Manchester Centre for Political Theory (MANCEPT), University of Manchester, 5th – 7th September 2012

WORKSHOP ON ACCEPTABLE REASONS AND PUBLIC DELIBERATION

Convenor: Enrico Biale (University of Piemonte Orientale)

Many democratic theories tend to put forward the exchange of “acceptable reasons” as a main requirement of public deliberation: when deliberating on public affairs, citizens should strive to offer reasons that are ‘acceptable to all’. From an epistemic point of view, such a demand is assumed to make it all the more likely that deliberation’s outcome will itself be ‘acceptable’ from a general perspective. From a moral point of view, it is supposed to manifest each citizen’s commitment to democratic reciprocity and to equal participation in collective decision-making.

However, attempts to specify the criteria of acceptability encounter dire difficulties. First of all, in what sense can reasons be ‘acceptable’, if acceptability is to be reduced neither to de facto acceptance nor to normative truth? Furthermore, what are the bounds of the community within which reasons should be ‘acceptable to all’? Finally, how can we reconcile the need for an independent criterion of “acceptability” with the idea that deliberation should not simply reaffirm a prior conception of the acceptable, but rather help shape such a conception?

Confronted with these difficulties, recent contributions have suggested that deep pluralism makes the very idea of “reasons acceptable to all” irrelevant: we should rather focus on “reasons that people do accept” and submit them to substantive standards like the consistency with the requirements of reasonableness

Although such a proposal addresses real pitfalls, it is not clear if it is consistent with the epistemic, moral, and critical requirements that democratic deliberation ought to fulfill by granting the inclusion of each citizen’s claims on an equal footing and enhancing her critical standpoint, instead of focusing on her actual beliefs and preferences.

This panel aims to clarify what kind of ‘acceptability requirement’ democratic deliberation can and should impose on public reasons, if any.

This is a representative (and non-exhaustive) list of the topics of discussion:

• In what sense can deliberative reasons be said ‘acceptable’ ?
• To whom should reasons be acceptable in public deliberation? All members of the political community? All persons who are affected by the outcome of a deliberation? All human beings?
• Is ‘acceptability to all’ better understood as mutual acceptability? qualified acceptability? reasonable acceptability? universal acceptability?
• To be acceptable, do reasons have to be grounded in shared interests or common values? Can they be grounded in self-interests and partisan values?
• Should deliberative democracy dispense with the idea of reasons that are acceptable to all?

Those who are interested in participating in the workshop are invited to send a short abstract (300-500 words) to Enrico Biale (enrico.biale@unipmn.it) by the 1st of June 2012.

Further information on the Mancept Workshops can be found at http://manceptworkshops2012.wordpress.com/

Rising economic inequality in Canada and other advanced industrialized states is a phenomenon much discussed by the media in recent years, and much studied by sociologists, social epidemiologists, and scholars of public health. Political theorists and philosophers too have been concerned with abstract notions of equality, and to what extent material inequalities within states are compatible with the more general notion that all individuals are entitled to equal respect. These arguments have however largely failed to consider that high levels of inequality may be correlated with a host of social problems, such as poorer public health, lower levels of social trust, and higher crime rates.

In light of this research, this workshop asks philosophers to reflect on these empirical findings about the social and economic effects of inequality and it asks social scientists to consider whether philosophical conceptions of equality can shed light on possible normative and policy responses to the negative effects of rising social and economic inequality.

We are interested in scholarship focused on these questions: Are philosophical ideas about the notion of equality able to aid in the interpretation of the new data on inequality? Can social scientists benefit from philosophical analysis distinguishing among conceptions of equality? Does the new data press us towards adopting any particular egalitarian perspectives – welfare or resource based or other – as best equipped to respond to the consequences of rising inequality? Additional questions participants may choose to pursue include whether normative theories about equality and inequality need to respond to “real world” facts at all, and what the relationship between the empirical and philosophical ought to be. Participants may also choose to combine reflection on these and other “meta” questions with discussion of aspects of welfare that have been newly illuminated by data on inequality.

