Rawlsian accounts of distributive equality and lay the foundations of what later came to be known as luck egalitarianism. Ronald Dworkin argues that justice requires equality of resources while holding individuals responsible for their choices. Richard Arneson, by contrast, defends equality of opportunity for welfare, maintaining that justice should track differences in well-being rather than resources. Together, the texts explore whether egalitarian justice should neutralise brute luck, and what metric of equality it should adopt.
(b) The Site of Distributive Justice
- Cohen, G.A. "Where the Action Is: On the Site of Distributive Justice". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 26, no. 1, 1997, pp. 3-30.
- Murphy, L.B. "Institutions and the Demands of Justice". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 27, no. 4, 1998, pp. 251-291.
- Pogge, T. "On the Site of Distributive Justice: Reflections on Cohen and Murphy". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 29, no. 2, 2000, pp. 137-169.
These readings address a central question in post-Rawlsian egalitarianism: where is justice located? G.A. Cohen argues that principles of distributive justice regulate not only the basic structure but also individuals' choices and social ethos. Liam Murphy agrees that such principles apply to personal conduct, but maintains that their demands must be assessed under conditions of partial compliance. Thomas Pogge offers a critical reconstruction of the debate. Together, the texts examine the relationship between institutions, individual responsibility, and egalitarian justice.
(c) Libertarianism, Self-Ownership, and Equality
- Nozick, R. "Distributive Justice". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 3, no. 1, 1974, pp. 45-126.
- Otsuka, M. "Self-Ownership and Equality: A Lockean Reconciliation". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 21, no. 1, 1998, pp. 65-92.
These readings explore the libertarian challenge to liberal egalitarianism. Robert Nozick defends an entitlement theory grounded in self-ownership and historical principles of acquisition and transfer, rejecting patterned conceptions of distributive justice. Michael Otsuka revisits the libertarian framework, arguing that robust self-ownership can be reconciled with a demanding form of material equality. Together, the texts examine whether commitments to individual liberty and property rights undermine or can instead support egalitarian conclusions.
(d) Global Justice and the Limits of Egalitarianism
- Pogge, T. "An Egalitarian Law of Peoples". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 23, no. 3, 1994, pp. 195-224.
- Miller, D. "Against Global Egalitarianism". The Journal of Ethics, vol. 9, no. 1-2, 2005, pp. 55-79.
- Nagel, T. "The Problem of Global Justice". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 33, no. 2, 2005, pp. 113-147.
These readings extend debates about liberal equality to the international domain. Thomas Pogge argues that principles of distributive justice should apply globally rather than being confined to domestic societies. David Miller and Thomas Nagel challenge this view, questioning whether egalitarian obligations arise beyond the state and emphasising the normative significance of political community and sovereignty. Together, the texts examine whether global inequalities are matters of justice in the same sense as domestic ones.
(e) Disability and the Scope of Justice as Fairness
- Brighouse, H. "Can Justice as Fairness Accommodate the Disabled?". Social Theory and Practice, vol. 27, no. 4, 2001, pp. 537-560.
- Nussbaum, M.C. "Capabilities and Disabilities: Justice for Mentally Disabled Citizens". Philosophical Topics, vol. 30, no. 2, 2002, pp. 133-165.
- Richardson, H.S. "Rawlsian Social-Contract Theory and the Severely Disabled". The Journal of Ethics, vol. 10, no. 4, 2006, pp. 419-462.
These readings examine a major challenge to Rawlsian liberalism: can justice as fairness adequately account for the claims of people with disabilities? Harry Brighouse explores whether Rawls's framework can be extended to include them. Martha Nussbaum, drawing on the capabilities approach, argues for a revised metric of justice better suited to addressing cognitive disability. Henry Richardson reassesses the resources of social-contract theory in this context. Together, the texts investigate whether Rawlsian justice must be modified to secure full inclusion.
(f) Structural Injustice, Economic Institutions, and Relational Equality
- Young, I.M. "Displacing the Distributive Paradigm". In I.M. Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990, pp. 15-38.
- Young, I.M. "Affirmative Action and the Myth of Merit". In I.M. Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990, pp. 192-225.
- Anderson, E. "Equality and Freedom in the Workplace: Recovering Republican Insights". Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 31, no. 2, 2015, pp. 48-69.
- Hussain, W. "Pitting People Against Each Other". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 48, no. 1, 2020, pp. 79-113.
