MA Political Philosophy: Essay Questions

 

 

  1. Does Nozick’s Wilt Chamberlain argument show anything of significance?

 

  1. Can a libertarian show how we can come to have individual private property rights?

 

  1. Is taxation ‘on a par with forced labour’?

 

  1. Does capitalism maximize freedom?

 

  1. What does Rawls mean by the ‘Original Position’? Is his account of the knowledge and ignorance features of the Original Position justified?

 

  1. Would Rawls’ two principles of justice be chosen from his Original Position?

 

  1. ‘Rawls’ two principles of justice are inconsistent.’ Discuss.

 

  1. How should Rawls respond to the criticism that hypothetical contract have no force?

 

  1. For the purpose of his argument Rawls assumes that everyone in society is able-bodied. What complications arise when we accept that some are handicapped? Can Rawls’s approach be extended to deal with such cases?

 

  1. Is Rawls’s Difference Principle fair?

 

  1. ‘Rawls’s Difference Principle overlooks the importance of desert.’ Discuss.

 

  1. Does liberalism presuppose an implausible theory of the self?

 

  1. How would you characterize the debate between liberalism and communitarianism? Which position is to be preferred?

 

  1. 'If Rawls's arguments are valid for domestic justice, the same arguments   compel the representatives of countries to choose a global difference principle to govern the relations between countries.' Discuss.

 

  1. 'The arguments in A Theory of Justice rely on the premise that, in a well-ordered society, citizens hold the same comprehensive doctrine. But the principles of justice rule this out.' Discuss.

 

  1. What, if any, is the bearing of the distinction between principles which it is reasonable to accept and principles that it is unreasonable to reject?

 

  1. Are the primary goods defined in Rawls's difference principle equally valuable in all conceptions of the good?

 

  1. Are there good arguments against equality of welfare?

 

  1. Does Dworkin’s theory of equality of resources show how to reconcile individual responsibility with equality?

 

  1. How should an equal society treat issues of disability?

 

  1. How significant is the ‘expensive tastes’ objection to equality of welfare?

 

  1. ‘Resources are mere means to well-being. Therefore any theory which makes resources the currency of justice is confused.’ Discuss.

 

  1. Does justice require us to bear the full consequences of our choices?

 

  1. Is the point of a theory of equality to eliminate differences in natural fortune, or to rectify oppression, or to do something else again?

 

  1. ‘It is important that everyone has enough. It is not important that everyone has the same.’ Discuss.

 

  1. Is a concern for equality ‘alienating’?

 

  1. Are there good reasons for preferring ‘priority to worst off’ over equality?

 

  1. How serious is the ‘levelling down’ objection to equality?

 

  1. ‘Priority to the worst off strikes the correct balance between equality and utilitarianism.’ Discuss

 

  1. ‘It may be reasonable to cooperate with the state, but this is not to say that one has an obligation to obey the state.’ Discuss.

 

  1. Is the Principle of Fairness an improvement upon the doctrine of tacit consent?

 

  1. How should the Principle of Fairness be formulated? Does it solve the problem of political obligation?

 

  1. ‘It is obvious that we must have a state. Thus there is no problem of political obligation.’ Discuss.

 

  1. Is there any plausible form of social contract theory?

 

  1. ‘For the morally responsible person there is no such thing as a “command”. Therefore the morally responsible person must be an anarchist.’ Discuss.

 

  1. Is it correct to believe that in order to justify the state one has first to refute the anarchist’s challenge?

 

  1. Do we have a ‘natural duty’ to obey the state?

 

  1. What consequences would one draw from a utilitarian approach to the question of political obligation?

 

  1. Can Plato’s sceptical arguments against democracy be answered?

 

  1. How appropriate is it to use Condorcet’s probabilistic argument to defend democracy?

 

  1. ‘The only acceptable form of democracy is direct, participatory democracy.’ Discuss.

 

  1. Can democratic states avoid the problem of the ‘tyranny of the majority’?

 

  1. ‘Too much democracy is bad for the economy.’ Discuss.

 

  1. ‘To ask whether democracies make good or bad political decisions misunderstands why we value democracy.’ Discuss.