Confirmed speakers include Richard Arneson (University of California, San Diego), Joseph Carens (University of Toronto), Miles Corak (University of Ottawa), Jay Drydyk (Carleton University), Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (Aarhus University), Kristi Olson (Princeton/Stanford), Martin O’Neill (York University, UK), and Gopal Sreenivasan (Duke University, tentative).

Those interested to participate should send abstracts (300 words) to Monique Deveaux (mdeveaux@uoguelph.ca) and Patti Tamara Lenard (patti.lenard@uottawa.ca) by May 30, 2012.

This blog aims to be a safe and supportive “grass roots” forum for early-career professional philosophers — graduate students, post-docs, and entry-level faculty members — to discuss their work, ideas, and personal-professional issues.  Philosophers who are not in the “early” stages of their careers are also invited to become contributing members, as their experiences in the profession may, for obvious reasons, be very much relevant to the blog’s aims.

Blog participants (i.e. any philosopher who wises to participate!) are invited to post (A) working papers and ideas, as well as post comments, questions, or concerns on issues including but not limited to:

• Navigating graduate school
• Publishing
• Work-life-family balance
• Etc.

This is not intended to be “my” blog.  My hope is to serve as primarily as blog moderator, and for the blog’s content to be driven by and for any and every early-career philosopher who wishes to contribute. As blog moderator, I promise to rigorously ensure a safe and supportive environment for all.  I will not approve, and will immediately remove, any contributions or comments that I (or anyone else) reasonably finds remotely derogatory or threatening.  Finally, anyone who wishes to make an anonymous post (e.g. to discuss an issue they are not comfortable attaching their name to) is welcome to email me their post and request that I post it anymously.  I will post any and all such requests, provided they otherwise satisfy the aims described in this mission statement.

If you would like to become a contributor to the Philosopher’s Cocoon, please simply send me an email at marvan@ut.edu.  Please also be sure to tell me in the email your present status (grad student, etc.), and feel free to provide me with a link to your homepage.

I hope that this blog finds its intended audience and grows organically to meet that audience’s needs.  I very much look forward to meeting anyone and everyone who chooses to participate.

Sincerely,

Marcus Arvan

Assistant Professor of Philosophy

University of Tampa

CFP: session on “Ideal and Nonideal Theory”

Where: Manchester Centre for Political Theory, University of Manchester

When: September 5-7, 2012

Conference Organizers: Chris Mills (workshop administrator), Thomas Porter, Jonathan Quong, James Pattison, Stephen De Wijze

Session Organizer: Marcus Arvan

Deadline for submissions: June 1, 2012

The MANCEPT Workshops in Political Theory is an annual conference at the University of Manchester on selected topics in political theory. Each session will consist of a reading and discussion of 3-12 selected papers.  The present CFP invites full paper submissions for a session on “ideal” and “nonideal theory.” Potential paper topics include (but are by no means limited to) the following:What is the proper role of “ideal theorizing” in political theory?  How well do existing ideal theories apply to nonideal conditions?  Should nonideal theory be guided by, or independent of, ideal theory?  If nonideal theory should be guided by ideal theory, how?

If you would like to present a paper in this session, please submit a full paper and abstract to marvan@ut.edu no later than June 1st, 2012. Please also include a separate cover sheet indicating your name, professional status (faculty, graduate student, independent researcher, etc.), and institutional affiliation. Papers may be of any length suitable for a peer-reviewed journal article. Please note that participants are responsible for seeking their own funding for travel/lodging/etc. For further details or questions, please contact marvan@ut.edu. Decision notices will be emailed by June 14th, 2012.

http://www.aspenpublishers.com/Product.asp?catalog_name=Aspen&category_name=&product_id=0735579822

If you would like a complimentary copy to review for possible use in your course, please send me an email at Corey_Brettschneider@Brown.edu or to one of the Aspen sales reps, Pandora.Gorman@wolterskluwer.com and note your mailing address. Aspen has been very prompt in sending the books out for review.