These readings examine forms of structural injustice arising from economic institutions and the organisation of work. Iris Marion Young criticises the "distributive paradigm", showing how meritocratic and market structures can reproduce domination. Elizabeth Anderson develops a relational egalitarian account centred on freedom from domination in the workplace, while Waheed Hussain analyses how competitive markets can set individuals against one another. Together, the texts shift attention from distribution to the social relations that shape equality.
(g) Oppression, Recognition, and Identity Politics
- Young, I.M. "Five Faces of Oppression". In I.M. Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990, pp. 39-65.
- Young, I.M. "Social Movements and the Politics of Difference". In I.M. Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990, pp. 156-191.
- Fraser, N. "From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a "Postsocialist" Age". In N. Fraser, Justice Interruptus, Routledge, London-New York, 1997, pp. 11-39.
- Fraser, N. "Feminist Politics in the Age of Recognition: A Two-Dimensional Approach to Gender Justice". Studies in Social Justice, vol. 1, no. 1, 2007, pp. 23-35.
These readings examine theories of justice centred on oppression, social movements, and identity-based claims. Iris Marion Young analyses the "five faces" of oppression and defends a conception of justice attentive to structural injustice and group-based difference. Nancy Fraser develops the influential distinction between redistribution and recognition, proposing a two-dimensional account of justice that integrates economic and cultural claims. Together, the texts explore how struggles for recognition reshape egalitarian theory beyond purely distributive approaches.
(h) Rawls, Race, and Racial Justice
- Mills, C.W. "Rawls on Race/Race in Rawls". The Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 47, suppl., 2009, pp. 161-184.
- Shelby, T. "Race and Social Justice: Rawlsian Considerations". Fordham Law Review, vol. 72, no. 5, 2004, pp. 1697-1714.
- Mills, C.W. "Retrieving Rawls for Racial Justice? A Critique of Tommy Shelby". Critical Philosophy of Race, vol. 1, no. 1, 2013, pp. 1-27.
- Shelby, T. "Racial Realities and Corrective Justice: A Reply to Charles Mills". Critical Philosophy of Race, vol. 1, no. 2, 2013, pp. 145-162.
- Anderson, E.S. "Racial Integration as a Compelling Interest". Constitutional Commentary, vol. 21, no. 1, 2004, pp. 15-40.
These readings examine whether Rawlsian liberalism can adequately address racial injustice. Tommie Shelby develops a Rawlsian account attentive to racial oppression, while Charles Mills argues that Rawls's framework marginalises race and idealises structural injustice. Their exchange asks whether Rawls can be "retrieved" for racial justice or requires deeper revision. Elizabeth Anderson complements this debate by defending racial integration as a democratic imperative. Together, the texts assess the limits of liberal egalitarianism in confronting racial inequality.
All the texts are available in the university's Digital Library and on the MyAriel website for this course.
Attending students are required to read texts totalling between 60 and 75 pages per credit, while non-attending students are required to read texts totalling between 100 and 125 pages per credit. According to ministerial guidelines, one credit corresponds to 25 hours of study. After subtracting the time devoted to lectures and note-taking for attending students, this amounts to approximately 4-5 pages per hour of independent study.
- Rawls, J. Justice as Fairness: A Restatement. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (MA), 2001.
- Rawls, J. "The Law of Peoples." Critical Inquiry, vol. 20, no. 1, 1993, pp. 36-68.
In addition, attending students are required to read the texts included in two of the thematic reading lists below, while non-attending students are required to read the texts included in four of these lists. Students may choose the reading lists according to their interests. The reading lists are equivalent in terms of length.
(a) Equality of Resources, Welfare, and Luck
- Dworkin, R. "What Is Equality? Part 2: Equality of Resources". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 10, no. 4, 1981, pp. 283-345.
- Arneson, R.J. "Liberalism, Distributive Subjectivism, and Equal Opportunity for Welfare". Philosophy and Public Affairs, 19, 2, 1990, pp. 158-194.
These readings develop two influential post-Rawlsian accounts of distributive equality and lay the foundations of what later came to be known as luck egalitarianism. Ronald Dworkin argues that justice requires equality of resources while holding individuals responsible for their choices. Richard Arneson, by contrast, defends equality of opportunity for welfare, maintaining that justice should track differences in well-being rather than resources. Together, the texts explore whether egalitarian justice should neutralise brute luck, and what metric of equality it should adopt.
