Mixed approaches to the justification of punishment
Conclusion: punishment and beyond
4 Democracy
Introduction
Instrumentalism
Does democracy have non-instrumental value?
The problem of democratic citizenship
Democratic institutions
Conclusion
5 Power
Introduction
The concept of power and modes of power
Three dimensions of power
An alternative view of power
Power, freedom, and responsibility
Conclusion
6 Equality and social justice
Introduction: the history of social justice
The political rejection of social justice and its revival
Equality
Equality of opportunity
Social justice and social relations
The capability approach
Conclusion: prospects for achieving social justice
7 Toleration
Introduction
The traditional doctrine of toleration
The moral analysis of toleration
The contemporary liberal theory of toleration
Toleration as recognition
Conclusion
8 Multiculturalism
Introduction
Multiculturalism: thick or thin?
Liberalism and cultural rights
Do cultural rights oppress the oppressed?
The politics of recognition
Multiculturalism: open-minded dialogue and a common culture
Conclusion
9 Gender
Introduction
What is feminism?
The sex/gender distinction
Feminism, liberalism, and the law
‘The personal is political’
The ethics of care
Sex and violence
Conclusion
10 Global Poverty
The problem
Global political theory
The duty to aid
Uncertainty and ‘Why me?’
No duty of justice?
The duty not to harm
So, what can and should an individual do?
Conclusion
11 Human Rights
Introduction
Natural rights, the rights of man, and human rights
Analytical issues
Justifying theories
Implementing human rights
Conclusion
12 Sovereignty and Borders
Introduction
Sovereignty
Less or more sovereignty?
Who is sovereign?
Borders
The relationship between sovereignty and borders
Conclusion
13 War and Intervention
Introduction
The just war tradition
Theoretical approaches to the ethics of war
Jus ad bellum
Jus in bello
Jus post bellum
Conclusion
14 The Environment
Introduction
The environment and its relationship to humanity
Justice, value, and the environment
Responsibilities to the future
Policies to protect the environment
Who makes the decisions? Democracy and governance
Conclusion
Glossary
References
Index
Listofcasestudies
1
Nudging
Preamble and Article 1 of the Rome Statute
7 Same-sex marriage 8 Wisconsin v Yoder: the cultural rights of isolationist religious groups. 9 Pornography
Notes onthecontributors
TomCampbell isaformer professorial fellowintheCentrefor Applied PhilosophyandPublicEthics(CAPPE),CharlesSturt University, Australia.Hehasbeenavisitingprofessor intheSchool of Law,King’s College,London,Professor of Jurisprudenceat TheUniversityof Glasgow,andProfessor of Lawat theAustralianNational University. Heretiredfrom CharlesSturt Universityin2017andhassettledinto golfingandgardeninginCanberrawherehiswifeBethCampbell continuestoserveasamagistrate.
SimonCaney isProfessor of Political Theoryat theUniversityof Warwick. Heistheauthor of Justice Beyond Borders (2005) andtheco-editor of Climate Ethics: Essential Readings (2010).Hisresearchinterestsarein global justice,environmental justiceandclimatechange,andour responsibilitiestofuturegenerations.
IanCarter isProfessor of Political Philosophyat theUniversityof Pavia, Italy.Heistheauthor of A Measure of Freedom (OxfordUniversity Press,1999) andtheeditor,withMatthewH.Kramer andHillel Steiner, of Freedom: A Philosophical Anthology (Blackwell,2006).Hisarticles haveappearedin Ethics, Economics and Philosophy, The Journal of Political Philosophy,and Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy.Heis currentlyworkingontheconcept of basicequalityanditsroleina freedom-basedtheoryof justice.
ClareChambers isReader inPolitical PhilosophyandaFellowof Jesus College,Universityof Cambridge.Sheistheauthor of Against Marriage: An Egalitarian Defence of the Marriage-Free State (Oxford UniversityPress,2017); Sex, Culture, and Justice: The Limits of Choice (PennStateUniversityPress,2008); Teach Yourself Political Philosophy: A Complete Introduction(withPhil Parvin,Hodder,2012);
andnumerousarticlesandchaptersonfeminist andliberal political philosophy.