Here is a description: Constitutional Law and American Democracy is an integrated casebook and reader that guides students through the most important conflicts over legal issues and doctrines today, as debated by Supreme Court justices and leading academics. I use selections from the most influential articles and books in constitutional law, political theory, and legal history to introduce students to doctrinal debates. By showing competing interpretations of the Constitution, the book helps students to appreciate the stakes in the disputes between the justices on separation of powers, federalism, civil liberties, and the equal protection of the law. The format also encourages students to form thoughtful and well-developed positions about where they stand in these debates. In my own teaching, I have found that the book’s focus on controversial issues such as abortion rights, gay rights, and the right to bear arms serves as a highly effective “hook” in gaining the attention of students and drawing them into the wider framework of political values, legal doctrine, and constitutional interpretation that ultimately shape court cases and judicial opinions.

I hope the book is of interest!

http://web.utk.edu/~acureto1/tennessee-value-and-agency-tva-conference/

Abstracts/paper proposals are due by June 15, 2012.

The aim of the book is to introduce the reader to Plato’s political philosophy. The book is directed towards an audience that approaches Plato for the first time. In Plato politics cannot be dissociated from ethics, metaphysics and epistemology. One cannot fully appreciate Plato’s ‘ideal state’, without understanding Plato’s Theory of Forms and his conception of the soul. For this reason the purpose of the book is to place Plato’s political philosophy within Plato’s philosophy as a whole. The book mainly focuses on Plato’s Republic, but also discusses the Statesman and the Laws. Where necessary and in order to explicate main Platonic doctrines, reference is also made to other Platonic dialogues. The purpose of the book is to serve as a guide to Plato’s political dialogues.
The book is aimed at undergraduate students of political philosophy and the history of ideas, as well as to the general public.

Available from:

http://imprint-academic.com/plato

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Platos-Political-Philosophy-Evangelia-Sembou/dp/1845402561

http://www.amazon.com/Platos-Political-Philosophy-Evangelia-Sembou/dp/1845402561

• This new textbook introduces the major theories and issues in a clear and accessible way, enabling students to navigate their way through the complex and fast-moving set of debates on global justice

• It connects theory to practice by relating those theories to a series of important issues: human rights, natural resource ownership and sale, international trade, climate change and migration
• It brings issues to life through the use of Case Studies, and includes ‘Further Issues’ sections which discuss emerging debates that are likely to command increasing attention

Get 20% off with this link: http://www.cambridge.org/knowledge/discountpromotion?code=ARMSTRONG12

From the reviews:

‘In this fine book, Armstrong has filled a significant gap in the literature by providing a very clear, learned and comprehensive discussion.’ Christian Barry.

‘This is a lively, clearly written and very helpful textbook that is accessible and yet philosophically engaging.’ Margaret Moore.

‘This book does an excellent job of introducing students to some of the most interesting and significant philosophical arguments about global distributive justice…It does students a tremendous service.’ Darrel Moellendorf.

• About this book

Workshop on Well-being and Public Policy: Call for Abstracts

David Cameron, in a recent speech on introducing national measures of well-being to inform public policy, claimed that the UK government is aiming to measure the progress of the nation, “not just by how our economy is growing, but by how our lives are improving; not just by our standard of living, but by our quality of life.” In short, the UK government is looking to measure the nation’s well-being in order to “help make a better life for people.” Other governments and international organizations are also increasingly focusing upon well-being as a policy goal.

This workshop will focus on whether, and how, public policy can and should be informed, in some way, by considerations of the public’s well-being. There will be up to 12 speakers in total, who will be invited to give a 30 minute presentation, followed by a discussion. Potential areas of interest include (but are not limited to):

• The role of well-being in public policy
• The limits of political utilitarianism
• Paternalism and well-being
• The implications of different theories of well-being for public policy
• The interaction between different measures of well-being and public policy

If you are interested to present during this workshop, please send to one or both of us an abstract of no more than 500 words with your full name and institutional affiliation before May 15th.

Convenors:
Sam Wren-Lewis (University of Leeds): samwrenlewis@gmail.com
Tim Taylor (visiting research fellow, University of Leeds): phltet@leeds.ac.uk

Further details about the conference available at
http://manceptworkshops2012.wordpress.com/.

