180055 SE Normative Democratic Theory (2025S)
Continuous assessment of course work
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.
Registration/Deregistration
Note: The time of your registration within the registration period has no effect on the allocation of places (no first come, first served).
- Registration is open from Tu 11.02.2025 09:00 to Mo 17.02.2025 23:59
- Registration is open from Mo 24.02.2025 09:00 to Th 27.02.2025 23:59
- Deregistration possible until Mo 31.03.2025 23:59
Details
max. 25 participants
Language: English
Lecturers
Classes (iCal) - next class is marked with N
- Thursday 13.03. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Thursday 20.03. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Thursday 27.03. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Thursday 03.04. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Thursday 10.04. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Thursday 08.05. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Thursday 15.05. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Thursday 22.05. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Thursday 05.06. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Thursday 12.06. 13:15 - 14:45 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
- Tuesday 01.07. 18:30 - 20:00 Hörsaal 2i NIG 2.Stock C0228
Information
Aims, contents and method of the course
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? No prior knowledge of these topics is necessary, yet students are expected to be diligent in terms of readings and remain engaged throughout.
Assessment and permitted materials
Course assessment is based on the submission of Response Questions, Presentation of a Course Reading, and a Final Paper.
Minimum requirements and assessment criteria
Attendance
Students are expected to regularly attend class.
You must not miss more than 3 sessions.Forum Questions & Responses
Forum Questions should raise a critical point regarding main claims/concepts/arguments of the text.
Forum Responses will address the critical point raised in Forum Questions.
Forum Response Questions will be graded on a pass/fail basis.Presentation of Course Reading
Each student will present a required text from the class material and moderate the discussion for the text. Please prepare a presentation of the text around 20 minutes, and questions for discussion. You should assume that other members of class have read the text we are discussing. The aim of the presentation is to go beyond a minimal understanding of the text and initiate a critical discussion.
Presentation dates will be allocated in the first week of class.Final Paper
The final paper (15, 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
Forum Questions\Responses: 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.Forum Questions & Responses
Forum Questions should raise a critical point regarding main claims/concepts/arguments of the text.
Forum Responses will address the critical point raised in Forum Questions.
Forum Response Questions will be graded on a pass/fail basis.Presentation of Course Reading
Each student will present a required text from the class material and moderate the discussion for the text. Please prepare a presentation of the text around 20 minutes, and questions for discussion. You should assume that other members of class have read the text we are discussing. The aim of the presentation is to go beyond a minimal understanding of the text and initiate a critical discussion.
Presentation dates will be allocated in the first week of class.Final Paper
The final paper (15, 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
Forum Questions\Responses: 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)
Examination topics
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.
Reading list
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.
Association in the course directory
Last modified: Th 05.06.2025 10:46