Rawls and Critics Seminar

GFPT 802                                      G. Klosko

Rawls and Critics                            248B Cabell; 4-3092

Spring 2001                                   gk@virginia.edu

 

The following books have been ordered at the University Bookstore and

are on reserve in Clemons Library.  All articles not in one the two

collections are on reserve, on line on the class’s “toolkit” page.

 

  1. Rawls, A Theory of Justice(Harvard, paperback).
  2. Rawls, Political Liberalism(Columbia, paperback).
  3. Rawls, Collected Papers(Harvard, hardcover) (CP).
  4. Daniels, ed., Reading Rawls(Stanford, paperback) (RR).
  5. Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia(Basic Books, paperback).
  6. Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice(Cambridge,

paperback).

R.P. Wolff, Understanding Rawls (out of print; on reserve only).

 

  1. 1. Early Rawls:

 

“Outline of a Decision Procedure for Ethics” CP, pp. 1-19

 

“Two Concepts of Rules,” CP, 20-47.

 

“Justice as Fairness,” CP, 47-72.

 

Suggested: Wolff, Understanding Rawls, Chaps. 1-5

 

 

  1. 2. Rawls, A Theory of Justice, Chaps. I-III; IV: Secs. 33-35,

38-40;VI; VII: Secs. 66-67; VIII: Sec. 77; IX: Secs. 78-82, 85-7.

 

 

  1. 3. T. Nagel, “Rawls on Justice,” in RR.

 

  1. Dworkin, “The Original Position,” in RR.

 

  1. Lyons, “Nature and Soundness of the Contract and Coherence

Arguments,” in RR.

 

  1. Okin, “Justice and Gender,” Philosophy and Public Affairs, 16

(1987).

 

 

  1. 4. J. Fishkin, “Justice and Rationality: Some Objections to the

Central Argument in Rawls’s Theory,” American Political Science 

Review, 69 (1975).

 

  1. Harsanyi, “Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Suitable Basis for

Morality?” American Political Science Review, 69 (1975).

 

 

  1. 5. H.L.A. Hart, “Rawls on Liberty and Its Priority,” in RR.

 

  1. Daniels, “Equal Liberty and Unequal Worth of Liberty,” in RR.

 

Rawls, “The Basic Liberties and Their Priority,” in Political 

Liberalism, 287-369.

 

Suggested: Wolff, Understanding Rawls, Chap. 9.

 

 

  1. 6. Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia.

 

 

  1. 7. Communitarianism

 

Sandel, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice.

 

  1. Kymlicka, “Liberalism and Communitarianism,” Canadian Journal of 

Philosophy, 18 (1988).

 

  1. Gutmann, “Communitarian Critics of Liberalism,” Philosophy and 

Public Affairs, 15 (1985).

 

 

  1. 8. Rawls, Political Liberalism, Lectures I – V.

 

Suggested:

 

Rawls, “Justice as Fairness: Political Not Metaphysical,'” CP,

388-414.

 

Rawls, “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus,” CP, 421-48.

 

 

  1. 9. K. Baier, “Justice and the Aims of Political Philosophy,”

Ethics, 99 (1989).

 

  1. Hampton, “Should Political Philosophy Be Done Without Metaphysics?”

Ethics, 99 (1989).

 

  1. Okin, “Political Liberalism, Justice, and Gender,” Ethics, 105,

1994.

 

  1. Klosko, “Rawls’s ‘Political’ Philosophy and American Democracy,”

American Political Science Review, 87 (1993).

 

  1. Klosko, “Political Constructivism in Rawls’s Political 

Liberalism,” American Political Science Review, 91 (1997).

 

  1. Macedo, “The Politics of Justification,” Political Theory, 18

(1990).

 

 

  1. 10. Rawls, “The Idea of Public Reason Revisited,” CP, 573-615.

 

  1. Solum, “Inclusive Public Reason,” Pacific Philosophical 

Quarterly, 75 (1994).

 

  1. Audi, “The Separation of Church and State and the

Obligations of Citizenship,” Philosophy and Public Affairs,

18 (1989).

 

  1. Nagel, Equality and Partiality(Oxford, 1991), Chap. 14.

 

 

Requirements

 

Aside from doing the reading and discussing it, there are three formal

requirements.

 

  1. 1. Paper of approximately 20 pages, either critical or literature

evaluation.

 

You are also required to make two in class presentations:

 

  1. 2. Present one of the readings, and be prepared to lead discussion of
  2. You should choose an article or single chapter (or other discrete

section) of a book. The presentation should be in the 20-30 minute

range. In addition to presenting the piece’s main ideas, you should

also raise interesting points.

 

  1. 3. Presentation of paper: in the twenty-five minute range.