Editorial: Just war in the shadow of 9/11: Ten years on

David Boucher: The just war tradition and its modern legacy: Jus ad bellum and jus in bello

Cian O’Driscoll: A ‘fighting chance’ or fighting dirty? Irregular warfare, Michael Gross and the Spartans

James Pattison: The legitimacy of the military, private military and security companies, and just war theory

Peri Roberts: The supreme emergency exemption: Rawls and the use of force

Peter Sutch: Human rights and the use of force: Assertive liberalism and just war

Mark Evans: Just war, democracy, democratic peace

Graham Long: Disputes in just war theory and meta-theory

The August 27 workshop has the following program:

• Katrin Flikschuh (LSE): ‘Universal Human Rights and Selective Enforcement: some Kantian Reservations’
• Peter Niesen (Darmstadt): ‘Border-crossing Speech as a Human Right: a Kantian Perspective’
• Thomas Pogge (Yale): ‘Kantian Theory and International Human Rights Courts’
• Howard Williams (Aberystwyth): ‘Kantian Underpinnings for a Theory of Multirights’

For further information go to http://tinyurl.com/blbpjfk or write to reidar.maliks@nchr.uio.no. The workshop is free and open to the public but please let us know if you would like to attend.

The following day, the University of Oslo will host a graduate conference supported by the Norwegian Kant Society along with the Norwegian Association for Legal Philosophy with the aim of promoting Ph.D. level research and knowledge dissemination in the inter-disciplinary crossroads of Kantian philosophy and human rights jurisprudence. Graduate students are invited to submit a proposal for a paper, the presentation of which should be no longer than 30 minutes including questions and discussion. Papers will receive comments from Dr. Peter Niesen and Dr. Carola Freiin von Villiez. Professor Howard Williams will give a talk on ‘Re-evaluating Kant’s political philosophy after 30 years’.

Notification of accepted abstracts will be sent out no later than June 1st. Abstracts should be submitted to j.b.l.kristensen@ifikk.uio.no by May 18th.  The Norwegian Kant Society can reimburse travel accommodation expenses up to NOK 2000 (ca. 265€) for each participant presenting a paper at the Ph.D. conference. Of special concern is the promotion of research in Kantian philosophy and human rights in the Nordic countries, but everyone is invited to submit an abstract. There is a limit to the number of of seminar papers due to time constraints, however. Participation is open to the public, although prior registration is encouraged (j.b.l.kristensen@ifikk.uio.no)

Both events will take place at the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights, Cort Adelers gate 30, Oslo, Norway.

We invite submissions of articles up to 10,000 words, discussion notes up to 5,000 words, and replies and exchanges not exceeding 3,000 words. All published submissions will be subject to double blind review, and the journal will notify authors of submitted pieces about the progress of their submission within six weeks.

Although LEAP accepts exclusively submissions in English the journal strongly encourages submissions from authors who also write in languages other than English, and will always strive to ensure that their work is assessed on the basis of its content and not primarily its mode of expression. Where necessary the editorial process provides such authors with guidance regarding matters of English style.

The journal is published digitally by Marcial Pons, the leading publisher of analytical legal philosophy in the Spanish-speaking world. Volume I will include articles by Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Thomas Pogge, and Michael Smith, among others, and be an open-access sample publication.

Submission Guidelines

Submission of a manuscript to LEAP is understood to imply that the manuscript is offered for first publication in LEAP and that no version is under consideration by any other journal or publisher. This guideline does not rule out submissions published as working papers or posted electronically on the author’s personal website or for circulation at a conference.

Papers should be submitted as WORD or PDF documents and composed in a twelve point font. First submissions should not contain acknowledgements or any information that could identify the author to reviewers. Submissions should also be edited carefully to contain no more words than necessary.

Papers should be accompanied by a separate WORD or PDF document containing a title and word count, an abstract of less than 250 words, five keywords, the author’s contact details and affiliation, and a short biographical note. The accompanying document should also contain any material withheld from the paper to preserve anonymity.

