ID:
510393
Durata (ore):
40
CFU:
6
SSD:
FILOSOFIA POLITICA
Anno:
2026
Dati Generali
Periodo di attività
Primo Semestre (28/09/2026 - 18/12/2026)
Syllabus
Obiettivi Formativi
The course aims to help students to achieve an advanced understanding of some of the most important controversies in contemporary political philosophy, an improved ability to apply abstract principles to specific public issues, and an improved ability to argue effectively in political debates.
In addition, students will acquire more general skills in interpreting texts and analyzing abstract concepts and a specialist understanding of democratic theory, with a specific focus on the values of freedom and equality, procedural justice, the concept of democratic legitimacy, and contemporary challenges to democratic societies.
In addition, students will acquire more general skills in interpreting texts and analyzing abstract concepts and a specialist understanding of democratic theory, with a specific focus on the values of freedom and equality, procedural justice, the concept of democratic legitimacy, and contemporary challenges to democratic societies.
Prerequisiti
There are no formal requirements for taking this course. However, students will find useful a prior acquaintance with some themes from the history of political thought, such as the idea of the social contract, the problem of political obligation and a general acquaintance with contemporary debates over the crisis of democracy.
Warning for undergraduate students: This course is designed for graduate students. If you are an undergraduate student, you might have the right to include this course in your study plan, but you should be aware of the challenges that such a choice can imply. The course employs advanced methods of analysis and the grading system makes no allowances for different starting levels of students.
Warning for undergraduate students: This course is designed for graduate students. If you are an undergraduate student, you might have the right to include this course in your study plan, but you should be aware of the challenges that such a choice can imply. The course employs advanced methods of analysis and the grading system makes no allowances for different starting levels of students.
Metodi didattici
The first two parts of the course will include introductory lectures (14) that provide introductory groundwork and basic conceptual tools. Most of the lectures will involve interaction between teacher and class. The third part will consist in seminar classes (6) in which the students will engage in discussions and debates, applying abstract concepts to the specific issues and case studies listed in the course program.
Verifica Apprendimento
Assessment will be based on participation, an assessed essay, and an oral exam.
Participation
The mark for participation will depend above all on the quality of your participation in the Seminars. Participation will be assessed in terms of the clarity, incisiveness, and overall relevance of your contributions.
Assessed essay
The essay should address a clear research question related to one of the seminar topic/discussion in which you are a member of the audience and must be no more than 3,000 (three thousand) words long and no less than 2.500 words, including footnotes but not including bibliography.
The topic of the essay must be agreed upon in advance with the course teachers. Essays addressing questions that were not agreed upon beforehand with the course teacher will not be accepted.
Essays will be assessed in terms of their clarity, structure, and argumentative rigor, in terms of their sensitivity to the relevant ethical and philosophical issues, and, ultimately, in terms of the efficacy with which they answer the chosen research question.
The oral exam will be based on:
- a brief discussion of the essay submitted by the student;
- some further questions on the exam’s readings to finalize the assessment.
Performance in the oral exam will be assessed in terms of students’ ability to clarify and/or defend the arguments presented in the essay, and to discuss and critically introduce the course’s specific topics.
Participation
The mark for participation will depend above all on the quality of your participation in the Seminars. Participation will be assessed in terms of the clarity, incisiveness, and overall relevance of your contributions.
Assessed essay
The essay should address a clear research question related to one of the seminar topic/discussion in which you are a member of the audience and must be no more than 3,000 (three thousand) words long and no less than 2.500 words, including footnotes but not including bibliography.
The topic of the essay must be agreed upon in advance with the course teachers. Essays addressing questions that were not agreed upon beforehand with the course teacher will not be accepted.
Essays will be assessed in terms of their clarity, structure, and argumentative rigor, in terms of their sensitivity to the relevant ethical and philosophical issues, and, ultimately, in terms of the efficacy with which they answer the chosen research question.
The oral exam will be based on:
- a brief discussion of the essay submitted by the student;
- some further questions on the exam’s readings to finalize the assessment.
Performance in the oral exam will be assessed in terms of students’ ability to clarify and/or defend the arguments presented in the essay, and to discuss and critically introduce the course’s specific topics.
Testi
Part 1 – Foundational Values -
Carter Ian, “Liberty” in C. McKinnon, P. Tomlin and R. Jubb (eds) Issues in Political Theory, 4th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. pp. 26-36.
