Phil 350:
Ethical Theory
(Fall 2011)
Paper #2 (Rawls & Geuss)
Details: 10-12 pp. (1.5
spaced); value: 35 points; place references into text using
abbreviations; list all sources at the end
Due: Friday, Dec. 16,
noon; submit in hard copy, please.
Here
are some handles for dealing with the Rawls/Geuss relationship. There
is also an option for a more individuated approach – though I
would want to review this and discuss it with you before approving
it. In all cases, be sure you set the scene, as it were, by
giving a general characterization of Rawls’ and Geuss’s
views, and then of the problem or slant that you are taking on
it. Consider the paper as a potential contribution to a student
journal. Even if it needs reworking, keep in mind its possible
uses and the sorts of audiences it might attempt to reach. With
this goal in mind, also send me an email version of the paper, in
addition to the hard copy you submit.
1.
How is Geuss’s relation to Rawls (and Nozick), or to
philosophical liberalism, similar to nihilism’s relation to
normative theories of ethics (cf. the first paper)? How is the
confrontation similar in both cases? Does this analogy tend to
make nihilism (or Geuss) more or less appealing, and in what way?
How might Geuss’s realism be seen as well as a sort of
intermediate position between amoral Realpolitik and philosophical
liberalism? I.e., could one argue that, in fact, it is not
‘nihilistic’ at all, and that Geuss’s approach
challenges the basic normativity / nihilism (ought / is) dichotomy?
2.
How, according to Geuss’s conception of Rawls’s position,
is Rawls actually a “nihilist” (i.e., expressivist), and
how might Geuss’s view be seen as a normative position
instead? (See Geuss on the ‘aspirational’ nature of
Rawls’ view, at pp. 85-86.)
3.
What is Geuss’s notion of political theory / philosophy and its
tasks, and how does Rawls (et al.) supposedly violate them?
4.
How is political philosophy (and politics) related to ethics? Is
the latter foundational in some sense (as in the “ethics
first” view), or is there some other kind of link between them
(as suggested by Geuss)? How is Geuss’s view of politics as
an ethical activity different from that of Kant, Rawls, Nozick,
etc.? Does the notion of ‘ethics’ need to be
reconceived for us to consider it in such terms? Consider, how
might Geuss respond to the last paragraph (p. 128) of
Rawls’ Law of Peoples?
5.
How does Rawls’ position relate to contractarianism or
proceduralism? How does it – despite its unwillingness to
build on so-called comprehensive views – nonetheless seem more
like a substantive, religious, or metaphysical approach than a
proceduralist one? Is Geuss’s approach to political theory
and ethics in fact more proceduralist or contractarian than
Rawls’ own (cf. the role of Hobbes in Geuss’s theorizing.),
and how does this affect its appeal?
6.
How might Rawls (and other liberals – see the reviews) respond to
Geuss’s critique? What aspects of Geuss’s position
will seem problematic or wrong to them, or to anyone else? What
are the gains and losses (of what, exactly?) consequent to adopting
Geuss’s critique (= a “position”?) ?
7.
If you have another approach to Rawls and Geuss that you would like to
pursue instead, contact me with a short description and get approval
before you start on the paper.