All submissions should be sent to: leap.journal@marcialpons.es. Enquiries regarding the journal may be directed to: leap.editors@marcialpons.es.

Editors

José Luis Martí, Pompeu Fabra University

Hugo Seleme, NationalUniversity of Córdoba,Argentina

Associate Editors

Ingvild Almås,NorwegianSchoolof Economics

Samantha Besson,FribourgUniversity

Paula Casal,ICREA-PompeuFabraUniversity

Jordi Ferrer,UniversityofGirona

Ernesto Garzón Valdés,JohannesGutenbergUniversity,Mainz

Cristina Lafont, Northwestern University

Genoveva Martí, ICREA-University ofBarcelona

Lukas Meyer,UniversityofGraz

José Juan Moreso,PompeuFabraUniversity

Serena Olsaretti,ICREA-PompeuFabraUniversityandUniversityofCambridge

Félix Ovejero,UniversityofBarcelona

Zofia Stemplowska,UniversityofWarwick

Andrew Williams,ICREA-PompeuFabraUniversity

Editorial Board

Aulis Aarnio, Lucy Allais, Elizabeth Anderson, Richard Arneson, Gustaf Arrhenius, Michael Baurmann, Juan Carlos Bayón, Carmen Bevia, David Bilchitz, Geoffrey Brennan, Ian Carter, Joseph Chan, Thomas Christiano, Bruno Celano, Antony Duff, John Ferejohn, Victor Ferreres, Roberto Gargarella, Robert Goodin, Axel Gosseries, Lori Gruen, Riccardo Guastini, Alon Harel, Daniel Hausman, János Kis, Matthew Kramer, David Lefkowitz, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Frank Lovett, Stephen Macedo, Jeff McMahan, Jane Mansbridge, Adèle Mercier, Liam Murphy, Ingmar Persson, Philip Pettit, Thomas Pogge, Wlodek Rabinowicz, Joseph Raz, Debra Satz, Julian Savulescu, Seana Shiffrin, Anne Stilz, Victor Tadros, Larry Temkin, Jeffrey Tulis, Philippe Van Parijs, Georgia Warnke, Ruth Zimmerling.

Manchester Centre for Political Theory (MANCEPT), University of Manchester, 5th – 7th September 2012

WORKSHOP ON ACCEPTABLE REASONS AND PUBLIC DELIBERATION

Convenor: Enrico Biale (University of Piemonte Orientale)

Many democratic theories tend to put forward the exchange of “acceptable reasons” as a main requirement of public deliberation: when deliberating on public affairs, citizens should strive to offer reasons that are ‘acceptable to all’. From an epistemic point of view, such a demand is assumed to make it all the more likely that deliberation’s outcome will itself be ‘acceptable’ from a general perspective. From a moral point of view, it is supposed to manifest each citizen’s commitment to democratic reciprocity and to equal participation in collective decision-making.

However, attempts to specify the criteria of acceptability encounter dire difficulties. First of all, in what sense can reasons be ‘acceptable’, if acceptability is to be reduced neither to de facto acceptance nor to normative truth? Furthermore, what are the bounds of the community within which reasons should be ‘acceptable to all’? Finally, how can we reconcile the need for an independent criterion of “acceptability” with the idea that deliberation should not simply reaffirm a prior conception of the acceptable, but rather help shape such a conception?

Confronted with these difficulties, recent contributions have suggested that deep pluralism makes the very idea of “reasons acceptable to all” irrelevant: we should rather focus on “reasons that people do accept” and submit them to substantive standards like the consistency with the requirements of reasonableness

Although such a proposal addresses real pitfalls, it is not clear if it is consistent with the epistemic, moral, and critical requirements that democratic deliberation ought to fulfill by granting the inclusion of each citizen’s claims on an equal footing and enhancing her critical standpoint, instead of focusing on her actual beliefs and preferences.

This panel aims to clarify what kind of ‘acceptability requirement’ democratic deliberation can and should impose on public reasons, if any.