▪ Pettit Philip, Republicanism. A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 51-58, 183-90.
▪ Hoggan-Kloubert, T., Hoggan, C., “Autonomy as a Principle of Democracy”, In Learning for Democracy, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2025, pp. 79-102.
▪ Wilson James Lindley, “Political Equality”, in Democratic Equality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019), pp. 58-85.
▪ Ottonelli Valeria, “Equal respect, equal competence and democratic legitimacy”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 15 (2), 2012, pp. 201–218.
Part 2 - Theories of Democratic Legitimacy -
▪ Swift Adam, “Democracy”, in Political Philosophy: A Beginners’ Guide for Students and Politicians (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2019), pp. 284-310; 319-347.
▪ Ceva Emanuela and Ottonelli Valeria, “Second-Personal Authority and The Practice of Democracy”, Constellations, 29, 2022, 460–474.
▪ Anderson Elizabeth, “Democracy: Instrumental vs. Non-Instrumental Value”, in T. Christiano and J. Christman (eds.) Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 213–228.
▪ Cohen Joshua, “Deliberation and Democratic legitimacy”, in D. Estlund (ed.) Democracy (Blackwell Readings in Philosophy, 2002), pp. 87-106.
Part 3 - Seminars Readings -
▪ Seminar 1: Howard Jeffrey W., “The labors of justice: democracy, respect, and judicial review”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 22(2), 2019, 176–199.
▪ Seminar 2: Guerrero Alexander A., “Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 42 (2), 2014, pp. 132-178.
▪ Seminar 3: Abizadeh Arash, “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders”, Political Theory, 2008, 36 (1), pp. 37-65.
▪ Seminar 4: Ekeli Kristian Skagen, “Giving A Voice to Posterity. Deliberative Democracy and Representation of Future People”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 2005, pp. 429–450.
▪ Seminar 5: Koelble Thomas A. and Lipuma Edward, “Democratizing Democracy: A Postcolonial Critique of Conventional Approaches to the ‘Measurement of Democracy”, Democratization, 15(1), 2008, 1–28.
▪ Seminar 6: Liveriero Federica, “Epistemic Injustice in the Political Domain: Powerless Citizens and Institutional Reform”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 23(5), 2020, pp. 797–813.
Carter Ian, “Liberty” in C. McKinnon, P. Tomlin and R. Jubb (eds) Issues in Political Theory, 4th edition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019), pp. pp. 26-36.
▪ Pettit Philip, Republicanism. A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), pp. 51-58, 183-90.
▪ Hoggan-Kloubert, T., Hoggan, C., “Autonomy as a Principle of Democracy”, In Learning for Democracy, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2025, pp. 79-102.
▪ Wilson James Lindley, “Political Equality”, in Democratic Equality (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2019), pp. 58-85.
▪ Ottonelli Valeria, “Equal respect, equal competence and democratic legitimacy”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 15 (2), 2012, pp. 201–218.
Part 2 - Theories of Democratic Legitimacy -
▪ Swift Adam, “Democracy”, in Political Philosophy: A Beginners’ Guide for Students and Politicians (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2019), pp. 284-310; 319-347.
▪ Ceva Emanuela and Ottonelli Valeria, “Second-Personal Authority and The Practice of Democracy”, Constellations, 29, 2022, 460–474.
▪ Anderson Elizabeth, “Democracy: Instrumental vs. Non-Instrumental Value”, in T. Christiano and J. Christman (eds.) Contemporary Debates in Political Philosophy (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009), pp. 213–228.
▪ Cohen Joshua, “Deliberation and Democratic legitimacy”, in D. Estlund (ed.) Democracy (Blackwell Readings in Philosophy, 2002), pp. 87-106.
Part 3 - Seminars Readings -
▪ Seminar 1: Howard Jeffrey W., “The labors of justice: democracy, respect, and judicial review”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 22(2), 2019, 176–199.
▪ Seminar 2: Guerrero Alexander A., “Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative”, Philosophy and Public Affairs, 42 (2), 2014, pp. 132-178.
▪ Seminar 3: Abizadeh Arash, “Democratic Theory and Border Coercion: No Right to Unilaterally Control Your Own Borders”, Political Theory, 2008, 36 (1), pp. 37-65.
▪ Seminar 4: Ekeli Kristian Skagen, “Giving A Voice to Posterity. Deliberative Democracy and Representation of Future People”, Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 18, 2005, pp. 429–450.