ThomasChristiano isProfessor of PhilosophyandLawat theUniversityof Arizona.Hehasbeenafellowat thePrincetonUniversityCenter for HumanValues,theNational HumanitiesCenter,All SoulsCollege,and AustralianNational University.Heistheauthor of TheRuleof the Many(Westview,1996) andTheConstitutionof Equality(Oxford UniversityPress,2008) andarticlesonmoral andpolitical philosophy. Heiseditor of Politics,PhilosophyandEconomics(Sage).Hiscurrent researchisonglobal justiceandinternational institutions,human rights,fair exchange,democracy,andthefoundationsof equality.
SarahFine isaSenior Lecturer inPhilosophyat King’sCollegeLondon.She isco-editor (withLeaYpi) of Migration in Political Theory: The Ethics of Movement and Membership (OxfordUniversityPress,2016).Much of her researchfocusesonissuesrelatedtomigrationandcitizenship.
HelenFrowe isWallenbergAcademyResearchFellowinPhilosophyat Stockholm University,whereshedirectstheStockholm Centrefor the Ethicsof War andPeace.Sheistheauthor of TheEthicsof War and Peace: AnIntroduction(Routledge,2011) andDefensiveKilling: An EssayonWar andSelf-Defence(OxfordUniversityPress,2014).
AnnaElisabettaGaleotti isFull Professor of Political Philosophyat the Universitàdel PiemonteOrientale.Shehasspent several yearsasa researchfellowinvariousinstitutionsabroad,includingCambridge University,theEuropeanUniversityInstituteinFlorence,theInstitute for AdvancedStudyinPrinceton,theCentrefor EthicsandPublic Affairsof St AndrewsUniversity,andtheSafraFoundationCenter for Ethicsof HarvardUniversity.Shehasworkedontolerationfor many years,andhaspublishedthreebooksandmanyessays,including TolerationasRecognition(CambridgeUniversityPress,2002) and ‘Femalecircumcision’ (Constellations,14,2007).Sheiscurrently writingabookonself-deceptionanddemocraticpolitics.
KeithHyams isaReader inPolitical TheoryandInterdisciplinaryEthicsat theUniversityof Warwick.Hehasheldvisitingpositionsat the
Universitiesof Toronto,Oxford,andLouvain,andisthewinner of the Inaugural 2015SandersPrizeinPolitical Philosophy.Hehaspublished onconsent,distributivejustice,andtheethicsof climatechange.Heis current researchinterestsincludeethical issuesinthegovernanceof extremetechnological risk,andethicsininternational development.
Robert Jubb isanAssociateProfessor of Political Theoryat theUniversity of Reading,andhasalsoworkedat theUniversityof Leicester and UCL.Hehaspublishedonegalitarianism,collectiveresponsibilities andmethodinpolitical theory,particularlyideal theoryandrealism.
CatrionaMcKinnon isProfessor of Political Theoryat theUniversityof Reading.Sheistheauthor of Liberalism andtheDefenceof Political Constructivism (Palgrave,2002),Toleration: ACritical Introduction (Routledge,2006),andClimateChangeandFutureJustice: Precaution, Compensation,andTriage(Routledge,2011).Sheiswritingabookon climatechangeasaninternational crimeagainst futurepeople.
MonicaMookherjee isaSenior Lecturer inPolitical Philosophyat the Universityof Keele.Sheistheauthor of Women’sRightsas Multicultural Claims: ReconfiguringGender andDiversityinPolitical Philosophy(EdinburghUniversityPress,2009) andtheeditor of Democracy.ReligiousPluralism andtheLiberal Dilemmaof Accommodation(Springer,2010).Sheiscurrentlywritingabookon theapplicationof thehumancapabilitiesapproachtotheoriesof multiculturalism.
