Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction
Will Kymlicka
Language: English
Pages: 512
ISBN: 0198782748
Format: PDF / Kindle (mobi) / ePub
This new edition of Will Kymlicka's best selling critical introduction to contemporary political theory has been fully revised to include many of the most significant developments in Anglo-American political philosophy in the last 11 years, particularly the new debates over issues of democratic citizenship and cultural pluralism. The book now includes two new chapters on citizenship theory and multiculturalism, in addition to updated chapters on utilitarianism, liberal egalitarianism, libertarianism, socialism, communitarianism, and feminism. The many thinkers discussed include G. A. Cohen, Ronald Dworkin, William Galston, Carol Gilligan, R. M. Hare, Chandran Kukathas, Catherine Mackinnon, David Miller, Philippe Van Parijs, Susan Okin, Robert Nozick, John Rawls, John Roemer, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, Michael Walzer, and Iris Young. Extended guides to further reading have been added at the end of each chapter, listing the most important books and articles on each school of thought, as well as relevant journals and websites. Covering some of the most advanced contemporary thinking, Will Kymlicka writes in an engaging, accessible, and non-technical way to ensure the book is suitable for students approaching these difficult concepts for the first time. This second edition promises to build on the original edition's success as a key text in the teaching of modern political theory.
Liberalism and the Limits of Justice (2nd Edition)
Heidegger's Children: Hannah Arendt, Karl Löwith, Hans Jonas, and Herbert Marcuse
The Enlightenment and Modernity
The Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution
Greek Orthodox religion. Anyone who is not Orthodox cannot be a true member of the Greek nation, accepting the Orthodox Church is a de facto criterion for gaining citizenship, and members of other religions are subject to various legal disadvantages. But nation-building need not take the form of promoting a particular conception of the good life. The basis of a common national identity need not be a shared conception of the good, but rather a thinner and more diffuse sense of belonging to an
University Press, 2000); Charles Jones, Global Justice: Defending Cosmopolitanism (Oxford University Press, 1999); Charles Beitz, Political Theory and International Relations (Princeton University Press, 1979); Thomas Pogge, Realizing Rawls (Cornell University Press, 1989). For Rawls’s defence of his assumption that distributive justice applies domestically, not globally, see The Law of Peoples (Harvard University Press, 1999). For a review of this debate, see Charles Beitz, ‘International
because women are presented with a choice between family and career that men do not face.12 Mill’s claim that a woman who enters a marriage accepts a full-time occupation, just like a man entering a profession, is strikingly unfair. After all, men also enter marriage—why should marriage have such different and unequal consequences for men and women? The desire to be a part of a family should not preclude one’s having a career, and in so far as it does have unavoidable consequences for careers,
BROOKS, ROY (1996). Separation or Integration: A Strategy for Racial Equality (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.). -(ed.) (1999). When Sorry Isn't Enough: The Controversy over Apologies and Reparations for Human Injustice (New York University Press, New York). BROOME, JOHN (1989). ‘Fairness and the Random Distribution of Goods’, in Jon Elster (ed.), Justice and the Lottery (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge). -(1991). Weighing Goods (Blackwell, Oxford). BROUGHTON, J. (1983).
also a reason to exclude external and selfish preferences from that standard. This is an objection to the theory’s principles, not to the way those principles get applied in decision-procedures. Commentators who endorse these sorts of modifications of utilitarianism often describe the resulting theory as a balance between the values of utility and equality, or a compromise between consequentialism and deontology (e.g. Raphael 1981: 47-56; Brandt 1959: ch. 16; Hospers 1961: 426; Rescher 1966: