180142 SE Normative Democratic Theory (2024S)
Prüfungsimmanente Lehrveranstaltung
Labels
Hinweis der SPL Philosophie:Das Abgeben von ganz oder teilweise von einem KI-tool (z.B. ChatGPT) verfassten Texten als Leistungsnachweis (z.B. Seminararbeit) ist nur dann erlaubt, wenn dies von der Lehrveranstaltungsleitung ausdrücklich als mögliche Arbeitsweise genehmigt wurde. Auch hierbei müssen direkt oder indirekt zitierte Textstellen wie immer klar mit Quellenangabe ausgewiesen werden.Die Lehrveranstaltungsleitung kann zur Überprüfung der Autorenschaft einer abgegebenen schriftlichen Arbeit ein notenrelevantes Gespräch (Plausibilitätsprüfung) vorsehen, das erfolgreich zu absolvieren ist.
An/Abmeldung
Hinweis: Ihr Anmeldezeitpunkt innerhalb der Frist hat keine Auswirkungen auf die Platzvergabe (kein "first come, first served").
- Anmeldung von Sa 10.02.2024 10:00 bis So 18.02.2024 23:59
- Abmeldung bis So 31.03.2024 23:59
Details
max. 25 Teilnehmer*innen
Sprache: Englisch
Lehrende
Termine (iCal) - nächster Termin ist mit N markiert
- Dienstag 19.03. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 09.04. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 16.04. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 23.04. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 30.04. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 07.05. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 14.05. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 21.05. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 28.05. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 04.06. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 11.06. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 18.06. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Dienstag 25.06. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
Information
Ziele, Inhalte und Methode der Lehrveranstaltung
Art der Leistungskontrolle und erlaubte Hilfsmittel
Course assessment is based on the submission of Response Questions, an in-class Presentation, and a Final Paper.
Mindestanforderungen und Beurteilungsmaßstab
Attendance
Students are expected to regularly attend class.
You must not miss more than 3 sessions.Response Questions
Prepare 2 response questions for discussion for 4 sessions. Upload the questions in Moodle for the session of the week by Monday evening.
Please select on Moodle for which sessions you will submit response questions.
Response questions should concern the main claims/concepts/arguments of the text where you are not certain of the correct answer.
Response Questions will be graded on a pass/fail basis.Presentation
On Weeks 12, 13 and 14, students will present draft papers in class.
Presentations will be graded on a pass/fail basis.Final Paper
The final paper (15-20 pages, 1.5 spaced, Times New Roman 12pt.). Please research a question of your choice or pick one that we discuss in class.
Students are expected to upload a short proposal in Moodle. I will then send feedback and suggestions for further literature on the proposals.Grading
Response Questions: 20%
Presentation: 20%
Final Paper: 60%90-100: Very good (1)
80-90: Good (2)
70-80: Satisfactory (3)
60-70: Sufficient (4)
<60: Failed (5)
Students are expected to regularly attend class.
You must not miss more than 3 sessions.Response Questions
Prepare 2 response questions for discussion for 4 sessions. Upload the questions in Moodle for the session of the week by Monday evening.
Please select on Moodle for which sessions you will submit response questions.
Response questions should concern the main claims/concepts/arguments of the text where you are not certain of the correct answer.
Response Questions will be graded on a pass/fail basis.Presentation
On Weeks 12, 13 and 14, students will present draft papers in class.
Presentations will be graded on a pass/fail basis.Final Paper
The final paper (15-20 pages, 1.5 spaced, Times New Roman 12pt.). Please research a question of your choice or pick one that we discuss in class.
Students are expected to upload a short proposal in Moodle. I will then send feedback and suggestions for further literature on the proposals.Grading
Response Questions: 20%
Presentation: 20%
Final Paper: 60%90-100: Very good (1)
80-90: Good (2)
70-80: Satisfactory (3)
60-70: Sufficient (4)
<60: Failed (5)
Prüfungsstoff
At the end of the course, the students should be able to:
- Understand and employ central concepts in thinking of democracy in an abstract way.
- Have a clear idea of different values at play in the philosophical debates on democracy.
- Familiarize with the style of philosophical argumentation in the debates on democracy.
- Understand and employ central concepts in thinking of democracy in an abstract way.
- Have a clear idea of different values at play in the philosophical debates on democracy.
- Familiarize with the style of philosophical argumentation in the debates on democracy.
