Search

Aristotle's theory of political science includes the idea that government by the whole citizenry is better than that by one or a few citizens. In book 3, chapter 11 of 'Politics,' he says that each person may contribute a unique knowledge to a concept, so that the whole idea is understood better than if only one person considered it. This so-called 'doctrine of the wisdom of the multitude' is applied to other situations in Aristotle's works, including judging music, evaluating professional conduct and administering justice.

The theory of acquired obligation and the theory of natural duty are discussed. Focus is given to the latter to support the laws and institutions of a just state. Rebuttals to this theory are in the form of two major objections. The 'special allegiance' objection states that the theory does not explain the character of special allegiance to society. The 'application' objection centers on the failure of the theory to explain how a particular institution becomes the one to which an individual owes obedience and support to.

This is a collection of papers from a conference organized in San Diego in 1990 by the Social Philosophy and Policy Foundation (based in Bowling Green, Ohio). The papers address [...]

The article explores the political theory of Scottish philosopher David Hume. G. A. Cohen, Chichele Chair of Social and Political Theory, examines whether the possibility of changes to the society's institutional structure should be considered when talking about a just society. Cohen addressed the questions on justice and social states of affair in a paper entitled "How to Do Political Philosophy?" Particular focus is given to Hume's two-fold choice between an emphasis on virtue and an emphasis on institutions. Isaiah Berlin, another Chichele predecessor, examines the tasks of political philosophy. Berlin claims that social situations includes political organization and the relations of the individual to the community.

Jeremy Waldron is University Professor and Professor of Law at New York University, a position he has held since 2006. He has recently been elected to the Chichele Chair of Social and Political Theory at All Souls College, Oxford, which he will hold jointly with his NYU position beginning in 2011. Professor Waldron was born in New Zealand and educated in law and philosophy first at Otago University and then at Oxford. His career has included academic appointments at Edinburgh, Berkeley, Princeton, and Columbia. His recent books include God, Locke and Equality (Cambridge, 2002), and Torture, Terror and Trade-offs: Philosophy for the White House (Oxford, 2010). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article presents the author's response to criticisms on his book "Law and Disagreement." The book is about disagreements on thoughts about political legitimacy and legal and political institutions. It is argued that a liberal theory and a theory of politics should be formed. The author claimed that the practice of judicial review of legislation in the U.S. is not an appropriate or respectful of way of resolving good faith disagreements about rights in a modern democratic community.

Focuses on the rights of citizens to establish community. Principles of cosmopolitan rights; Features of political theory; Control of resources.

Discusses the theoretical foundations of liberalism. Definition of the terms 'socialism', 'conservatism' in relation to liberalism; Practical propositions that might be regarded as the core or the essence of the ideology in question; Development of the theory of government.

Bernard Grofman and Scott Feld argued in the June 1988 issue of this Review that Jean-Jacques Rousseau's contributions to democratic political theory could be illuminated by invoking the theorizing of one of his eighteenth-century contemporaries, the Marquis de Condorcet, about individual and collective preferences or judgments. Grofman and Feld's claims about collective consciousness and the efficacy of the public interest provoke debate. One focus of discourse lies in the application of Condorcet's jury theorem to Rousseau's theory of the general will. In this controversy David M. Estlund and Jeremy Waidron in turn raise a variety of issues of theory and interpretation; Grofman and Feld then extend their argument, and propose clarifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article analyses the normative status of claims to the social rights of citizenship in the light of New Right criticisms of the welfare state. The article assesses whether there is any normative justification for treating welfare provision and citizenship as intrinsically linked. After outlining T. H. Marshall's conception of citizenship the article reviews its status in relation to: traditional arguments about citizenship of the polity; relativist arguments about the embedded place of citizenship within current societies; and, drawing upon Rawlsian analysis, absolutist arguments about what being a member of a modern society implies. Each argument has some strengths and together they indicate the importance of retaining the idea of citizenship at the centre of modern political debates about social and economic arrangements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the internal morality of the practices and institutions of law. Compliance with the principles of the internal morality of law (IML) which include the principles of generality, promulgation, prospectivity, clarity, non-contradiction, practicability, constancy, and congruence between official action and declared rule, is necessary if one is going to achieve anything at all in the government or administration of a state. IML defines conditions for the efficacy of any system rules, Where efficacy means the ability of the system to serve the ultimate end for which the rules are deployed. But it does not follow that the IML principles are instrumentally justified by those ends. The rule of law was leavened by some very careful reflection on the political purposes that might actually be disserved by following the prerequisites of government by rules, the goals that might be better promoted by brushing aside IML. People cannot simply present adherence to the principles of IML as a necessary price to be paid for respecting freedom or for pursuing social goals in an atmosphere of liberty. Freedom may make demands that draw people in the opposite direction. Certainly the law is supposed to command respect and fidelity even among those who do agree with its substance.