(b) The Site of Distributive Justice
- Cohen, G.A. "Where the Action Is: On the Site of Distributive Justice". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 26, no. 1, 1997, pp. 3-30.
- Murphy, L.B. "Institutions and the Demands of Justice". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 27, no. 4, 1998, pp. 251-291.
- Pogge, T. "On the Site of Distributive Justice: Reflections on Cohen and Murphy". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 29, no. 2, 2000, pp. 137-169.
These readings address a central question in post-Rawlsian egalitarianism: where is justice located? G.A. Cohen argues that principles of distributive justice regulate not only the basic structure but also individuals' choices and social ethos. Liam Murphy agrees that such principles apply to personal conduct, but maintains that their demands must be assessed under conditions of partial compliance. Thomas Pogge offers a critical reconstruction of the debate. Together, the texts examine the relationship between institutions, individual responsibility, and egalitarian justice.
(c) Libertarianism, Self-Ownership, and Equality
- Nozick, R. "Distributive Justice". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 3, no. 1, 1974, pp. 45-126.
- Otsuka, M. "Self-Ownership and Equality: A Lockean Reconciliation". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 21, no. 1, 1998, pp. 65-92.
These readings explore the libertarian challenge to liberal egalitarianism. Robert Nozick defends an entitlement theory grounded in self-ownership and historical principles of acquisition and transfer, rejecting patterned conceptions of distributive justice. Michael Otsuka revisits the libertarian framework, arguing that robust self-ownership can be reconciled with a demanding form of material equality. Together, the texts examine whether commitments to individual liberty and property rights undermine or can instead support egalitarian conclusions.
(d) Global Justice and the Limits of Egalitarianism
- Pogge, T. "An Egalitarian Law of Peoples". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 23, no. 3, 1994, pp. 195-224.
- Miller, D. "Against Global Egalitarianism". The Journal of Ethics, vol. 9, no. 1-2, 2005, pp. 55-79.
- Nagel, T. "The Problem of Global Justice". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 33, no. 2, 2005, pp. 113-147.
These readings extend debates about liberal equality to the international domain. Thomas Pogge argues that principles of distributive justice should apply globally rather than being confined to domestic societies. David Miller and Thomas Nagel challenge this view, questioning whether egalitarian obligations arise beyond the state and emphasising the normative significance of political community and sovereignty. Together, the texts examine whether global inequalities are matters of justice in the same sense as domestic ones.
(e) Disability and the Scope of Justice as Fairness
- Brighouse, H. "Can Justice as Fairness Accommodate the Disabled?". Social Theory and Practice, vol. 27, no. 4, 2001, pp. 537-560.
- Nussbaum, M.C. "Capabilities and Disabilities: Justice for Mentally Disabled Citizens". Philosophical Topics, vol. 30, no. 2, 2002, pp. 133-165.
- Richardson, H.S. "Rawlsian Social-Contract Theory and the Severely Disabled". The Journal of Ethics, vol. 10, no. 4, 2006, pp. 419-462.
These readings examine a major challenge to Rawlsian liberalism: can justice as fairness adequately account for the claims of people with disabilities? Harry Brighouse explores whether Rawls's framework can be extended to include them. Martha Nussbaum, drawing on the capabilities approach, argues for a revised metric of justice better suited to addressing cognitive disability. Henry Richardson reassesses the resources of social-contract theory in this context. Together, the texts investigate whether Rawlsian justice must be modified to secure full inclusion.
(f) Structural Injustice, Economic Institutions, and Relational Equality
- Young, I.M. "Displacing the Distributive Paradigm". In I.M. Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990, pp. 15-38.
- Young, I.M. "Affirmative Action and the Myth of Merit". In I.M. Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990, pp. 192-225.
- Anderson, E. "Equality and Freedom in the Workplace: Recovering Republican Insights". Social Philosophy and Policy, vol. 31, no. 2, 2015, pp. 48-69.
- Hussain, W. "Pitting People Against Each Other". Philosophy and Public Affairs, vol. 48, no. 1, 2020, pp. 79-113.
These readings examine forms of structural injustice arising from economic institutions and the organisation of work. Iris Marion Young criticises the "distributive paradigm", showing how meritocratic and market structures can reproduce domination. Elizabeth Anderson develops a relational egalitarian account centred on freedom from domination in the workplace, while Waheed Hussain analyses how competitive markets can set individuals against one another. Together, the texts shift attention from distribution to the social relations that shape equality.
