N.B. This is an old version of the course guide and important information
has been redacted. Current students should contact the convenor for a
current and full version.
COURSE UNIT OUTLINE 20012/13
Arguing About Politics – POLI 20602
1.
Aims
This course will introduce students to a selection of topics and modes of argument in recent
work in political theory with particular focus on how these theoretical debates inform current
political controversies. Theoretical arguments will be developed and applied to practical
political problems.
2.
Objectives
On completion of this unit successful students will:
 Have gained a deeper understanding of certain key normative debates in politics
 Be able to apply theoretical arguments about abstract concepts to practical political
controversies
 Be able to analyze normative arguments critically
 Be able to construct and defend their own normative arguments in an analytically
rigorous fashion
Lecturers on this course:
Dr Liam Shields
Dr Stephen de Wijze
Dr James Pattison
Dr Tom Porter
Dr Richard Child
Dr Stephen Hood
Venue of Lectures:
Martin Harris (John Casken)
Venue of Tutorials:
Thursday 11-12 and 12-1
Thursday 2-3
Friday 11-12 and 12-1
6.
Convenor
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected])
([email protected] )
([email protected])
([email protected])
Roscoe 4.3
Roscoe 2.2
University Place 6.207
Assessment
The mode of assessment is a two-hour unseen examination to be taken at the end of the
course worth 2/3 of the total mark, and an assessed essay worth 1/3 of the total mark.
The examination paper will have two sections (A and B) – students are required to answer
3
two questions, one question from each section.
Section A: Justice & Children 2, Punishment and Intergenerational Justice
Section B: Just War, Markets 1 and Markets 2
7.
General Course Readings
Some required readings may be made available electronically via the course website. All
other readings will be available from the John Rylands University Library. Most reading is
specific to particular topics, however, although not required, the following more general
textbooks are helpful and recommended:
1. Kymlicka, W. (2002) Contemporary Political Philosophy (Oxford University Press).
4
2. Farrelly, C. (2004) An Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory (London: Sage).
3. Dryzek, J., Honig, B., & Phillips, A. (eds.) (2006) The Oxford Handbook of Political
Theory (Oxford University Press).
4. Goodin, R.E. and Pettit, P. (eds.) (1996) A Companion to Contemporary Political
Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers)
8. Overview of course
Key to lecturers initials: sdw = Steve de Wijze; tp = Tom Porter; jp = James Pattison; rc =
Richard Child; ls = Liam Shields; sh = Stephen Hood
31st Jan – Introduction (LS)
7th Feb - Dirty Hands (SDW)
14th Feb - Justice & Children 1 (LS)
21st Feb - Justice & Children 2 (LS)
28th Feb - Punishment (RC)
7th March Intergenerational Justice (TP)
14th March - Markets 1 (SH)
21st March - Market 2 (SH)
EASTER BREAK
18th April - Just War (JP)
25th April – Conclusion (LS)
9. Outline of each topic
Lecture 1. The Political Morality of Dirty Hands - Dr Steve de Wijze
Lecture theme: Introducing the concept of ‘dirty hands’ and exploring its relationship to a
notion of a political morality.
Required reading
 Walzer, M. (1973) ‘Political Action: The Problem of Dirty Hands’, Philosophy & Public
Affairs, Vol 2 Number 2. (Winter)
 Coady, C.A.J.(1993) Politics and the Problem of Dirty Hands’ in Singer, P. (ed.) (1993)
A Companion to Ethics, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).
 Garrett, S. (1996) Conscience and Power: An Examination of Dirty Hands and Political
Leadership, (London: Palgrave) Preface and Ch.1.
 Rynard, P. & Shugarman, D. (eds) (2000) Cruelty & Deception, (Australia: Pluto Press)
Introduction pp11-18 and Appendix pp. 251-261.
 de Wijze, S. (2007) ‘Dirty Hands: Doing Wrong to do Right’ in Politics and Morality
(ed.) Igor Primoratz: ch. 1
Additional reading
 Stocker, M. (1990) Plural and Conflicting Values, (Oxford: OUP) Chs 1-2.
 Thompson, D.(1987) Political Ethics and Public Office, (Harvard University Press) Ch.
1.
 Benn, S. I. and Gaus G. F. (eds.) (1983) Public and Private in Social Life, (London:
Macmillan) Ch.7
 Rynard and Shugarman (eds.) (2000) Cruelty and Deception - read the following
articles. Note that the first 4 articles argue for the notion of ‘dirty hands’ while the
subsequent 4 argue against it:
FOR: Beiner, ‘Missionaries and Mercanaries’ Ch. 2.
Allett, ‘Bernard Shaw and Dirty-Hands Politics: Ch3.
Sorell, ‘Politics, Power and Partisanship’: Ch. 4.
Simpson, ‘Justice, Expediency, and Practices of Thinking’: Ch. 6.
AGAINST
Nielsen, ‘There is No Dilemma of Dirty Hands’: Ch. 8.
Yeo, ‘On the one hand and on the other’: Ch.9.
McDonald, ‘Hands: Clean and Tied or Dirty and Bloody’: Ch.11.
Shugarman, ‘Democratic Dirty Hands?’:Ch. 14.

Primoratz, I. (ed.) (2007) Politics and Morality, (New York: Palgrave) Chs. 2-4
Sample of examination questions
i)
ii)
iii)
Is the political world a place where morality is suspended?
Are claims about dirty hands conceptually confused?
Could an action be morally justified but nevertheless also morally wrong
6
Lecture 2. Social Justice and Children 1: Justifying the Right to Rear
– Dr Liam Shields
Lecture Theme: It is common practice for some adult or adults – parents – to have custody
of a child where this means making a number of important decisions about what the child
does. The exercise of these powers has a profound effect on the child. This week’s lecture
will explore arguments in favour of answers to the question of how child-rearing
arrangements should be organised. Questions include whether children should be reared by
adults as opposed to institutions and whether these adults should be their biological parents,
the best possible parent, or any good enough parent.
Required Reading:
 Brighouse, H. & Swift, A. 2006b. “Parents’ Rights and the Value of the Family”. Ethics
117: 80-108.
 Shoeman, F. 1980. “Rights of Children, Rights of Parents, and the Moral Basis of the
Family”. Ethics 91: 6-19.
 Vallentyne, P. “The Rights and Duties of Childrearing” in William and Mary Bill of
Rights Journal Vol. 11 2003:991-1009.
Additional Reading:
 Hannan, S. & Vernon, R. 2008. Parental Rights: A Role Based Approach. Education
Theory and Research: 173-89.
 Gheaus, A. “The Right to Parent One’s Biological Baby” Journal of Political Philosophy:
1-24
 Liao, S. M. 2006. The Right of Children to be Loved. The Journal of Political
Philosophy: 420-40.
 MacLeod, C. 2010. Primary Goods, Capabilities and Children.in Brighouse, H. &
Robeyns, I. (ed.s). Measuring Justice. Cambridge University Press: 174-92.
 Munoz-Darde, V., 1999. Is the family to be abolished then? Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society, 99, 37–56.
 MacLeod, C. 1997. Conceptions of Parental Autonomy. Politics and Society 25: 117-40.
 Reshef, Y. 2013. Rethinking the value of families. Critical review of international social
and political philosophy, 16 (1). pp. 130-150 < http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/fcri20>
Seminar Questions:
1. Who has an interest in the way that children are reared in society?
2. What kind of interest does each party have?
3. Many adults want to have and rear children, is this an important factor when
evaluating child-rearing practices?
4. What are the reasons for rearing children in state run orphanages?
Lecture 3. Social Justice and Children 2: What can parents do for their children
– Dr Liam Shields
Lecture Theme: Many people believe that we have special permissions to favour our own
children but there must be limits to this. This lecture will focus on the limits to the right to
rear with particular attention given to autonomy and religious enrolment, and equality of
opportunity and private education, bequest and reading bedtime stories.
Required Reading:
 Brighouse, H. & Swift, A. 2009a. “Legitimate Parental Partiality” Philosophy and Public
Affairs 37: 43-80.
 Clayton, M. 2012. Debate: The Case against the Comprehensive Enrolment of Children.
Journal of Political Philosophy 20: 353–364.
 Schrag, F. 1976. Justice and the Family. Inquiry 19: 193-208.
Additional Reading on Equality of Opportunity and Conferring Advantage:
 Archard, D. 2002. Children, Multiculturalism and Education.in Archard, D. & MacLeod,
C. (ed.s). The Moral and Political Status of Children. Oxford University Press: 142-60.
 Brighouse, H. & Swift, A. 2006b.Parents’ Rights and the Value of the Family. Ethics 117:
80-108.
 Lazenby, H. 2010. One Kiss Too Many? Giving, Luck Egalitarianism and Otheraffecting Choice. Journal of Political Philosophy 18: 271-86.
 MacLeod, C. 1997. Conceptions of Parental Autonomy. Politics and Society 25: 117-40.
 Miller, D. 2009. Equality of opportunity and the family. In: D. Satz and R. Reich, eds.
Toward a humanist justice: the political philosophy of Susan Moller Okin. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Additional Reading on Autonomy and Comprehensive Enrolment:
 Brighouse, H. 2006. On Education. Routledge. Part One and Two
 Clayton, M.
 Fowler, T. 2010. “The Problems of Liberal Neutrality in Upbringing” Res Publica 16
(4):367-381
 MacLeod, C. & Archard, D. (ed.s).The Moral and Political Status of Children. Oxford
University Press. Especially pieces by Noggle and Callan.
Seminar Questions:
1. What is a good reason for sending your child to private school? Why is this a good
reason?
2. Should parents consider the possible disruption of equality of opportunity when
interacting with their children?
3. Should parents be permitted to enrol their children into religious organisations?
4. Is autonomy an important constraint on what parents should be allowed to do for their
children?
8
Lecture 4. Punishment – Dr Richard Child
Focus of Lecture : On what grounds (if any) may states permissibly punish their citizens? In
this lecture we consider the strengths and weaknesses of various answers that have been
offered to this question.
Required Reading
 Hart, H.L.A. (1960) ‘Prolegomenon to the Principles of Punishment’, Proceedings of the
Aristotelian Society, 60: 1-14 & 16-26.
 Goldman, A.H., (1979) ‘The Paradox of Punishment’, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 9
(1): 42-58.
Further Reading
Articles and Individual Chapters
 Bedau, H.A. (1978) ‘Retribution and the Theory of Punishment’, The Journal of
Philosophy, 75 (11): 601-620.
 Cottingham, J.G. (1979) 'Varieties of Retribution', Philosophical Quarterly, 29:
238-46.
 Dagger, R. (2008) ‘Punishment as Fair Play’, Res Publica 14: 259-275.
 Duff, A. (2003) 'Punishment', in The Oxford Handbook of Practical Ethics, ed. H.
LaFollette, Oxford University Press: 331-57.
 Feinberg, J. (2003) ‘The Classic Debate’, in Feinberg and Coleman (eds.) Philosophy of
Law.
 Gardner, J. (2007) Offences and Defences, Oxford University Press: chapters 10 & 11.
 Hampton, J. (1984) ‘The Moral Education Theory of Punishment’, Philosophy and
Public Affairs, 13 (3): 208-238.
 Hart, H.L.A. (2008) Punishment and Responsibility, 2nd Edition, Oxford University
Press: chapters 1 & 2 and Intro by John Gardner.
 Nino, C.S. (1983) 'A Consensual Theory of Punishment', Philosophy and Public Affairs,
12: 289-306.
 Rawls, J. (1955) 'Two Concepts of Rules' Philosophical Review, 64: 3-32.
 Scanlon, T.M. (2003) The Difficulty of Tolerance, Cambridge University
Press: ch.12.
 Wellman, C.H. (2012) ‘The Rights Forfeiture Theory of Punishment’, Ethics 122 (2):
371-393.
Books (including edited collections)
 Acton, H.B. (ed.) (1969) The Philosophy of Punishment, Macmillan.
 Boonin, D. (2008) The Problem of Punishment, Cambridge University Press.
 Duff A. and Garland, D. (1994) A Reader on Punishment, Oxford University Press:
especially chapters by Murphy, Feinberg, von Hirsch.
 Duff, A. (2003) Punishment, Communication, and Community, Oxford University Press.
 Honderich, T. (2006) Punishment: The Supposed Justifications Revisited, Pluto Press.
 Kramer, M. (2011) The Ethics of Capital Punishment, Oxford University Press.
 Lacey, N. (1988) State Punishment: Political Principles and Community Values,
Routledge.
 Matravers, M. (2000) Justice and Punishment, Oxford University Press:
introduction and chs. 1-3. [Also available from www.oxfordscholarship.com]
 Ten, C.L. (1987) Crime, Guilt and Punishment, Oxford University Press: especially
chapters 1, 2, 7.
 Tonry, M. (ed.) (2011) Why Punish? How Much? A Reader on Punishment, Oxford.
 Von Hirsch, A., Ashworth, A. and Roberts, J. (eds.) (2009) Principled Sentencing:
Readings on Theory and Practice, 3rd Edition, Hart Publishing.
Sample questions
1. What is the most plausible or appealing ‘general justifying aim’ of criminal
punishment?
2. Can we make sense of so-called ‘mixed’ or ‘hybrid’ theories of punishment like the
ones espoused by Hart and Rawls?
3. What is the paradox of punishment and is there any way of escaping from it?
4. Can we make sense of the notion of an offender ‘forfeiting’ his or her right not to
be punished?
Lecture 5. Intergenerational Justice -
Dr Thomas Porter
Lecture theme: The idea that we stand in moral relations to one another can be explained in
part by appeal to the fact that we must live together somehow. But that fact will not explain
how we can have duties to most past and future generations. Can our actions harm people
who wouldn’t have existed if we hadn’t acted in that way? Can people alive today claim
compensation for injustices perpetrated against their ancestors?
Required reading
 Parfit, D. (1984) Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 16.
Available via Oxford Scholarship Online.
 Kumar, R. (2003) ‘Who Can Be Wronged?’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 31, no. 3,
pp. 99-118. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3557934
 Sher, G. (1981) ‘Transgenerational Compensation’, Philosophy & Public Affairs, vol. 33,
no. 2, pp. 181–200. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3558013
Additional reading
 Shiffrin, S. (1999) ‘Wrongful Life, Procreative Responsibility, and the Significance of
Harm’, Legal Theory, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 117-148. Available at: http://journals.cambridge.or
g/action/displayIssue?jid=LEG&decade=1990&volumeId=5&issueId=02&iid=48516#
 Meyer, L. (2008) ‘Intergenerational Justice’, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice-intergenerational/
 Locke, J. (1690) Second Treatise of Civil Government. Chapter V. Available at:
http://www.constitution.org/jl/2ndtr05.htm
 Parfit, D. (1984) Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Part IV.
Samples of questions
i) Do we owe compensation for their ancestors’ enslavement to the descendants of slaves?
ii) Can someone be harmed by an action which brings her into existence?
10
Lecture 6. Morality and Markets 1: Markets and Corruption – Stephen Hood
Lecture theme
One common charge levelled against markets is that their operation has a corrupting
influence upon societies, due to the reliance upon self-interested motivations and commercial
notions of value. This lecture will assess some key arguments about the moral character of
markets. Do markets affect societies and their members in a positive or a negative manner?
Do markets ‘crowd out’ virtuous social norms? Are there some goods that ought not to be
bought or sold?
Required reading
 Satz, D. (2010) Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets.
Oxford: Oxford University Press. Chapter 1: What Do Markets Do? (available from
www.oxfordscholarship.com).
 Sandel, M. (2012) What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. London: Allen
Lane. Chapter 3: How Markets Crowd Out Morals.
OR
Sandel, M. (1998) What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets. Tanner Lectures
on Human Values. http://baihua.org/user_image2/2011/11/1320205825_1.pdf
 Marx, K. & F. Engels (1848) The Communist Manifesto. Chapter 1: Bourgeois and
Proletarians. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communistmanifesto/ch01.htm#007
Additional reading
 Satz, D. (2010) Why Some Things Should Not Be For Sale: The Moral Limits of Markets.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 Bowles, S. (2011) ‘Is Liberal Society a Parasite on Tradition?’ Philosophy & Public
Affairs 39, no. 1, pp. 46-81
 Gneezy, U. & A. Rustichini. (2000) ‘A Fine Is a Price’. Journal of Legal Studies 29, no. 1
pp. 1–17.