DavidOwen isProfessor of Social andPolitical Philosophyat theUniversity of Southampton.HehasalsobeenVisitingProfessor inPoliticsandin Philosophyat theJWGoetheUniversity,Frankfurt am Main.Heisthe author of MaturityandModernity(Routledge,1994),Nietzsche, PoliticsandModernity(Sage,1995),andNietzsche’sGenealogyof Morality(Acumen,2007) andhasco-editedvolumesincluding Multiculturalism andPolitical Theory(CambridgeUniversityPress, 2007) andRecognitionandPower (CambridgeUniversityPress,2007), aswell aswritingarticlesonawiderangeof topics.Heiscurrently workingonissuesintheethicsof migration.
MassimoRenzo isProfessor of Politics,Philosophy& Lawat King’sCollege London.Hehasheldvisitingappointmentsat theAustralianNational University,theuniversitiesof VirginiaandArizona,theMurphy Institute,theNational Universityof SingaporeandtheNathanson Centrefor Transnational HumanRights,Crime& Security.Heisan affiliatedresearcher at theStockholm Centrefor theEthicsof War & PeaceandtheHonorarySecretaryof theSocietyfor Applied Philosophy.
ZofiaStemplowska isAssociateProfessor of Political Theoryat the Universityof OxfordandAsaBriggsFellowof Worcester College, Oxford.ShewaspreviouslyAssociateProfessor of Political Theoryat theUniversityof Warwick.Shewritesondomesticandglobal justice andmitigationof historical injustice.
JonathanWolff istheBlavatnikChair inPublicPolicy,at theBlavatnik School of Government,Oxford.HisbooksincludeAnIntroductionto Political Philosophy(OxfordUniversityPress,1996; 2006; 2016), Disadvantage(withAvner de-Shalit; OxfordUniversityPress,2007), EthicsandPublicPolicy: APhilosophical Inquiry(Routledge,2011), TheHumanRight toHealth(Norton,2012) andAnIntroductionto Moral Philosophy(Norton2018).
How tousethis book
This textbook is enriched with a range of learning features to help you navigate the text and reinforce your knowledge and understanding of political theory. This guide shows you how to get the most out of your book.
Reader’s Guides
Identify the scope of the material to be covered and what themes and issues you can expect to learn about with Reader’s Guides at the beginning of each chapter.
Key Concepts
Develop your understanding of core principles in political theory with KeyConcept boxesthroughout thetext.
Key Thinkers
Contextualize your learning with information about key figures in political theory with Key Thinkers boxes.
Key Texts
Learn more about some of the most important writings in the development of political thought with Key Text features throughout the book.
Key Points
Consolidate your knowledge as you progress through the chapter with key points which summarize the most important ideas and arguments discussed.
Case Studies
Develop your ability to connect theory with the real world with an extended case study at the end of each chapter.
Questions
Assess your understanding of core themes and reflect critically on key ideas with carefully devised end of chapter questions.
Further Reading
Broaden your learning with guided further reading, where the authors highlight additional resources you may wish to read, with explanations of why these readings are helpful.
Web Links
At the very end of the chapters, you will find an annotated list of important websites which will help you take your learning further and
conduct further research.
Glossary Terms
Look up and revise key terms which appear in colour throughout the text and are defined in a glossary at the end of the book.
How tousetheonlineresources
The book is supported by online resources designed to help students take their learning further.
For students:
Case Studies: Explore additional relevant issues in political theory in depth with a range of online case studies.
Web Links: Expand your knowledge of the subject with web links to OUP journals and other additional reliable sources.
FlashcardGlossary: Revise key terms and concepts from the text with a digital flashcard glossary.
For registered lecturers:
Seminar Activities and Essay Questions: Reinforce key themes from each chapter with suggested seminar activities and essay questions.
Introduction
CATRIONA MCKINNON, ROBERT JUBB, AND PATRICK TOMLIN
Chapter contents
What ispoliticaltheory? Planof thebook Makingclaimsinpoliticaltheory Politicaltheoryandtherealworld
What is political theory?
