Combined notes on the lectures and *SOME* required readings from the course (2023)
Contemporary Political Philosophy. INCLUDES notes from (Total: 39 pages):
● Lectures 1-12.
● Adam Swift’s textbook (3rd edition, 2014) “Political Philosophy: A beginners’ guide for
politicians and students”, introduction.
● David Miller’s textbook (2006) “The Liberty Reader”, chapter 2.
Contemporary Political Philosophy Lecture Notes (Lectures 1-12) and
*SOME* Required Readings
Table of Contents
Lectures 1-12 1
Lecture 1: Introduction 1
Lecture 2: Justice 2
Lecture 3: Liberty I (Berlin, MacCallum & Pettit) 7
Lecture 4: Equality 11
Lecture 5: Community 15
Lecture 6: Democracy 18
Lecture 7: Liberty II (Arendt) 19
Lecture 8: Liberty III (Taylor & Hirschmann) 21
Lecture 9: Global Justice I - Intro & Multiculturalism 24
Lecture 10: Global Justice II (Global Distributive Justice) 28
Lecture 11: Global Justice III (Immigration) 30
Lecture 12: Do Black Lives Matter? 33
Exam Prep 35
“Political Philosophy: A beginners’ guide for politicians and students” 36
Introduction 36
“The Liberty Reader” 37
2. Two Concepts of Liberty 37
, 1
Lectures 1-12
Lecture 1: Introduction
What is political philosophy?
Political Philosophy:
● Swift → branch of moral philosophy, interested in justification, in what the state ought
(ought NOT) to do (what people are morally permitted/required to make each other do).
● Fabre → theory of justice sets out the content of justice & delineates its scope.
Basic questions:
● When is a society just?
● What does it mean for its members to be free?
● What makes a political authority legitimate?
What is the relationship between political philosophy & political science?
● Political Science: Describes/explains political phenomena (e.g., how do we explain voter
behaviour? Why are some regimes more stable than others?).
● Political Theory: Addresses conceptual & normative questions (e.g., what do we mean by
democracy? how should we design political systems?).
● Political theory requires political science & political science questions require the political
theorists’ conceptual input.
5 core concepts:
1. Justice
2. Liberty
3. Equality
4. Community
5. Democracy
Why political philosophy?
Why political philosophy (Rawls)?
1. Uncover deep moral understanding/compatibility (searching core beliefs → discovering core
similarities).
2. Reconsider our institutions & purpose in participating in these institutions.
3. Understand institutions’ rational fabric through rational analysis.
4. Help create the terms for a reasonable utopia (accepting & structuring the world).
Rousseau → aim of political philosophy is to “take men as they are and laws as they should be.”
Thinking like a Political Philosopher
I. Social Justice: Complicated term (how can society be considered just/unjust?). What is meant
by social justice is a set of things (e.g., how can the law be justified? how should society be
organised?).
➔ Rawls’ proclamation that ‘justice is the first virtue of social institutions’.
, 2
II. Ideal Theory: Pursuit of ‘ideal’ principles that should guide society.
➔ 2 objections:
1. Realism = claim that the pursuit of the ‘ideal’ of justice is unmoored from
reality (qua politics) → idealist visions misunderstand politics’ nature.
● Distils irrational struggles for power (i.e., idealism = insensitive to
power).
2. Non-ideal theory = claim that ideal theories of justice CANNOT apply to
actual societies (i.e., it is unmoored from reality, qua pragmatics).
➔ Need principles for what to do in our actual societies. Ideal theory = abstract →
pursuing it may be dangerous (as it is unmoored from social reality).
➔ Why do ideal theory then?
1. Generate principles to guide society towards moral ends (‘lighthouse’
function).
2. Goal = figure out why an ideal society would be ideal.
3. It determines what values take precedence over others (helps adjudicate
between them).
4. Determine what is at stake morally, in political decisions.
Lecture 2: Justice
Fundamentals: Concepts & Conceptions
What is the difference between a concept & a conception?
● Concepts: Basic idea of a value/principle (e.g., justice, liberty) → broad, encapsulating many
different meanings (less specified).
➔ Concepts need to match our intuitions.
● Conception: Specific version of a concept supported by an author, honing it down to a
subset of meanings/characteristics (e.g., ‘republican conception of liberty’).
➔ Different conceptions can be compatible with the same broad concept.
● E.g., justice:
○ Concept = giving people what is due to them, tying justice to duty (what is morally
collectively required, through our political/social institutions, to do for one another).
○ Conception = Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, Nozick’s Justice as Entitlement.
Fundamentals: The Right & the Good
Rawls’ Theory of the Good: Person’s good is determined by what for them is the most rational
long-term plan of life given reasonably favourable circumstances → satisfaction of rational desire.
➔ Utility = “ends”.
➔ Substantive claims = the good life.
➔ Happiness.