▪ Seminar 5: Koelble Thomas A. and Lipuma Edward, “Democratizing Democracy: A Postcolonial Critique of Conventional Approaches to the ‘Measurement of Democracy”, Democratization, 15(1), 2008, 1–28.
▪ Seminar 6: Liveriero Federica, “Epistemic Injustice in the Political Domain: Powerless Citizens and Institutional Reform”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 23(5), 2020, pp. 797–813.
Contenuti
This is a course in political philosophy: we shall be investigating philosophical problems that arise in the specific context of democratic theory. In particular, we shall be investigating problems of a normative nature, problems that involve deciding what, in a moral sense, is the right thing to do in collective setting, specifically, democratic ones.
The course introduces students to fundamental debates in contemporary political philosophy surrounding the nature and justification of democracy.
The course is divided into three parts treating (i) foundational values, (ii) theories of democratic legitimacy, and (iii) specific challenges for democracies.
In the first part of the course, we will focus on grounding values of democracy: freedom; equality; autonomy and equal respect. We will investigate the meanings of these ideals, and ask in what way they might ground democracy. In what sense should citizens be thought to have an equal moral status, such that they ought to enjoy equal political rights rather than unequal ones? What goods (voting power, basic liberties, access to certain resources, and so on), need to be equalized among citizens in order for a society to qualify as democratic?
In the second part of the course, we will apply some of the above reasoning to the task of examining, and assessing, different theories of democratic legitimacy. In particular, we will compare procedural and outcome-oriented accounts of the validity of democratic decisions. Does democratic legitimacy depend on the fact of democratic decision-making having intrinsic value? This idea might be defended by reference to values that are inherent in democratic procedures (for example, there might be something inherently fair about making democratic decisions on matters on which people disagree). Or does democratic legitimacy depend on the goals that might be achieved through democratic decision-making, and in this sense on its instrumental value? Such goals might include maximizing the probability of reaching the “correct” collective decisions, assuring peaceful coexistence, promoting economic welfare, or robustly protecting liberal rights.
In the third and final part of the course we will consider some of the specific theoretical challenges faced by contemporary democracies. This part of the course is likely to cover at least the following issues: how to deal with dissent and conflict through democratic processes; criteria for defining the demos (including the so-called “boundary problem”); the status of non-voters (e,g children; animal; future generations); post-colonial criticisms to the democratic ideal; proposals for democratic radical reforms.
The course introduces students to fundamental debates in contemporary political philosophy surrounding the nature and justification of democracy.
The course is divided into three parts treating (i) foundational values, (ii) theories of democratic legitimacy, and (iii) specific challenges for democracies.
In the first part of the course, we will focus on grounding values of democracy: freedom; equality; autonomy and equal respect. We will investigate the meanings of these ideals, and ask in what way they might ground democracy. In what sense should citizens be thought to have an equal moral status, such that they ought to enjoy equal political rights rather than unequal ones? What goods (voting power, basic liberties, access to certain resources, and so on), need to be equalized among citizens in order for a society to qualify as democratic?
In the second part of the course, we will apply some of the above reasoning to the task of examining, and assessing, different theories of democratic legitimacy. In particular, we will compare procedural and outcome-oriented accounts of the validity of democratic decisions. Does democratic legitimacy depend on the fact of democratic decision-making having intrinsic value? This idea might be defended by reference to values that are inherent in democratic procedures (for example, there might be something inherently fair about making democratic decisions on matters on which people disagree). Or does democratic legitimacy depend on the goals that might be achieved through democratic decision-making, and in this sense on its instrumental value? Such goals might include maximizing the probability of reaching the “correct” collective decisions, assuring peaceful coexistence, promoting economic welfare, or robustly protecting liberal rights.
In the third and final part of the course we will consider some of the specific theoretical challenges faced by contemporary democracies. This part of the course is likely to cover at least the following issues: how to deal with dissent and conflict through democratic processes; criteria for defining the demos (including the so-called “boundary problem”); the status of non-voters (e,g children; animal; future generations); post-colonial criticisms to the democratic ideal; proposals for democratic radical reforms.
Lingua Insegnamento
INGLESE
Altre informazioni
For inquiries write to the teacher responsible Prof. Federica Liveriero: federica.liveriero@unipv.it
Corsi
Corsi
WORLD POLITICS AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Laurea Magistrale
2 anni
No Results Found
Persone
Persone
No Results Found