‘Political theory’, for the purposes of this book, is the study of whether and what political institutions, practices, and forms of organization can be justified, how they ought to be arranged, and the decisions they ought to make. This is normative political theory. Normative theories are action-guiding, and so are theories about what we ought to do. These can be contrasted with descriptive or explanatory theories, which seek to give a factual account of how things are. For example, those interested in understanding the political world as it is would want to know why people vote the way they do, whereas the normative theorist might ask how we ought to vote. As this example illustrates, we can ask descriptive and normative questions about the same phenomenon. It is important to
be clear, when making a claim about political institutions, which kind of claim one is making.
So, political theory, at least here, is normative theory about politics. But what is politics? In many ways, the boundaries of the political are a question for political theory itself. For example, feminists have argued that the concept of the political should not exclude sexual relationships and child-rearing, even though these were traditionally thought to be private or personal matters. Whatever stance one takes on the precise boundaries of politics, it is clear that a certain set of institutions form its core. In particular, the nation-state remains the archetypal political institution With this in mind, we can ask, broadly, two sets of questions: questions about domestic politics—that is, whether states can be justified, how they ought to be structured, and how they ought to treat their citizens— and questions about international politics—that is, about how states ought to relate to one another and each other’s citizens.
Starting with political and social relations within state boundaries, a long-standing and foundational line of enquiry focuses on why individuals should accept the political authority of the state, what its limits are, and how those who wield the power of the state should come to do so (Chapter 1). Have we all consented to have this power exercised over us? If so, when, and how, was it given? If we have not consented to it, is the state illegitimate and may we reject its commands? If the state is legitimate, what constraints may it place upon our choices and when do these threaten, or become unjustifiable attacks on, our liberty (Chapter 2)? On what authority does the state inflict punishment on members who commit crimes, and what form may punishment take (Chapter 3)? And what is the best way in which to choose those who will possess and exercise that authority? Most people in democracies now reject the principles of hereditary or authoritarian rule—but why is democracy preferable? Why not benign dictatorship instead? What makes a state democratic (Chapter 4)? However they are selected, those in authority exercise power. But what is power, how do we identify who, if anyone, holds it, and how should it be controlled (Chapter 5)?
State institutions provide the basic framework within which people live. These institutions set the terms of social interaction. A further function of these institutions is to divide up the benefits and burdens of society. What division of social goods do principles of social justice demand? How should social and political institutions treat their members in order to realize equality between them (Chapter 6)? In particular, how should equality be achieved within societies comprised of diverse groups? To what extent should social and cultural groups tolerate one another, or is it important for citizens to recognize and value each other’s differences (Chapter 7)? In a multicultural society, should citizens all have the same set of legal rights and duties, or should some citizens be exempt from some laws on the basis of group membership (Chapter 8)? Societies have traditionally divided their membership into two sexes and genders, assigning members particular social roles in, for example, the family based on that division. What is the relationship between sex and gender? What does gender equality look like, and can it be achieved through legislation alone (Chapter 9)?
Beyond what goes on within states are a set of questions about relationships between states and between citizens of different states. In a world in which very many people live in extreme poverty, what do wealthy individuals and wealthy societies owe to them? Is lifting the global poor out of poverty best understood as a duty to aid or as a duty to stop harming them through exploitative and exclusionary global institutions (Chapter 10)? Are there minimum standards—perhaps related to human rights—which morally bind all states and their citizens, regardless of their differences (Chapter 10)? If so, how do they negotiate the tension between universal standards and the importance of respecting cultural diversity (Chapter 11)? To what extent can a country which fails to protect human rights resist outside interference? Can it claim that it has sovereignty and thus that outside forces have no right to intervene? What rights do individuals have to cross borders, and what are the limits of states’ rights to control who enters and exits their territory (Chapter 12)? What violations of, or threats to,
sovereignty justify the resort to war, and so to mass political violence, and can war be waged in order to protect citizens against their own sovereign state? What principles should govern the resort to war and the conduct of soldiers within it (Chapter 13)? Some issues like the environment and the threat of climate change affect all states, although not in the same way. Who is morally responsible for climate change, and how should this be reflected in international climate agreements and policies? Should more developed countries cut their emissions to enable developing countries to emit more, so that individuals in developing countries can enjoy the benefits of industrialization already enjoyed by citizens of more developed states? In the face of the current climate crisis, what do we owe to future people (Chapter 14)?
Plan of the book
The chapters of the book are loosely grouped to reflect the two groups of questions outlined above.
Chapters 1–9 discuss issues that most clearly arise within domestic politics. They cover political authority and obligation, liberty, crime and punishment, democracy, power, equality and social justice, toleration, multiculturalism, and gender
Chapters 10–14 cover issues relating to the relations between states. They explore global justice, human rights, sovereignty and borders, war and intervention, and environment and climate change.
The topics of the chapters in this book have been chosen to reflect key sites of activity in the discipline of normative political theory, as it stands today—in particular, with an eye to the most important, visible, and influential strands in political theory over the last fifteen years. The book has also been written specifically bearing in mind the practical nature of political theory, the way in which normative
political theory often aims to change some aspect of our political world. To this end, each chapter is accompanied by a detailed case study, in which the theoretical themes and questions posed in the main chapter are explored and probed at a practical level. The case studies show how political theory can be put to use in analyzing and critiquing hotly debated aspects of politics in the world today. They should encourage the reader to try out such analysis and critique, on topics he or she cares about, using the concepts and strategies of argument to be found in the chapters. Political theory is a dynamic, exciting subject. Putting theory into practice in the case studies shows how seemingly abstract theorizing can inform our positions on contested and difficult political questions.
Making claims in political theory
Many students, on encountering normative political theory for the first time, find its confidence in making claims about what we ought to do puzzling. Isn’t it all, they often ask, ‘merely a matter of opinion’, ‘relative’, or ‘subjective’? Often students seem to think that the pervasive disagreement about normative claims implies that there cannot be any right answers in normative political theory. These concerns can seem to be reasons for shutting down or avoiding substantive debate about the merits of different positions. If it’s all a matter of opinion, why discuss it at all?
It is important to distinguish two different claims here. One is that moral and political values are relative to specific cultures in specific times and places, and so there is no universal truth about such matters. The second is that such values are radically subjective: individuals set their own moral compass and can choose how to live as they please. These two positions are often run together, but if values are set on an individual basis, then individuals may ignore entirely the values of their culture. Being clear about which of these positions one is invoking if one is skeptical of universal normative claims is therefore important.
Questions about the status of normative moral and political claims, such as whether or not such statements can be true, are dealt with in a branch of philosophy called meta-ethics. We cannot hope to do justice to the complexity of those debates here. What matters for our purposes is whether the worries articulated above make it impossible or mistaken to engage in reasoned argument about how we ought to live together. First, we think that many of the worries that students have about theorizing about how we ought to live together in fact commit them to claims about how we ought to live together. For instance, a claim that individuals can choose how to live as they please seems to imply that other individuals and political institutions ought to treat them in a particular way; it seems to imply permissiveness or toleration. In a similar vein, cultural relativism often appears to be driven by a commitment to group self-determination—one society shouldn’t tell another how to live but this of course is itself a universal norm about how societies should treat each other.
Second, and more importantly, whether one believes in universal values, or is a relativist or a subjectivist, we still have to make political decisions within our societies. Normative questions cannot be avoided given that we must decide how to live together. For example, governments must have a policy on whether or not to allow abortion. They cannot simply say ‘it’s all a matter of opinion’ and do nothing, because they must decide one way or the other. In arguing over what policy we should adopt, it doesn’t matter whether we take ourselves to be articulating universally valid moral standards, the best interpretation of local values, or our own subjective viewpoint—we can still explain and attempt to justify to others the position we take. Even if you think that it’s up to individuals to choose their own moral perspective, you can still try to persuade them to choose in one way or another. Equally, if you think that each culture has its own distinctive set of norms and values, you can offer interpretations of those norms and values which show that one policy is a better expression of them than another.