 Kanbur, R. (2004) ‘On Obnoxious Markets’. In Globalization, Culture and the Limits of
the Market: Essays in Economics and Philosophy, ed. Stephen Cullenberg and Prasanta
Pattanaik. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
http://www.arts.cornell.edu/poverty/kanbur/Obnoxious%20Markets.pdf
 Wolff, Jonathan. “Market Failure, Common Interests, and the Titanic Puzzle.” In
Egalitarianism: New Essays on the Nature and Value of Equality, ed. K. LippertRasmussen and N. Holtung. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. http://sasspace.sas.ac.uk/663/1/J_Wolff_Titanic.pdf
 Hill L (2006) ‘Adam Smith and the theme of corruption’. The Review of Politics 68: pp.
636–62.
 Cohen, G.A. (2009) Why Not Socialism? Princeton University Press.
 ‘Debate: Trade in Human Organs’ Journal of Medical Ethics Vol. 29: No. 3 (2003)
Sample questions
iii) Do markets erode altruistic motivations?
iv) Why might we want to restrict certain goods from being traded on markets?
Lecture 7. Morality and Markets 2: Markets and Freedom – Stephen Hood
Lecture Theme
Defenders of markets often make a strong appeal to their positive influence upon individual
freedom. Meanwhile, opponents perceive markets to be oppressive and coercive. This lecture
will outline how a range of positions within political philosophy understand the relationship
between markets and individual freedom, and will assess the relative weight they place upon
economic freedoms.
Required Reading
 Cohen, G.A. (1983) ‘The Structure of Proletarian Unfreedom’. Philosophy & Public
Affairs Vol.12: No. 1. pp. 3-33.
 Tomasi, J. (2012) Free Market Fairness. Oxford: Princeton University Press. Chapter 3:
Thinking the Unthinkable.
OR
Shapiro, D. (1995) ‘Liberalism, Basic Rights, and Free Exchange’. Journal of Social
Philosophy Vol. 26: No. 2. pp. 103-126
 Freeman, S. (2012) ‘Symposium on John Tomasi’s Free Market Fairness: Can Economic
Liberties Be Basic Liberties?’ Bleeding Heart Libertarians.
http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/06/can-economic-liberties-be-basic-liberties/
Additional Reading
 Freeman, S. (2001), ‘Illiberal Libertarians: Why Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View’.
Philosophy & Public Affairs, 30: 105–151
 Hayek, F. (1944) The Road to Serfdom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
 Gaus, G. (2007) ‘On Justifying The Moral Rights Of The Moderns: A Case Of Old Wine
In New Bottles’. Social Philosophy and Policy Vol. 24: No. 1. pp 84-119.
 Nozick, R. (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
 Cohen, G.A. (1977) ‘Robert Nozick and Wilt Chamberlain: How Patterns Preserve
Liberty’. Erkenntnis Vol. 11: No. 1. pp. 5-23.
 Rawls, J. (2001) Justice as Fairness - A Restatement, ed. Erin Kelly. London. Harvard
University Press. Sections 32, 41-2, 49 & 52.
 O’Neill, M. & T. Williamson (eds.) (2012) Property-owning Democracy: Rawls and
Beyond. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sample Questions
12
i)
ii)
Do markets preserve or erode individual liberty?
Are liberal egalitarians correct in affording full economic rights a lesser role than
Lecture 8. Just War Theory - Dr James Pattison
Lecture Aim: This week we will consider the leading theory in the ethics in war -- Just War
Theory. We will see how this approach differs to pacifist and Realist approaches to warfare,
examine the difference between jus ad bellum and jus in bello criteria, and consider which
principles should govern war.
Lecture Plan:
I. What is Just War Theory? II. The Principles: jus ad bellum. III. The Principles: jus in
bello. IV. The Principles: jus post bellum V. Conclusion.
Required readings



McMahan, Jeff (2004) “The Ethics of Killing in War” Ethics, 114, 693-733.