Literatur
Anderson, Elizabeth (2009) “Democracy: Instrumental vs Non-Instrumental Value.” In T. Christiano and J. Christman (eds.), Contemporary debates in political philosophy, Wiley Blackwell: 213- 229.
Arneson, Richard (2009) “The Supposed Right to a Democratic Say” In T. Christiano and J. Christman (eds.), Contemporary debates in political philosophy, Wiley Blackwell: 197-213.
Benli, Ali Emre (2018) March of refugees: an act of civil disobedience, Journal of Global Ethics, 14:3, 315-331
Benli, Ali Emre (2023) Should refugees in the European Union have voting rights?, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 26:5, 680-701,
Brando, Nico (2022) “Is child disenfranchisement justified?”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.
Brennan, Jason (2011) “The right to a competent electorate” The Philosophical Quarterly 61(245): 700-724.
Christiano, Tom (2002) “Democracy and Equality.” In David Estlund (ed.) Democracy Oxford: Blackwell: 31-51.
Estlund, David and Hélène Landemore (2018) “The Epistemic Value of Democratic Deliberation.” In Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodin, Robert (2007) “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 35: 40–68.
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson (2004) “What Deliberative Democracy Means?” In Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press.
Lafont, Cristina (2015) “Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-Publics Shape Public Policy?” The Journal of Political Philosophy 23:
Miller, David (2009) “Democracy’s Domain.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 37: 201–228.
Schidel, Regina (2022) “Universal enfranchisement for citizens with cognitive disabilities – A moral-status argument” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.
Waldron, Jeremy (2002) ‘The Constitutional Conception of Democracy.’ In David Estlund (ed.) Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell: 51-85.
Arneson, Richard (2009) “The Supposed Right to a Democratic Say” In T. Christiano and J. Christman (eds.), Contemporary debates in political philosophy, Wiley Blackwell: 197-213.
Benli, Ali Emre (2018) March of refugees: an act of civil disobedience, Journal of Global Ethics, 14:3, 315-331
Benli, Ali Emre (2023) Should refugees in the European Union have voting rights?, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, 26:5, 680-701,
Brando, Nico (2022) “Is child disenfranchisement justified?”, Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.
Brennan, Jason (2011) “The right to a competent electorate” The Philosophical Quarterly 61(245): 700-724.
Christiano, Tom (2002) “Democracy and Equality.” In David Estlund (ed.) Democracy Oxford: Blackwell: 31-51.
Estlund, David and Hélène Landemore (2018) “The Epistemic Value of Democratic Deliberation.” In Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodin, Robert (2007) “Enfranchising All Affected Interests, and Its Alternatives.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 35: 40–68.
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson (2004) “What Deliberative Democracy Means?” In Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press.
Lafont, Cristina (2015) “Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-Publics Shape Public Policy?” The Journal of Political Philosophy 23:
Miller, David (2009) “Democracy’s Domain.” Philosophy & Public Affairs 37: 201–228.
Schidel, Regina (2022) “Universal enfranchisement for citizens with cognitive disabilities – A moral-status argument” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy.
Waldron, Jeremy (2002) ‘The Constitutional Conception of Democracy.’ In David Estlund (ed.) Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell: 51-85.
Zuordnung im Vorlesungsverzeichnis
Letzte Änderung: Di 05.03.2024 16:06
Democracy has always been a contested concept. Yet today, it is increasingly being the central topic in public discussions, even in political communities where democratic institutions are taken for granted. This course aims to engage with these discussions by examining contemporary philosophical debates on democracy. We will begin by discussing the value of democracy. Is it intrinsically valuable as the fairest procedure for making decisions in political communities or instrumental in advancing justice or the common good? If democracy is intrinsically valuable, what are the grounds of political equality? To what extent democratic rights are in tension with other fundamental rights and freedoms? With these questions in mind, we will analyse the normative ideal of deliberative democracy. What is the ideal of free and open deliberation? To what extent is it tenable in non-ideal circumstances? If democracy is valuable in its outcomes, why do we trust democracy to make correct decisions? Why not delegate to experts? Finally, we scrutinize democratic inclusion. How should we draw the boundaries of the demos? Which principles determine who gets to vote? What about people with cognitive disabilities, non-citizens, children, or domestic animals? Students will be asked to respond to these and other similar questions during the discussion hours followed by the lectures. No prior knowledge of these topics is necessary, yet students are expected to be diligent in terms of readings and remain engaged throughout.