This is a representative (and non-exhaustive) list of the topics of discussion:

• In what sense can deliberative reasons be said ‘acceptable’ ?
• To whom should reasons be acceptable in public deliberation? All members of the political community? All persons who are affected by the outcome of a deliberation? All human beings?
• Is ‘acceptability to all’ better understood as mutual acceptability? qualified acceptability? reasonable acceptability? universal acceptability?
• To be acceptable, do reasons have to be grounded in shared interests or common values? Can they be grounded in self-interests and partisan values?
• Should deliberative democracy dispense with the idea of reasons that are acceptable to all?

Those who are interested in participating in the workshop are invited to send a short abstract (300-500 words) to Enrico Biale (enrico.biale@unipmn.it) by the 1st of June 2012.

Further information on the Mancept Workshops can be found at http://manceptworkshops2012.wordpress.com/

Please send your proposals to globaljustice@ub-filosofie.ro until 1st of May 2012. We welcome all suggestions (such as links to photos available under a Creative Commons license). If you know anyone interested, please pass it along.  Thank you!

[Keynote and guest speakers include: Thomas Pogge (Yale), David Miller (Oxford), Hillel Steiner (Manchester), Véronique Zanetti (Bilefield), Sebastiano Maffettone (Roma), Andreas Føllesdal (Oslo), and Lea Ypi (Oxford).]

The conference will be held at the University of Geneva on 27-28 June 2012. Speakers include: Prof. Richard Bellamy (University College London, UK), Prof. Jane Mansbridge (Harvard University, USA), Prof. David Miller (University of Oxford, UK), Prof. Cécile Laborde (University College London, UK), among many others. For more information please visit http://www.demconf.org. Contact Dr. Annabelle Lever (Programme Chair; Associate Professor of Normative Political Theory, University of Geneva, Switzerland) – annabelle@unige.ch.

Dr. Evangelia Sembou

http://www.psa.ac.uk/spgrp/39/polthought.aspx

Brave New World 2012, the Sixteenth Annual Postgraduate Conference organised under the auspices of the Manchester Centre for Political Theory (MANCEPT), will take place on Wednesday 27th and Thursday 28^th June 2012 at the University of Manchester.

We are pleased to announce that our guest speakers this year are:

Richard Arneson (University of California, San Diego)

Charles Larmore (Brown University)

The Brave New World conference series is now established as a leading international forum dedicated exclusively to the discussion of postgraduate research in political theory. The conference offers a great opportunity for postgraduates from many different countries and universities to share experiences, concerns and research interests, to exchange stimulating ideas and to make new friends – all in a financially accessible and highly informal setting. Participants will also have the chance to meet and talk about their work with eminent academics, including members of faculty from the University of Manchester and guest speakers, who will deliver keynote addresses at the event.

Guest speakers in previous years have included Brian Barry, Simon Caney, G.A. Cohen, Roger Crisp, Cecile Fabre, Jerry Gaus, Peter Jones, Chandran Kukathas, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Susan Mendus, David Miller, Onora O’Neill, Michael Otsuka, Bhikhu Parekh, Carole Pateman, Anne Phillips, Thomas Pogge, Joseph Raz, Andrea Sangiovanni, Quentin Skinner, Adam Swift, Philippe Van Parijs, Leif Wenar, Andrew Williams, and Jonathan Wolff.

Papers focusing on any area of political theory or political philosophy are welcome. If you would like to present a paper then please send a 300-word, anonymised abstract (including the title of the paper) to Brave.New.World@manchester.ac.uk no later than 9th April 2012. Please also include in your email, name and institutional affiliation. Please note that the conference is self-financed and participants are responsible for seeking their own funding. For further details please contact us at Brave.New.World@manchester.ac.uk

Applications for the MA Political Philosophy (The Idea of Toleration) received by April 10th will be eligible to be considered for a Morrell Studentship, which covers fees at Home/EU rates and a stipend.

Further details about these programmes, including profiles of previous students and information on the research interests of staff, is available here:

http://www.york.ac.uk/politics/prospective/postgraduates/pg-courses/ma-in-political-philosophy/