Global Justice Anca Gheaus [email protected] Department of Political

Global Justice Anca Gheaus [email protected]

Department of Political Science Central European University

MA Programme in Political Science

Winter semester 2020-21 (2 US credits) Class meetings: Office hours:

Introduction Traditionally, theories of justice have sought to identify principles and institutions that regulate, internally, the social interaction of people living within particular states. Yet, over the past decades the world has become increasingly globalised, and this fact has raised new challenges for the empirical and normative relevance of states. This fact has also called for rethinking individuals’ claims of justice in relation to states other than their own, and of their responsibilities towards suffering in remote places. These are issues of global justice. During the first part of the course we shall discuss two related questions that are foundational to global justice: First, whether the scope of social and distributive justice is local (the state) or global, and, second, whether partiality towards co- nationals is legitimate (and if yes, what is its scope). Then we shall look at direct practical implications of answering these questions in particular ways: such implications include opening borders, the regulation of immigration and citizenship and the global distribution of wealth and human capital. We shall also discuss normative issues raised by multiculturalism and gender, and by exploitation – for instance, sweatshops. The last meetings we be devoted to an examination of individual duties to alleviate global poverty and extreme need – that is, to an introduction to the effective altruism movement.

Learning outcomes At the end of the course the student shall be able to: - Have some grasp of philosophical methods such as deduction, conceptual analysis, analogies, and thought experiments; - Identify and produce well-structured philosophical arguments; - Understand the key philosophical issues concerning different theories of justice and their application to the global domain; - Have a sense of the philosophically interesting questions raised by global issues; - Give clear accounts of the views discussed in class, and of the reasons that support them; - Be able to evaluate critically the views discussed in class; - Be able to work towards a balance of pros and cons on the particular philosophical issues discussed in class; - Improve their academic writing.

Course requirements and assessment

Attendance and active class-room participation (30%) Philosophy is best done in dialogue with others, and often the only effective way to learn how to do it is to express your views and learn how to answer critical questions about them non-defensively. Thus, this class requires constant active participation. You are expected to come prepared, having read the required text and, on some occasions and depending on your interests, the optional one. Occasionally you will be asked to work in small groups during the class.

Weekly use of Perusall plus a short draft of the final paper (30%) For each session, you are expected to annotate the reading for that session on Perusall. (On the few occasions when there are several required readings I will indicate in advance which one you should annotate.) Your notes should consist of comments on, and questions concerning, the text and some engagement with your colleagues’ notes. Good questions will reflect a general understanding of the reading and intellectual engagement with (one of the) main arguments. The questions can concern the right interpretation of important claims made in the reading, or the correctness of particular steps in the reasoning, or the way in which the implications of the argument do or don’t cohere with what we otherwise have reason to believe. The other component of the evaluation is the first draft of what will become your final paper. The draft should be around 1500 words. I will given you written comments on this draft, which should be helpful for the final paper.

Final paper (40%) The essays should identify, as clearly and precisely as possible, a topic relevant to the issues covered in class, and discuss it in an argumentative and analytical way. It can be one one of very same questions we discussed, or on a closely related one. I encourage you to check the topic with me first. The argument of the essay may be critical (for instance, of a particular account we discussed in class) or constructive (if you seek to provide your own argument for a particular thesis.) The final paper should beno longer than 3000 words. A few tips: - don’t try to address more than one question/issue; - you don’t need to show directly that you read a lot, but that you understood very well what you read (for this, you may in fact need to read quite a bit); - make sure you are as clear as possible; imagine you’re writing for a very smart and curious friend of yours who doesn’t know anything about the topic; - aim to unpack the argument as much as you can, showing how claims follow from each other and why each step in the argument is needed; - avoid wordiness – say things only once, and look for the most precise formulation of your claim; - be charitable to the views you criticises; remember that it is a significant accomplishment to identify a problem about the most plausible interpretation of the view you discuss; - don’t exaggerate your claims; - before sending the essay be sure to proof-read it and the to read it aloud to yourself. If it doesn’t sound well, the writing needs improvement. For more on how to write a philosophy paper see “Some Guidelines For Writing Philosophy Papers”, in The Norton Introduction to Philosophy, 2nd Edition Alex Byrne, Gideon Rosen, Elizabeth Harman, Joshua Cohen & Seana Shiffrin (eds.), W. W. Norton & Company, Inc, 2015. If you’re interested in how to write philosophy better ask me for more materials on this.

Description of requirements

Grades: F= Fail. Poor. You fail to participate in class discussions, and/or to address a (relevant) question in the essay. C+ Minimum Pass. You make a very modest contribution to class discussion, and the essay has significant unclarities of issue and argument, and it is written poorly.

