Social Justice in a Global World
A.Y. 2024/2025
Learning objectives
The course focuses on topics and questions currently at the centre of the philosophical debate on global justice. On the one hand, the course aims at familiarizing students with the basic notions and concepts crucial to make sense of questions of distributive justice as well as with the major conceptions of justice developed for the domestic level. On the other hand, the course intends to offer clues for appreciating the peculiarity of the global domain, the specific challenges connected to extending requirements of justice beyond domestic contexts, and the key arguments for and against such an extension.
Expected learning outcomes
Knowledge and understanding:
Students are expected to acquire a clear understanding about the key notions and concepts employed in the philosophical debate concerning distributive justice. Students are also expected to acquire in-depth knowledge concerning the major approaches to distributive justice developed for the domestic domain and to understand their assumptions and their implications for the debate on global justice. Moreover, students are expected to gain familiarity with the peculiarity of the global domain, with the challenges connected to extending requirements of justice beyond domestic contexts and with arguments for and against such an extension.
Applying knowledge and understanding:
At the end of the course, students are expected to be able to apply their acquired knowledge and competences in the field of distributive justice and global justice to issues animating public debates. To this end, the course offers several occasions for in-depth class discussion, which will provide a suitable space for debating the relevance and import of the philosophical notions and approaches under examination with respect to more concrete issues and questions. Moreover, the course focuses on topics currently at the centre of public debate - such as migration and climate change - that are precisely meant to increase students' understanding about how to use abstract and general philosophical arguments to tackle more specific problems.
Making judgements:
Thanks to the structure of the course and the selected readings, students are expected to increase their propensity for autonomous judgment. To this end, students will be required to read and examine essays providing opposing arguments (e.g. one essay for and one essay against a certain conception of justice) or essays endorsing different theoretical and methodological approaches. Students will be therefore introduced to a plurality of perspectives and this is expected to improve their capacity to adjudicate among conflicting arguments by autonomously assessing their relative merits and limits. Moreover, the bulk of the course will consist in the analysis of philosophical arguments - of their premises and their internal structure - and students will be required to critically examine the arguments at stake, thus further enhancing their capacity to autonomously judge their validity.
Communication:
Students are expected to acquire familiarity with the argumentative strategies endorse in philosophical debates, which offer insights on how to elaborate consistent arguments or proposals and on how to effectively defend them and which are therefore functional to improve students' communication skills by. Moreover, students will be required to summarize and discuss complex arguments in a clear and effective way both orally - through in-class presentations - and in written form, thus having a further opportunity to strengthen their communication skills. For attendant students, similar skills are expected to be enhanced also through class discussions, which are meant to provide students with the opportunity to improve their argumentative capacities by engaging with arguments proposed by their classmates.
Students are expected to acquire a clear understanding about the key notions and concepts employed in the philosophical debate concerning distributive justice. Students are also expected to acquire in-depth knowledge concerning the major approaches to distributive justice developed for the domestic domain and to understand their assumptions and their implications for the debate on global justice. Moreover, students are expected to gain familiarity with the peculiarity of the global domain, with the challenges connected to extending requirements of justice beyond domestic contexts and with arguments for and against such an extension.
Applying knowledge and understanding:
At the end of the course, students are expected to be able to apply their acquired knowledge and competences in the field of distributive justice and global justice to issues animating public debates. To this end, the course offers several occasions for in-depth class discussion, which will provide a suitable space for debating the relevance and import of the philosophical notions and approaches under examination with respect to more concrete issues and questions. Moreover, the course focuses on topics currently at the centre of public debate - such as migration and climate change - that are precisely meant to increase students' understanding about how to use abstract and general philosophical arguments to tackle more specific problems.
Making judgements:
Thanks to the structure of the course and the selected readings, students are expected to increase their propensity for autonomous judgment. To this end, students will be required to read and examine essays providing opposing arguments (e.g. one essay for and one essay against a certain conception of justice) or essays endorsing different theoretical and methodological approaches. Students will be therefore introduced to a plurality of perspectives and this is expected to improve their capacity to adjudicate among conflicting arguments by autonomously assessing their relative merits and limits. Moreover, the bulk of the course will consist in the analysis of philosophical arguments - of their premises and their internal structure - and students will be required to critically examine the arguments at stake, thus further enhancing their capacity to autonomously judge their validity.