➔ General moral point = how we should treat each other.
Rawls’ Theory of the Right: A set of principles (general in form & universal in application) that is
publicly recognised as a final court of appeal for ordering the conflicting claims of moral persons.
➔ De-ontology = “means”.
, 3
➔ Procedural claim = based on justice.
Sport examples:
● Bowling:
○ Good = whether you like bowling.
○ Right = whether you follow the rules to hit the bowling pins (follow procedure).
● You can be a good athlete, BUT if you use PHDs you are NOT right.
Fundamentals: Justice & Morality
Are Morality and Justice identical? NO.
● Justice is a subset of morality → some things are morally good, BUT NOT part of justice.
➔ E.g., Justice v. Charity = most people think we should give aid for famine relief
(charity), BUT this does NOT mean we must (morally praiseworthy, BUT NO duty to
do so).
● Justice: A moral duty sufficient to justify state coercion towards that end.
➔ Swift → state is justified via coercive power to ensure that people carry out their
duties to one another. Citizens are justified in using the state’s coercive apparatus
(laws, police, courts, prisons) to force one another to act in certain ways – including
those that some citizens might believe to be wrong.
➔ Rawls → most important natural duty is to support just institutions = comply with
just institutions & assist in the establishment of just arrangements when they do
NOT exist.
Justice Conception 1: Rawls & Fairness
Justice as Fairness (Rawls):
● Just institutions are created via social/consented contracts → what principles of justice
would you pick if you did not know how you were going to be affected by them?
○ Social contracts have problems → laws have NOT been signed.
○ Rawls sets up a hypothetical contract via a thought experiment = the original
position & veil of ignorance.
● Original Position: Imagines people choosing principles of justice, behind a veil of ignorance
(NOT knowing what they would sign). Essential features:
1. NO knowledge of ascriptive characteristics (e.g., race, sex, religion, social class,
intelligence) → decision is NOT biased by advantage (i.e., interests).
2. Do NOT know their conception of the good (i.e., what makes life worth living, their
values).
● HOWEVER, they do know they will need wealth of some sort (i.e., “primary goods”).
➔ Primary Goods: Things that every rational man is presumed to want (e.g., rights,
liberties, opportunities, income/wealth).
Original position = heuristic imagining one’s place in society chosen by their enemies →
“two principles are those a person would choose for the design of a society in which his
enemy is to assign him his place”.
E.g., imagine you’re in a society where you did NOT know if you were a man or a woman.
Contemporary Political Philosophy. INCLUDES notes from (Total: 39 pages):
● Lectures 1-12.
● Adam Swift’s textbook (3rd edition, 2014) “Political Philosophy: A beginners’ guide for
politicians and students”, introduction.
● David Miller’s textbook (2006) “The Liberty Reader”, chapter 2.
Contemporary Political Philosophy Lecture Notes (Lectures 1-12) and
*SOME* Required Readings
Table of Contents
Lectures 1-12 1
Lecture 1: Introduction 1
Lecture 2: Justice 2
Lecture 3: Liberty I (Berlin, MacCallum & Pettit) 7
Lecture 4: Equality 11
Lecture 5: Community 15
Lecture 6: Democracy 18
Lecture 7: Liberty II (Arendt) 19
Lecture 8: Liberty III (Taylor & Hirschmann) 21
Lecture 9: Global Justice I - Intro & Multiculturalism 24
Lecture 10: Global Justice II (Global Distributive Justice) 28
Lecture 11: Global Justice III (Immigration) 30
Lecture 12: Do Black Lives Matter? 33
Exam Prep 35
“Political Philosophy: A beginners’ guide for politicians and students” 36
Introduction 36
“The Liberty Reader” 37
2. Two Concepts of Liberty 37
, 1
Lectures 1-12
Lecture 1: Introduction
What is political philosophy?
Political Philosophy:
● Swift → branch of moral philosophy, interested in justification, in what the state ought
(ought NOT) to do (what people are morally permitted/required to make each other do).
● Fabre → theory of justice sets out the content of justice & delineates its scope.
Basic questions:
● When is a society just?
● What does it mean for its members to be free?
● What makes a political authority legitimate?
What is the relationship between political philosophy & political science?
● Political Science: Describes/explains political phenomena (e.g., how do we explain voter
behaviour? Why are some regimes more stable than others?).
● Political Theory: Addresses conceptual & normative questions (e.g., what do we mean by
democracy? how should we design political systems?).
● Political theory requires political science & political science questions require the political
theorists’ conceptual input.
5 core concepts:
1. Justice
2. Liberty
3. Equality
4. Community
5. Democracy
Why political philosophy?
Why political philosophy (Rawls)?
1. Uncover deep moral understanding/compatibility (searching core beliefs → discovering core
similarities).