B- Satisfactory. You participate in class discussions consistently and your questions reflect adequte understanding of the reading. Your essay identifies an appropriate topic, provides some cogent argument and shows a general awareness of the relevant literature discussed in class.

B Good. You participate in class discussions frequently and often send good questions. Your essay reflects a solid understanding of the material covered in class, articulates well the main thesis and argument, avoids unclarities and imprecision.

B+ Very good. You participate in class discussions frequently, often make relevant points and the questions are usually to the point. Your essay reflects a solid understanding of the material covered in class and of additional literature, articulates well the main thesis and argument, its reasoning displays some level of sophistication, avoids unclarities and imprecision.

A- Excellent. You participate in class discussions frequently and often make relevant points and highlight unusual connections between the various ideas discussed during the course meetings. You raise very good questions. Your essay reflects a solid understanding of the material covered in class and of additional literature, articulates well the main thesis and argument, displays sophistication in reasoning and some degree of originality, avoids unclarities and imprecision. It also shows very good analytical skill and some critical engagement with the material.

A outstanding. You participate in class discussions frequently, often make relevant points and highlight unusual connections between the various ideas discussed during the course meetings, and occasionally ask new, interesting questions. The same applied to your questions. Your essay reflects a solid understanding of the material covered in class and of additional literature, articulates well the main thesis argument, displays sophistication in reasoning and originality, avoids unclarities and imprecision. It also shows very good analytical skill and deep understanding of the material, which results in critical engagement with the material.

Course programme

Description We shall start by discussing the questions of whether theories of justice apply to the global sphere and of whether it is permissible to be partial towards our compatriots. Then we shall move on to discuss particular issues of global justice concerning borders, migration, refugees, citizenship, brain drain, basic income, gender and multiculturalism, sweatshops and exploitation. The last two weeks are dedicated to effective altruism. Background resources No books are assigned as mandatory readings for this course. The instructor will specify, for each week, one or two mandatory readings and one optional reading. However, here are two books that I recommend as optional readings. First, a short, very accessible introduction to the topic of global justice, by Chris Armstrong, and titled Why Global Justice Matters (Polity 2019). (An open access review for the general public here: https://earthbound.report/2020/08/03/book-review-why- global-justice-matters-by-chris-armstrong/? fbclid=IwAR38kHCEfwF5IaQfohm3L0WHFb9iw_lneVztOwXfi0AHHFAJXriJM1XYv9c)Second, a more comprehensive and academic introduction by the same author, and titled Global Distributive Justice (Cambridge University Press 2012),

For up to date empirical info on many issues that bear on global justice you can use Worldmeters: https://www.worldometers.info

Week 1 Background knowledge: Theories of justice Required reading Adam Swift (2014) Political Philosophy, chapter 1 “Social Justice” (pp. 11-56)

Optional reading Jonathan Wolff (2006), An Introduction to Political Philosophy (New York: Oxford University Press), chapter 5

Week 2 Statism and global egalitarianism Required reading Michael Blake (2001), “Distributive Justice, State Coercion, and Autonomy.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 30 (3): 257–96.

Optional reading Laura Valentini (2011), “Coercion and (Global) Justice”, American Political Science Review 205-220 Sangiovanni, Andrea (2007), “Global Justice, Reciprocity, and the State.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 35 (1): 3–39.

Week 3 Partiality towards compatriots Required reading David Miller (2005) “Reasonable Partiality towards Compatriots”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 8: 63–81. Parijs, Philippe Van. (2008) “International Distributive Justice.” A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy 2 (April 2006): 638–52.

Optional reading Gillian Brock (2008) What do we owe others as a matter of global justice and does national membership matter? Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 11:4, 433-448

Week 4 Open borders Would a just world have borders? And if it did – for instance, for instrumental reasons – should these borders be open? Do states have any moral grounds to prevent non-citizens from crossing their borders, and settling within their territories? This is one of the most momentous, and most discussed, issue of global justice.

Required reading Joseph Carens (2013), The Ethics of Immigration (Oxford University Press), chapter 11

Optional readings Tom Farer, “Migration and Integration: The Case for Liberalism with Borders”, UCL talk available at: https://vimeo.com/346832158 Miller, David. 2005 ‘Immigration: the Case for Limits’ in A. Cohen and C. Wellman (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell. Fine, Sarah. 2013. “The Ethics of Immigration: Self-Determination and the Right to Exclude: The Ethics of Immigration.” Philosophy Compass 8 (3): 254–68. Crisp, Roger. 2019. ‘Taking back control for real. The case for open borders’. NewStatesman. https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2019/02/taking-back-control-real-case-open-borders

