Originally published in 1989 Liberal Neutrality approaches the recommendation of neutrality by confronting the abstract prescription (that we should be neutral) with the implications for particular people and institutions. This not only identifies what neutrality involves logically, but also exposes the practical difficulties that may be encountered in pursuing it. In some cases, such close examination shows that neutrality is not desirable, and in others that it is attainable only within certain limits. Although neutrality has become a fashionable term in (...) political theory, this is the only volume to subject the idea to systematic scrutiny. It will be useful not only to specialists in diverse disciplines - political scientists, philosophers, sociologists, lawyers and educationalists. (shrink)

The revival of interest in James Harrington's political theory which has occurred in recent years has not led to a resolution of the puzzle about his Agrarian Law. That puzzle requires unfolding how Harrington expected that the Agrarian would achieve his ambitions for a stable commonwealth. This paper suggests one explanation of the difficulties encountered, by focusing on ambiguities in Harrington's terminology and on inadequacies in his method.While we cannot provide a convincing explanation of how the Agrarian worked, we can (...) understand how Harrington was confused and confusing in his description of it.Harrington's principle of balance purports to show that the distribution of political power in a polity follows that of property. His Agrarian law is designed to maintain the political system of Oceana, his projected common-wealth. To understand the complexities of the Agrarian, we need to examine Harrington's method , his views on inheritance and the relative importance of different forms of property . The last section relates the problems identified in these three parts to the difficulty of understanding the Agrarian. (shrink)

'Incommensurability' has, in the last forty years, gained wide currency in the literature of philosophy. Kuhn and Feyerabend used the term in the early 1960's to describe an issue in the philosophy of science. They suggested that, when scientific theories are introduced that are significantly different from their predecessors, it may happen that the meanings of key terms differ significantly, and to the extent that scientists may be unable to fully comprehend the new theory until they experience a form of (...) radical conversion, in which they come to fully grasp the new theory. Key contributions have been made to this literature by Bishop, Devitt, Margolis, Sankey, and Scheffler. ;The notion of 'incommensurability' has also been widely used in discussions of ethics. Finnis has used the concept to effect a taxonomy of human values, arguing that there are seven such values and that incommensurability is the feature that contradistinguishes them. Key contributions have been made to this literature by Goodman, Griffin, Pannier, Raz, and Williams. ;In this work I discuss the literature of incommensurability in both the philosophy of science and ethics. I argue that there are at least two quite different notions of incommensurability: one is a well defined notion originally used by mathematicians; the other, less well defined, means, based on the etymology of the word, lacking a common measure. I argue, further, that the discussions of Kuhn and Feyerabend are based on the mathematical notion, while the discussions in ethics are based on the etymological notion. ;Further complicating the discussions in both ethics and the philosophy of science, is the connection between the notions of commensurability and comparability. I argue that the notions describe, differently, equivalent sets. ;Ultimately Kuhn's notion fails because he cannot resolve his arguments for both inexpressibility in a common language and for comparability of competing theories. Finnis's notion fails because incommensurability does not, in fact, uniquely describe the taxonomy for which he argues. (shrink)

Property undoubtedly has a central place in arrangements surrounding social life, a place so central that some writers have claimed that it is impossible to imagine anything which could be called a society without some property institution. A moment's thought suggests that property is a key element of an economic system, a major concern of the legal system, and a focus of political dispute. But the long‐standing recognition of the importance of property was often coupled with taking many aspects of (...) it for granted, particularly with respect to the possible justification of private property. The development of a specialized literature has occurred in the last forty years, to the extent that Becker has suggested that aspects of the theory of property cannot be developed any further. (An excellent essay by Dan‐Cohen, 2001 shows that Becker's comment may have been premature. Dan‐Cohen explores the relationship between ownership and the boundaries of the self.) This is not, of course, to say that nothing valuable or important had been said about property in the history of political and social thought: nothing could be further from the truth. But much of the political theory of property has been embedded in works with more comprehensive ambitions in political philosophy: Locke's Two Treatises of Government and Hegel's Philosophy of Right are obvious examples. The coherence of such theories of property is clearly dependent – to an extent which may be disputed – on the wider philosophical framework in which they are embedded. Again, the relevance of such theories to contemporary normative analysis depends – again, to a disputable degree – on the compatibility of the economic and political institutions envisaged by their authors with plausible contemporary applicability. (shrink)

Philippe Van Parijs's Real Freedom for All is widely acclaimed for providing not only the most sophisticated defense of unconditional basic income, but also a rigorous examination of many central issues within contemporary political theory. This collection, including a response by Van Parijs, provides a comprehensive assessment of his "real libertarian" vision of radical social change. The contributors include Richard Arneson, Brian Barry, Thomas Christiano, John Cunliffe, Guido Erreygers, Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, Robert van der Veen, and Stuart White.