Programma e contenuti
In the first part of the course, we shall examine the notion of equality, focusing in particular on the differences between distributive equality and relational equality, and on the foundational problem of ‘basic equality’. These various notions of equality will serve as a grounding in understanding the notion of democratic equality: what is it for citizens to relate as equals? What, goods exactly (voting power, access to certain resources, and so on), need to be equalized among citizens in order to secure the democratic legitimacy of a society?
We shall then look more closely at different theories of democratic legitimacy, comparing outcome-oriented accounts and procedural strategies to justify the validity of collective decisions. In a functioning democratic system, political equality, as a non-instrumental value, should be mirrored in political institutions that fairly distribute the power of affecting political choices. Yet, democratic procedures are often partly justified with reference to the alleged epistemic quality of democratic decisions.
As the last main topic for the course, we shall investigate the tension between the ideal of co-authorship of all citizens and the requirement to grant epistemic authority to individuals based on their specific expertise. How can we reconcile the fundamental epistemic role played by experts for informed collective decisions with the ideal of political equality? Attempts to answer this question require a philosophical investigation on the tensions between warranted epistemic privileges and the normative requirement of granting equal status as practical authorities to every member of the constituency, therefore rejecting epistocratic proposals.
Testi di riferimento
SECTION A
● Carter Ian, “Equality”, in A. Besussi (ed.) A Companion to Political Philosophy. Methods, Tools, Topics (Routledge, 2012), pp. 1–18.
● Christiano Thomas, “Democracy as Equality”, in D. Estlund (ed.) Democracy (Blackwell Readings in Philosophy, 2002), pp. 31–50.
● Waldron Jeremy, “Democracy”, in D. Estlund (ed.) Oxford Handbook of Political Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), pp. 344–375.
● Arneson Richard, “The Supposed Right to a Democratic Say” in T. Christiano and J. Christman (eds.) Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 197–212.
● Anderson Elizabeth, “Democracy: Instrumental vs. Non-Instrumental Value”, in T. Christiano and J. Christman (eds.) Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 213–228.
● Cohen Joshua, “Deliberation and Democratic legitimacy” in D. Estlund (ed.) Democracy (Blackwell Readings in Philosophy, 2002), pp. 87–106.
● Estlund David, “Beyond fairness and deliberation: The epistemic dimension of democratic authority”, in J. Bohman & W. Rehg (eds.), Deliberative Democracy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1997), pp. 173–204.
SECTION B
Seminar discussions for 5 weeks (10 hours of introductory lessons and 10 hours seminars):
● Electoral Systems
Beitz Charles, Political Equality: An Essay in Democratic Theory (Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1989), Capitolo 6 di Beitz "Proportional Representation" pp. 123-140.
● Epistocracy
Brennan, J. (2001) The Ethics of Voting, Princeton: Princeton University Press, Ch. 3, “Wrongful Voting”, pp. 68–94.
● Illegitimate political actions: the case of gerrymandering
Liveriero Federica, “Epistemic Injustice in the Political Domain: Powerless Citizens and Institutional Reform”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 23(5), 2020, pp. 797–813, DOI: 10.1007/s10677-020-10097-w.
● Enfranchisement: immigrants and younger citizens/lowering voting age
Beckman Ludwig, “Citizenship and Voting Rights: Should Resident Aliens Vote?”, Citizenship Studies, 10 (2), pp. 153–165.
Suggested readings:
- Bender Felix, “Enfranchising the disenfranchised: should refugees receive political rights in liberal democracies?”, Citizenship Studies, 25(1), pp. 56-71.
- Song Sarah, “Democracy and noncitizen voting rights”, Citizenship Studies, 13(6), pp. 607-620.
● Should democracy give a say to non-voters? How? Children, animals, future generations
Dobson, Andrew, “Representative Democracy and the Environment”, in Lafferty W. and Meadowcroft J. (eds.), Democracy and the Environment, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 124–139.
Suggested readings:
- Garner Robert, “Animals and democratic theory: Beyond an anthropocentric account”, Contemporary Political Theory, 16, pp. 459–477.
- Ekeli Kristian Skagen "Giving a Voice to Posterity", Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 429-450
- Gonzalez-Ricoy Iñigo and Rey Felipe, “Enfranchising the future: Climate justice and the representation of future generations”, WIREs Climate Change, 10(5), e598, pp. 1-12
- Rehfeld Andrew, “The Child as Democratic Citizen”, The Annals of the American of Political and Social Science, 633, pp. 141-166.
SECTION C readings for non-attender exam (esame per non-frequentanti):
• Bird Colin, “Democratic Rule”, in An Introduction to Political Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp. 201–222.
• Christiano Thomas, “Democracy”, in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/democracy/
• Martì Josè L., “The epistemic conception of deliberative democracy defended. reasons, rightness and equal political liberty”, in S. Besson & J. L. Martí (eds.), Deliberative democracy and its discontents (Aldershot: Ashgate), pp. 27–56.
Modalità verifica apprendimento
Assessment will be based on participation, an assessed essay, and an oral exam.
The final mark will be calculated as follows:
Participation, 20%%
Assessed Essay, 60%
Oral exam, 20%
Participation: The mark for participation will depend above all on the quality of your participation in the seminars – including, in case it applies, your active participation as a debater in one of the seminars.
Assessed essay: The essay should address a clear research question and must be no more than 4,000 (four thousand) words long. Students might decide autonomously on which topic-research question you want to focus their essay. However, the topic of the essay must be agreed upon in advance with the course teachers. Essays addressing questions that were not agreed upon beforehand with the course teachers will not be accepted. Instructions on how to write the essay will be provided at the beginning of the course.
Essays will be subject to the usual rules on plagiarism, and will be scanned using the relevant software. Essays will be assessed in terms of their clarity, structure, and argumentative rigor, in terms of their sensitivity to the relevant ethical and philosophical issues, and, ultimately, in terms of
the efficacy with which they answer the chosen research question.
Oral exam: The oral examination will consist of a short discussion of the paper submitted by the student and of some questions concerning other topics of the course. Performance in the oral exam will be assessed in terms of students' ability to discuss and critically assess the course arguments and to make connection among them.
It will not be possible to undergo the oral examination if the short paper is not submitted in time (a week in advance of the oral exam).
In both the written and oral examinations students should prove able to master the concepts, terms and other information provided during the course, and to discuss subjects clearly, concisely and rigorously, and, above anything else, in good enghlish prose. They should also show an ability to apply knowledge and understanding in communicating with non–specialists and in debating problems in an open and critical way.
Non-attender students will be evaluated on the essay (60%) and on a longer oral exam (40%) that will include also Section C of the exam bibliography.
Università di Pavia - Offerta formativa