Communication:
Students are expected to acquire familiarity with the argumentative strategies endorse in philosophical debates, which offer insights on how to elaborate consistent arguments or proposals and on how to effectively defend them and which are therefore functional to improve students' communication skills by. Moreover, students will be required to summarize and discuss complex arguments in a clear and effective way both orally - through in-class presentations - and in written form, thus having a further opportunity to strengthen their communication skills. For attendant students, similar skills are expected to be enhanced also through class discussions, which are meant to provide students with the opportunity to improve their argumentative capacities by engaging with arguments proposed by their classmates.
Lesson period: Second trimester
Assessment methods: Esame
Assessment result: voto verbalizzato in trentesimi
Single course
This course can be attended as a single course.
Course syllabus and organization
Single session
Responsible
Lesson period
Second trimester
Course syllabus
The course addresses issues of distributive justice with a special focus on the international and global dimension.
The course will provide a preliminary overview of the basic notions and concepts necessary to understand questions of distributive justice. Particular attention is paid to the notions of justice and equality, to their relationship, and to the different ways of conceptualizing similar notions. The course will also provide insights concerning the major contemporary approaches in the field of distributive justice developed for the domestic level and on the relevant grounds to compare them. More precisely, the focus will be on Rawlsian liberal egalitarianism, luck egalitarianism, and libertarianism.
On a similar background, the course will address the debate on global justice. The course will offer insights for appreciating the peculiarity of the global domain, for familiarizing with the specific challenges connected to extending requirements of justice beyond domestic contexts, and for comprehending the main arguments for and against such an extension. The course will also illustrate different approaches to inequalities at the global level and it will focus on justice-related questions concerning poverty, migration, climate change and health.
Syllabus for attending students:
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: BASIC CONCEPTS AND MAJOR APPROACHES
- Lecture 1: Justice and equality
- Lecture 2: The Rawlsian paradigm
- Lecture 3: Luck egalitarianism
- Lecture 4: Libertarianism
- Lecture 5: Class discussion on readings and topics from lectures 1 and 2
- Lecture 6: Class discussion on readings and topics from lectures 3 and 4
GLOBAL JUSTICE
- Lecture 7: From domestic to international domains: resources and interdependence
- Lecture 8: Pro and against global justice
- Lecture 9: Class discussion on readings and topics from lecture 7
- Lecture 10: Class discussion on readings and topics from lecture 8
GLOBAL ISSUES
- Lecture 11: Global poverty: negative and positive duties
- Lecture 12: Migration: close v. open borders
- Lecture 13: Global health issues
- Lecture 14: Justice and climate change
- Lecture 15: Midterm written test
DEBATE SESSIONS
- Lecture 16: Debate on global poverty
- Lecture 17: Debate on migration
- Lecture 18: Debate on global health issues
- Lecture 19: Debate on justice and climate change
- Lecture 20: Recap lecture
Please note: The previous syllabus is provisional. The syllabus will be fine-tuned at the beginning of the course, and its final version, with more precise indications about the relevant dates, will be available on the myAriel website of the course.
The course will provide a preliminary overview of the basic notions and concepts necessary to understand questions of distributive justice. Particular attention is paid to the notions of justice and equality, to their relationship, and to the different ways of conceptualizing similar notions. The course will also provide insights concerning the major contemporary approaches in the field of distributive justice developed for the domestic level and on the relevant grounds to compare them. More precisely, the focus will be on Rawlsian liberal egalitarianism, luck egalitarianism, and libertarianism.
On a similar background, the course will address the debate on global justice. The course will offer insights for appreciating the peculiarity of the global domain, for familiarizing with the specific challenges connected to extending requirements of justice beyond domestic contexts, and for comprehending the main arguments for and against such an extension. The course will also illustrate different approaches to inequalities at the global level and it will focus on justice-related questions concerning poverty, migration, climate change and health.
