PSP: Paper Topics
The following are sample paper topics, which can be used for either the short papers or the term paper, or both:
Many political philosophers (including Hobbes, Rousseau, Gauthier, Kropotkin, and Bakunin)
are concerned with the conflict between authority and autonomy, but each offer different solutions to this problem. Discuss how does this conflict arise (making sure to explain the conceptions of authority and autonomy) and whether it can be resolved. (It might help to focus on one of the above philosophers and criticize his argument.)
Hobbes argues that because in the state of nature each person is constantly trying to satisfy his or her desires, they cannot achieve a state of cooperation. This state of cooperation can only be achieved by entering in a mutual agreement (a social contract) and transferring one's rights to the protection of the sovereign. Explain why Hobbes thinks that cooperation requires authority, making sure to say whether the distinction between needs and desires would yield different results.
Gauthier says that the class of appropriators must cooperate in order to bring about optimal outcomes. However, he does not think that such cooperation can be voluntary. Rather, the state is necessary in maintaining such a cooperative state of affairs. What is the role of the state in maintaining such cooperation, according to Gauthier? Does he think that the authority of the state can be justified? In what way? Do you agree? Why or why not?
In Social Contract as Ideology, Gauthier says that the practice of contractarianism must be explicitly denied if it is to be effective. What is the ideology of the social contract? Why does he think that the practice of contractarianism cannot be effective unless it is denied? What is the relation between this practice and society? What is the role of the state in making this practice effective? Do you agree with Gauthier? Why or why not?
Locke begins with the notion that property, if it is to be justified, must be tied to labor. Is this consistent with his claim that the labor of the servant belongs to the landowner? Why or why not? Can Locke's justification of ownership through labor be reconciled with the hereditary practices he is proposing? Why or why not?
Both Kropotkin and Bakunin argue that the laws cannot be justified and thus the authority of the state is also unjustifiable. Why do they think the laws cannot be justified? Do you agree with them? Why or why not?
Anarchists, like Kropotkin and Bakunin, argue that the state is necessary because the laws are unjustified. Why do they think that? Do you agree with them? Why or why not?
Can anarchism allow for social arrangements that are mutually beneficial? In answering this question make sure to define 'anarchism' and give some examples of social arrangements you think anarchism might be consistent or inconsistent with.
Engels says that the exploitation of the working class is inevitable under capitalism. Yet he does not think that 'modern socialism' can remedy this situation. Why is that? Do you agree with him? Why or why not?
Engels argues that "the overwork of some becomes the preliminary condition for the idleness of others" is the inevitable outcome of any capitalist system. This arrangement requires that the state in any capitalist society play a certain role. What is that role? Is Engels argument consistent with Gauthier's? What is the source of disagreement, if any, between the two?
In the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels argue that the distinguishing feature of Communism is the abolition of property. How can this be reconciled with the notion that property produced by one's labor rightfully belongs to one? In answering this question make sure to address Marx and Engels' distinction between labor and wage-labor and their relation to capital.
Marx and Engels argue that the communist society is preferable to the bourgeois society. State and evaluate their argument, as it appears in the Communist Manifesto. What is the relation of these societies to the state and its power?
Berlin argues primarily that the negative and positive conceptions of liberty are rival and incommensurable. More importantly, he argues that liberty is not necessarily superior or exclusive to other values such as equality, justice, happiness, etc., although it is certainly treated as such. Can liberty (whether it be negative or positive) ensure that a society that has it will be a good society? In answering this question, make sure to state which conception of liberty you are adopting, if not both, and what you take a good society to be.
Skinner argues that there is a third concept of freedom, absence of dependence. This lack of freedom, according to Skinner, is more detrimental for the well-being of the citizens than negative and positive freedom. Do you agree with Skinner? Why or why not?
Waldron argues that the problem of homelessness involves lack of negative freedom. Do you agree with Waldron? Why or why not?
Reiman argues that although crimes done by the corporations are equally harmful to the workers as other crimes done by individuals (like robbery, murder, etc), we don't seem to treat them in the same way. The reason, he thinks, is that the laws are in place to protect the capitalist at the expense of the worker. Do you think with Reiman? Why or why not?
Rawls argues that a theory of justice requires that inequalities are justified only when the worse off end up better of as a result of these inequalities. What is Rawl's conception of justice? Do you agree that inequalities are not justifiable unless the resulting distribution increases the welfare of the least advantageous? Why or why not?
Nozick argues that any patterned distribution is unjust. State his theory of entitlement and explain what determines whether a certain acquisition or transfer is just. Do you agree that inequalities resulting from just acquisitions or transfers are justifiable even if the resulting distribution decreases the welfare of the least advantageous? Why or why not?
What role, if any, chance plays in evaluating Nozick's theory of entitlement?
Barry argues that the apparent conflict between the principle of compensation and the principle of personal responsibility can be alleviated by accepting a semi-choicist position. Explain his proposal and evaluate whether it succeeds in solving the problem.
Are there any natural rights? After explaining the conception of natural right you accept (you should use Aquinas or Hart here), explain whether you think there are any. Is the right to property best conceived as a natural right? Why or why not?
What is Aquina's view on property? How does it compare to Nozick's (especially his talk about mixing one's labor) and Marx's?
Dworkin argues that citizens have the right to break the law (especially in cases of civil disobedience). What is his argument? Does his argument succeed in supporting this claim? Why or why not?
In Marx's view, the institutions of capitalism, which are consequences of human behavior), come back to structure our future behavior and thereby determining the possibilities of our actions. How does this relate to labor, capital, and well-being?
Williams distinguishes between "inequality of need" and "inequality of merit". What is the difference and how do these concepts equality of opportunity?
Williams argues that the phrase "All men are equal" is not trivial even in its 'weak' interpretation. What does he mean?
Parfit argues that attempt to base the need for redistribution on equality fail. His priority view, on the other hand, supports the claim that redistribution for those who are worse off are morally obligatory. Explain his argument and whether it succeeds (making sure to talk about whether equality is a relational property and how the concept of priority fares better with respect to the Leveling-down objection and the Divide World.)
Does the argument from deservingness support the claim that welfare (i.e., public assistance) cannot help the poor, according to Arneson?
How does paternalism differ from Arneson's quasi-paternalism? Is the latter view consistent with public assistance? Why or why not?
What is the Self-Sufficiency assumption and how does it purport to support the claim that public assistance is "bad"? Is someone who relies on inheritance self-sufficient? In what way does this sort of self-sufficiency differ from a poor person relying on public assistance?
According to Fraser and Gordon, 'dependency' is associated with stigma. Is this accidental or is it a historical and economic development? Why or why not?
The shifts of economic, socio-legal, political, and moral/psychological meanings of 'dependence' reflect a major socio-historical developments. How do Fraser and Gordon propose that we solve the stigma associated with dependence given that its meaning has shifted over the years? Does redefining 'dependence' require that we redefine 'work'? Why or why not?