(g) Oppression, Recognition, and Identity Politics
- Young, I.M. "Five Faces of Oppression". In I.M. Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990, pp. 39-65.
- Young, I.M. "Social Movements and the Politics of Difference". In I.M. Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1990, pp. 156-191.
- Fraser, N. "From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a "Postsocialist" Age". In N. Fraser, Justice Interruptus, Routledge, London-New York, 1997, pp. 11-39.
- Fraser, N. "Feminist Politics in the Age of Recognition: A Two-Dimensional Approach to Gender Justice". Studies in Social Justice, vol. 1, no. 1, 2007, pp. 23-35.
These readings examine theories of justice centred on oppression, social movements, and identity-based claims. Iris Marion Young analyses the "five faces" of oppression and defends a conception of justice attentive to structural injustice and group-based difference. Nancy Fraser develops the influential distinction between redistribution and recognition, proposing a two-dimensional account of justice that integrates economic and cultural claims. Together, the texts explore how struggles for recognition reshape egalitarian theory beyond purely distributive approaches.
(h) Rawls, Race, and Racial Justice
- Mills, C.W. "Rawls on Race/Race in Rawls". The Southern Journal of Philosophy, vol. 47, suppl., 2009, pp. 161-184.
- Shelby, T. "Race and Social Justice: Rawlsian Considerations". Fordham Law Review, vol. 72, no. 5, 2004, pp. 1697-1714.
- Mills, C.W. "Retrieving Rawls for Racial Justice? A Critique of Tommy Shelby". Critical Philosophy of Race, vol. 1, no. 1, 2013, pp. 1-27.
- Shelby, T. "Racial Realities and Corrective Justice: A Reply to Charles Mills". Critical Philosophy of Race, vol. 1, no. 2, 2013, pp. 145-162.
- Anderson, E.S. "Racial Integration as a Compelling Interest". Constitutional Commentary, vol. 21, no. 1, 2004, pp. 15-40.
These readings examine whether Rawlsian liberalism can adequately address racial injustice. Tommie Shelby develops a Rawlsian account attentive to racial oppression, while Charles Mills argues that Rawls's framework marginalises race and idealises structural injustice. Their exchange asks whether Rawls can be "retrieved" for racial justice or requires deeper revision. Elizabeth Anderson complements this debate by defending racial integration as a democratic imperative. Together, the texts assess the limits of liberal egalitarianism in confronting racial inequality.
All the texts are available in the university's Digital Library and on the MyAriel website for this course.
Attending students are required to read texts totalling between 60 and 75 pages per credit, while non-attending students are required to read texts totalling between 100 and 125 pages per credit. According to ministerial guidelines, one credit corresponds to 25 hours of study. After subtracting the time devoted to lectures and note-taking for attending students, this amounts to approximately 4-5 pages per hour of independent study.
Assessment methods and Criteria
Different assessment methods and evaluation criteria will apply to attending and non-attending students.
To obtain attending status, students must attend at least three fifths of the lectures (12 out of 20).
Attending students will be assessed on the basis of their attendance, completion of two position papers (written in class) and their performance in compulsory written and oral exams. These exams will cover the content of the lectures and the texts indicated in the bibliography section of the syllabus.
Non-attending students will be assessed solely on the basis of compulsory written and oral exams. These will cover only the texts indicated in the bibliography section of the syllabus.
Further information on assessment methods and criteria will be published on the MyAriel course site before the start of the lessons.
To obtain attending status, students must attend at least three fifths of the lectures (12 out of 20).
Attending students will be assessed on the basis of their attendance, completion of two position papers (written in class) and their performance in compulsory written and oral exams. These exams will cover the content of the lectures and the texts indicated in the bibliography section of the syllabus.
Non-attending students will be assessed solely on the basis of compulsory written and oral exams. These will cover only the texts indicated in the bibliography section of the syllabus.
Further information on assessment methods and criteria will be published on the MyAriel course site before the start of the lessons.
Educational website(s)
Professor(s)
Reception:
The professor meets with students weekly, on campus or online. To make an appointment, please contact the professor by email.
On-campus meetings will be held in the professor's office on the second floor of the building overlooking via Passione (room 206). Online meetings will be held through Microsoft Teams.