Syllabus for attending students:
DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE: BASIC CONCEPTS AND MAJOR APPROACHES
- Lecture 1: Justice and equality
- Lecture 2: The Rawlsian paradigm
- Lecture 3: Luck egalitarianism
- Lecture 4: Libertarianism
- Lecture 5: Class discussion on readings and topics from lectures 1 and 2
- Lecture 6: Class discussion on readings and topics from lectures 3 and 4
GLOBAL JUSTICE
- Lecture 7: From domestic to international domains: resources and interdependence
- Lecture 8: Pro and against global justice
- Lecture 9: Class discussion on readings and topics from lecture 7
- Lecture 10: Class discussion on readings and topics from lecture 8
GLOBAL ISSUES
- Lecture 11: Global poverty: negative and positive duties
- Lecture 12: Migration: close v. open borders
- Lecture 13: Global health issues
- Lecture 14: Justice and climate change
- Lecture 15: Midterm written test
DEBATE SESSIONS
- Lecture 16: Debate on global poverty
- Lecture 17: Debate on migration
- Lecture 18: Debate on global health issues
- Lecture 19: Debate on justice and climate change
- Lecture 20: Recap lecture
Please note: The previous syllabus is provisional. The syllabus will be fine-tuned at the beginning of the course, and its final version, with more precise indications about the relevant dates, will be available on the myAriel website of the course.
Prerequisites for admission
No specific preliminary knowledge is required to fruitfully attend the course or take the exam.
Teaching methods
The course combines lessons, class discussions, and debate sessions.
Students' active participation in all in-class activities is strongly encouraged, and for debate sessions, students will be required to work in teams.
Teaching materials, including the slides presented during classes, will be available on the myAriel website of the course. The slides constitute - especially for attending students - a reference point to keep track of the development of the program and to easily identify the main issues and questions to focus on when addressing reading assignments.
The mAriel website of the course will also host materials prepared by the students for debate sessions and meant to be shared with their colleagues.
Students' active participation in all in-class activities is strongly encouraged, and for debate sessions, students will be required to work in teams.
Teaching materials, including the slides presented during classes, will be available on the myAriel website of the course. The slides constitute - especially for attending students - a reference point to keep track of the development of the program and to easily identify the main issues and questions to focus on when addressing reading assignments.
The mAriel website of the course will also host materials prepared by the students for debate sessions and meant to be shared with their colleagues.
Teaching Resources
The exam materials are different for 1. attending students and 2. non-attending students
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
For attending students, the exam materials are organized with reference to the topics included in the syllabus. Readings are expected to be completed before the relevant session devoted to class discussion in order to be able to complete the cinnected "Questions and comments form" and to take active part in the discussion.
JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
- Carter, I. (2012) "Equality", in A. Besussi (ed.), A Companion to Political Philosophy. Methods, Tools, Topics, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 161-170.
- Arneson, R. (2007), "Equality", in R. Goodin, P. Pettit and T. Pogge (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 583-611.
THE RAWLSIAN PARADIGM
- Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press: §§ 1-4, 11, 20-22, and 24-25 (pp. 3-33, pp. 60-65, pp. 118-130, pp. 136-150).
LUCK EGALITARIANISM
- Cohen, G.A. (2006), "Luck and Equality: A Reply to Hurley", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 72(2): 439-446.
- Tan, K.C. (2008), "A Defense of Luck Egalitarianism", Journal of Philosophy, 105(11): 665-690.
LIBERTARIANISM
- Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books: pp. 149-164, and pp. 167-174.
- Vallentyne, P. (2009), "Left-Libertarianism as a Promising Form of Liberal Egalitarianism", Philosophic Exchange, 39(1): 56-71.
FROM DOMESTIC TO INTERNATIONAL DOMAINS: RESOURCES AND INTERDEPENDENCE
- Beitz, C. R. (1979), Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press: Part 3 - International Distributive Justice, Section 1 "Social Cooperation, Boundaries, and the Basis of Justice", Section 2 "Entitlements to Natural Resources", and Section 3 "Interdependence and Global Distributive Justice" (pp. 125-153).
- Rawls, J. (1999), The Law of Peoples, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press: §§ 2- 4 and 15-16 (pp. 23-43 and pp. 105-120).
FOR AND AGAINST GLOBAL JUSTICE
- Caney, S. (2001), "Cosmopolitan Justice and Equalizing Opportunities", Metaphilosophy, 32(1/2): 113-134.
- Nagel, T. (2005) "The Problem of Global Justice", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2): 113-147.