Week 5 Refugees Required reading David Miller (2019) “Selecting Refugees” David Miller and Christine Straehle (eds.), The Political Philosophy of Refuge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

Optional readings Mollie Gerver (2017) “Paying minorities to leave”, Politics Philosophy & Economics Kieran Oberman (2020) “Refugee Discrimination – The Good, the Bad, and the Pragmatic”, Journal of Applied Philosophy, available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/japp.12448

Week 6 Citizenship: by stork and by plane States are generally believed to have a right to refuse citizenship applications, with one notable exception: they cannot withhold it from children born to their own citizens, or, in some cases, to children born on their territory. What, if anything, justifies this asymmetry in the way in which different individuals can obtain citizenship: by default if they come by stork and only subject to certain conditions if they come by plane?

Required reading Tim Meijers, “Migrants by plane and migrants by stork”, unpublished manuscript

Optional readings Paul Bou-Habib (2019) “The Case for Replacement Migration”, Journal of Political Philosophy 27(1): 67-86. Luara Ferracioli (2018). “Citizenship for Children: By Soil, by Blood, or by Paternalism?”, Philosophical Studies 175(11): 2859-2877.

Week 7 Brain drain Qualified workers from globally poor countries find it easier to obtain admission, and employment, in richer countries. They emigrate in large numbers, especially from certain countries, whith are thereby depeted of human capital. In some cases, the loss of the sending country can result in existential threats to its citizens. Is it ever permissible for states to prevent the migration of its highly qualified citizens? Does this run against widely endorsed rights such as a right to free movement and a right to occupational choice?

Required reading Lucas Stanczyk (2012) “Productive Justice”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 40 (2):144-164

Optional readings Kieran Oberman (2013) “Can Brain Drain Justify Immigration Restrictions?” Ethics 123(3): 427- 455 Kieran Oberman, “Poverty and Immigration Policy,” American Political Science Review 109 (2015): 239-251.

Week 8 Basic income in a global perspective Required reading Philippe Van Parijs (2000) “A Basic Income for All”, Boston Review online at: https://bostonreview.net/archives/BR25.5/vanparijs.html Philippe Van Parijs, (2016). “Global justice and the mission of the EU”, in International Development and Human Aid. Principles Norms and Institutions for the Global Sphere (Paulo Barcelos and Gabriele De Angelis eds.), Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 196-209.

Optional readings Respnse from Bidadanure to Brishen Rogers : http://bostonreview.net/forum/basic-income-just-society/juliana-bidadanure-basic-income- convergence Response from Shelby to Brishen Rogers: http://bostonreview.net/forum/basic-income-just-society/tommie-shelby-blow-ghettoization

Week 9 Multiculturalism and women Required reading Susan Moller Okin, “Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women?”, In Joshua Cohen, Matthew Howard, and Martha C. Nussbaum (eds.), Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999). pp. 9-24

Optional reading Jaggar, A. M. (2005), “Saving Amina”: Global Justice for Women and Intercultural Dialogue. Ethics & International Affairs, 19: 55-75.

Week 10 Sweatshops Required readings Zwolinski, Matt. (2007). Sweatshops, Choice, and Exploitation. Business Ethics Quarterly,17(4), 689- 727.

Optional readings Iris Marion Young, (2003). From Guilt to Solidarity: Sweatshops and Political. Responsibility/ In Dissent Magazine. Spring 2003: 39–45 Jeremy Snyder, (2010). Exploitation and Sweatshop Labor: Perspectives and Issues. Business Ethics Quarterly 20 (2):187-213 (2010) Week 11 Effective Altruism 1 Required reading Peter Singer (1972) “Famine, Affluence, and Morality,” Philosophy & Public Affairs 1(3): 229–43 Tom Cutterham (ed.), “The Ethical Careers Debate,” Oxford Left Review 7 (May 2012): 4–9 Peter Singer (2015) The Most Good You Can Do: How Effective Altruism is Changing Ideas About Living Ethically (New Haven: Yale University Press), pp. 3–20

Optional reading Will Kymlicka (2001) “Altruism in Philosophical and Ethical Traditions: Two Views,” in Between State and Market: Essays on Charities Law and Policy in Canada, ed. Jim Phillips, Bruce Chapman, and David Stevens (Montreal: McGill-Queens University Press), 87–126

Week 12 Effective Altruism 2 Required reading Iason Gabriel, “Effective Altruism and Its Critics,” Journal of Applied Philosophy 34, no. 4 (2017): 457– 73

Optional reading Jeff McMahan, “Philosophical Critiques of Effective Altruism,” The Philosophers’ Magazine 73 (2016): 92–9. John Halstead et al. (2017), “Effective Altruism: An Elucidation and Defence,” Centre for Effective Altruism, April 14.