Orend, Brian (2005) “War” in Edward Zalta (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Available at http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
Walzer, Michael (2006) Just and Unjust Wars, Fourth Edition, USA: BasicBooks. [15
copies in library, including in High Demand]
Other readings











Bellamy, Alex (2006) Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq, Cambridge: Polity Press
Coates, A. J. (1997) The Ethics of War, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Elshtain, Jean Bethke (ed.) (1992), Just War Theory, New York: New York University
Press [in High Demand]
Holmes, Robert L (1992) “Can War be Morally Justified? The Just War Theory” in Jean
Bethke Elshtain (ed.) Just War Theory, New York: New York University Press
Estlund, David (2007) “On Following Orders in an Unjust War”, Journal of Political
Philosophy, 15 (2), 213–34.
Fisher, David (2011) Morality and War: Can War be Just in the Twenty-First Century?
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frowe, Helen (2011) The Ethics of War and Peace: An Introduction (London:
Routledge).
Heinze, Eric and Brent Steele (eds) (2009) Ethics, Authority and War: Non-State Actors
and the Just War Tradition, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan
Lazar, Seth (2010) “The Responsibility Dilemma for Killing in War: A Review Essay”,
Philosophy & Public Affairs, 38 (2), 180–213. [On McMahan]
McMahan, Jeff (2005) “Just Cause for War” Ethics & International Affairs, 19 (3), 1-21.
McMahan, Jeff (2007) “The Sources and Status of Just War Principles” Journal of
Military Ethics 6 (2), 91–106.








McMahan, Jeff (2008) “The Morality of War and the Law of War”, in David Rodin and
Henry Shue (eds), Just and Unjust Warriors: The Legal and Moral Status of Soldiers,
Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 19–43. [in High Demand]
McMahan, Jeff (2009) Killing in War, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Also see:
http://jeffersonmcmahan.com [this has lots of Jeff McMahan’s papers on Just War
Theory]
Nagel, Thomas (1972) “War and Massacre” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1 (2), 123-44.
Orend, Brian (2006) The Morality of War, Ontario: Broadview Press
Pattison, James (forthcoming) “When Is It Right to Fight? Just War Theory and the
Individual-Centric Approach”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice [Available on Online
First on the journal website]
Reichberg, Gregory M. Henrik Syse, and Endre Begby (eds) (2006) The Ethics of War:
Classic and Contemporary Readings, Oxford: Blackwell. [in High Demand]
Rodin, David (2002) War and Self-Defense, Oxford: Clarendon Press. [available on
Oxford Scholarship Online]
United States Catholic Bishops “The Challenge of Peace: God’s Promise and Our
Response” in Jean Bethke Elshtain (ed.) Just War Theory, New York: New York
University Press [in High Demand]
On Michael Walzer’s Just War Theory











Beitz, Charles (1980) “Nonintervention and Communal Integrity” Philosophy & Public
Affairs, 9 (4), 385-91.
Caney, Simon (2005) Justice Beyond Borders: A Global Political Theory, Oxford:
Oxford University Press [see chapter 6]
Doppelt, Gerald (1978) “Walzer’s Theory of Morality in International Relations”
Philosophy & Public Affairs, 8 (1), 3-26.
Doppelt, Gerald (1980) “Statism without Foundations” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9
(4), 398-403.
Luban, David (1980) “Just War and Human Rights” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9 (2),
160-81.
Luban, David (1980) “The Romance of the Nation-State” Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9
(4), 392-97.
Orend, Brian (2000) “Michael Walzer on Resorting to Force” Canadian Journal of
Political Science, 33 (3), 523-47.
Orend, Brian (2000) Michael Walzer on War and Justice, Cardiff: University of Wales
Press.
Orend, Brian (2001) “Just and Lawful Conduct in War: Reflections on Michael Walzer”
Law & Philosophy, 20 (1), 1-30.
Walzer, Michael (1980) “The Moral Standing of States: A Response to Four Critics”
Philosophy & Public Affairs, 9 (3), 209-29.
Walzer, Michael (2004) Arguing about War, London: Yale University Press
***Also the symposium on Walzer in the 2009, 23 (4) edition of Ethics & International
Affairs:http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/publications/journal/23_4/symposium/index.html ***
14
Sample examination questions
1. When, if ever, is it morally acceptable to wage war?
2. Which principles of jus in bello, if any, are important when waging war?
-----------------------------------------