Suchergebnisse

"Argues that political authority is illegitimate, and in doing so explores perennial questions in political philosophy such as the nature and extent of state authority and political obligation, the relation of individual freedom to the collective good, and the reconciliation of political power with personal autonomy"--Provided by publisher

Abstract
Imagine some policy P about which a scholar said "The best way to help people escape from poverty would be P." Is this a claim about political philosophy or economics? On the one hand, it seems to be an empirical statement, but there is a normative component as well. Besides the obvious normativity of "best," there is the tacit implication that poverty is bad and that this is at least some reason to endorse P. But the fact that one can easily imagine either a political philosopher or an economist making the claim points to one reason for the recent growth of programs in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE), programs of study which emphasize the interdisciplinary connection between political philosophy and the social sciences. Political philosophy is, of course, philosophy, which means it is a combination of analytic and normative tools, but since its subject matter involves human behavior and social institutions, empirical study of those seems like it should be relevant as well. Since political philosophy addresses questions about the social order, findings from the social sciences are surely relevant, chiefly from economics and political science. At first glance this seems directly analogous to the way philosophy of cognitive science would find relevance from work in neurology. But social scientists are themselves often beholden to normative priors which frame their methodology. The increased popularity of and growth of programs in PPE is therefore definitely beneficial both to the philosophers and to the social scientists who explore these issues. However, while the empirical is relevant, and, I would argue, essential, to good work in political philosophy, I would resist the suggestion that the empirical is exhaustive and that the philosophical is either superfluous or unwarranted.

This book, in the tradition of Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia, sheds new light on persistent philosophical questions about the nature and justification of political authority. Skoble's discussion draws upon law, economics, and game theory to examine limited-state and anarchist theories from the standpoint of liberty and human rights. It includes a careful elucidation, based on the analysis in F. A. Hayek's Constitution of Liberty, of the nature of coercion and the extent to which it can realistically be minimized. Skoble sets out the differences between libertarian and communitarian perspectives on the nature of society and the state, and, finally, compares the merits and demerits of violent and nonviolent strategies for political change. ; https://vc.bridgew.edu/fac_books/1007/thumbnail.jpg

Douglas B. Rasmussen and Douglas J. Den Uyl's recent book Norms of Liberty: A Perfectionist Basis for Non-Perfectionist Politics (Penn State University Press, 2005) is being received in philosophy and political theory as an important and original defense of liberalism. The book offers a neo-Aristotelian ethic of human flourishing as a basis for a liberal conception of human rights. One of the authors' central contentions is that a key problem for any (liberal) political philosophy is how to establish a political/legal order which in principle does not require that any one person or group's well-being be given structured preference over that of any other. This companion volume, an interpretive and critical reader, features essays from both philosophers and political scientists, as well as an omnibus reply by Rasmussen and Den Uyl. Norms of Liberty makes challenging arguments about key issues, which makes a multi-disciplinary reader a valuable asset for both students and scholars. Reading Rasmussen and Den Uyl is designed both to explicate the book's arguments and to explore possible objections. ; https://vc.bridgew.edu/fac_books/1010/thumbnail.jpg

I will examine Hayek's distinction between spontaneously-emerging, "bottom-up" social orders (as chiefly instantiated in the common law) and coercive, "top-down" social orders (as instantiated in commands of a sovereign). I will discuss the significance of this distinction for liberal political theory, and its ramifications for other fields, mainly law and economics.

This book is a comprehensive anthology in the history of political philosophy. It presents important selections from the ancient, medieval, and modern periods along with many contemporary selections. The material is presented historically with brief biographical sketches of each author as well as introductions to each period. Political Philosophy: Essential Selections offers the most comprehensive selection of readings in Western political philosophy, ranging from the ancient to the contemporary. From Plato and Aristotle to today's disputes about liberalism, anarchism, feminism, and socialism. Selections are presented as they were originally written with minimal editorial intrusion.The book includes important thinkers rarely featured in similar anthologies, such as Marsilius of Padua, Mary Wollstonecraft, and Mikail Bakunin, plus more familiar names. It also presents key developments in the history of political philosophy and provides good coverage of contemporary theories. This allows readers to trace the historical development of these important concepts and themes. An important resource for every reader interested in the development of political thought regarding contemporary issues. ; https://vc.bridgew.edu/fac_books/1074/thumbnail.jpg