2. Reconsider our institutions & purpose in participating in these institutions.
3. Understand institutions’ rational fabric through rational analysis.
4. Help create the terms for a reasonable utopia (accepting & structuring the world).
Rousseau → aim of political philosophy is to “take men as they are and laws as they should be.”
Thinking like a Political Philosopher
I. Social Justice: Complicated term (how can society be considered just/unjust?). What is meant
by social justice is a set of things (e.g., how can the law be justified? how should society be
organised?).
➔ Rawls’ proclamation that ‘justice is the first virtue of social institutions’.
, 2
II. Ideal Theory: Pursuit of ‘ideal’ principles that should guide society.
➔ 2 objections:
1. Realism = claim that the pursuit of the ‘ideal’ of justice is unmoored from
reality (qua politics) → idealist visions misunderstand politics’ nature.
● Distils irrational struggles for power (i.e., idealism = insensitive to
power).
2. Non-ideal theory = claim that ideal theories of justice CANNOT apply to
actual societies (i.e., it is unmoored from reality, qua pragmatics).
➔ Need principles for what to do in our actual societies. Ideal theory = abstract →
pursuing it may be dangerous (as it is unmoored from social reality).
➔ Why do ideal theory then?
1. Generate principles to guide society towards moral ends (‘lighthouse’
function).
2. Goal = figure out why an ideal society would be ideal.
3. It determines what values take precedence over others (helps adjudicate
between them).
4. Determine what is at stake morally, in political decisions.
Lecture 2: Justice
Fundamentals: Concepts & Conceptions
What is the difference between a concept & a conception?
● Concepts: Basic idea of a value/principle (e.g., justice, liberty) → broad, encapsulating many
different meanings (less specified).
➔ Concepts need to match our intuitions.
● Conception: Specific version of a concept supported by an author, honing it down to a
subset of meanings/characteristics (e.g., ‘republican conception of liberty’).
➔ Different conceptions can be compatible with the same broad concept.
● E.g., justice:
○ Concept = giving people what is due to them, tying justice to duty (what is morally
collectively required, through our political/social institutions, to do for one another).
○ Conception = Rawls’ Justice as Fairness, Nozick’s Justice as Entitlement.
Fundamentals: The Right & the Good
Rawls’ Theory of the Good: Person’s good is determined by what for them is the most rational
long-term plan of life given reasonably favourable circumstances → satisfaction of rational desire.
➔ Utility = “ends”.
➔ Substantive claims = the good life.
➔ Happiness.
➔ General moral point = how we should treat each other.
Rawls’ Theory of the Right: A set of principles (general in form & universal in application) that is
publicly recognised as a final court of appeal for ordering the conflicting claims of moral persons.
➔ De-ontology = “means”.
, 3
➔ Procedural claim = based on justice.
Sport examples:
● Bowling:
○ Good = whether you like bowling.
○ Right = whether you follow the rules to hit the bowling pins (follow procedure).
● You can be a good athlete, BUT if you use PHDs you are NOT right.
Fundamentals: Justice & Morality
Are Morality and Justice identical? NO.
● Justice is a subset of morality → some things are morally good, BUT NOT part of justice.
➔ E.g., Justice v. Charity = most people think we should give aid for famine relief
(charity), BUT this does NOT mean we must (morally praiseworthy, BUT NO duty to
do so).
● Justice: A moral duty sufficient to justify state coercion towards that end.
➔ Swift → state is justified via coercive power to ensure that people carry out their
duties to one another. Citizens are justified in using the state’s coercive apparatus
(laws, police, courts, prisons) to force one another to act in certain ways – including
those that some citizens might believe to be wrong.
➔ Rawls → most important natural duty is to support just institutions = comply with
just institutions & assist in the establishment of just arrangements when they do
NOT exist.
Justice Conception 1: Rawls & Fairness
Justice as Fairness (Rawls):
● Just institutions are created via social/consented contracts → what principles of justice
would you pick if you did not know how you were going to be affected by them?
○ Social contracts have problems → laws have NOT been signed.
○ Rawls sets up a hypothetical contract via a thought experiment = the original
position & veil of ignorance.
● Original Position: Imagines people choosing principles of justice, behind a veil of ignorance
(NOT knowing what they would sign). Essential features:
1. NO knowledge of ascriptive characteristics (e.g., race, sex, religion, social class,
intelligence) → decision is NOT biased by advantage (i.e., interests).
2. Do NOT know their conception of the good (i.e., what makes life worth living, their
values).
● HOWEVER, they do know they will need wealth of some sort (i.e., “primary goods”).
➔ Primary Goods: Things that every rational man is presumed to want (e.g., rights,
liberties, opportunities, income/wealth).
Original position = heuristic imagining one’s place in society chosen by their enemies →
“two principles are those a person would choose for the design of a society in which his
enemy is to assign him his place”.
E.g., imagine you’re in a society where you did NOT know if you were a man or a woman.