GLOBAL POVERTY: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE DUTIES
- Singer, P. (1972) "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(3): 229-243.
- Pogge, T.W. (2002), "Eradicating Systemic Poverty: Brief for a Global Resources Dividend", in World Poverty and Human Rights, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 196-215.
MIGRATION: OPEN V. CLOSED BORDERS
- Carens, J. (1987), "Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders", Review of Politics, 49(2): 251-273.
- Miller, D. (2005), "Immigration: The Case for its Limits", in A.I. Cohen and C.H. Wellman (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 193-206.
JUSTICE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
- Shue, H. (1993), "Subsistence Emissions and Luxury Emissions", in Climate Justice. Vulnerability and Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 47-67.
- Attfield, R. (2019), "Vital Needs and Climate Change: Inter-Human, Inter-Generational and Inter-Species Justice", in P.G. Harris (ed.), A Research Agenda for Climate Justice, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 15-26.
GLOBAL HEALTH ISSUES
- Buchanan, A. and DeCamp, M. (2006), "Responsibility for Global Health", Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 27(1), 95-114.
- Beaton, E., Gadomski, M., Manson, D. and Tan, K.C. (2021), "Crisis Nationalism: To What Degree is National Partiality Justifiable during a Global Pandemic?, Ethic Theory Moral Practice, 24(1): 285-300.
The midterm written test for attending students will focus on all the readings listed above plus the slides with the lecture notes, which will be available on the myAriel website of the course.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the myAriel website of the course.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
The exam materials for non-attending students are divided between a list of "General readings" - necessary for the first part of the written test - and "Specific readings", which are organized into thematic groups and which are to prepared for addressing the second part of the written test.
2.2. GENERAL READINGS:
Familiarity with all the readings listed below is necessary to address the questions included in the first part of the written test:
- Arneson, R. (2007), "Equality", in R. Goodin, P. Pettit and T. Pogge (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 583-611.
- Arneson, R. (2006), "Justice after Rawls", in J.S. Dryzek, B. Honig and A. Phillips (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 45-64.
- Maffettone, S. (2012) "Justice", in A. Besussi (ed.), A Companion to Political Philosophy. Methods, Tools, Topics, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 183-194.
- Brown, C (2006), "From International to Global Justice", in J.S. Dryzek, B. Honig and A. Phillips (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 621-635.
- Blake, M. and Smith, P.T. (2015), "International Distributive Justice", in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; available at the following link: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/international-justice/
- Brock, G. (2017), "Global Justice", The Stanford Encyclopedia of available at the following link: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/justice-global/
- Beitz, C. R. (1979), Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press: Part 3 - International Distributive Justice, Section 1 "Social Cooperation, Boundaries, and the Basis of Justice", Section 2 "Entitlements to Natural Resources", and Section 3 "Interdependence and Global Distributive Justice" (pp. 125-153).
- Freeman, S. (2007), "The Law of Peoples", in Rawls, London and New York: Routeledge, pp. 416-456.
- Rawls, J. (1999), The Law of Peoples, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press: §§ 2- 4 and 15-16 (pp. 23-43 and pp. 105-120).
- Nagel, T. (2005) "The Problem of Global Justice", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2): 113-147.
2.3. SPECIFIC READINGS:
Non-attending students are required to choose one topic from those listed below and prepare all and only the connected readings. Familiarity with such readings is necessary to address the relative thematic question proposed in the second part of the written test.
GLOBAL POVERTY: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE DUTIES
- Singer, P. (1972) "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(3): 229-243.
- Barry, B. (1982), "Humanity and Justice in Global Perspective", in J. Pennock and J. Chapman (eds.), NOMOS XXIV: Ethics, Economics and the Law, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf; now in Barry, B. (1989), Liberty and Justice, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 182-210.
- Pogge, T.W. (2002), "Eradicating Systemic Poverty: Brief for a Global Resources Dividend", in World Poverty and Human Rights, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 196-215.
- Patten, A. (2005), "Should we stop thinking about poverty in terms of helping the poor?", Ethics & International Affairs, 19(1): 19-27.
MIGRATION: OPEN V. CLOSED BORDERS
- Carens, J. (1987), "Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders", Review of Politics, 49(2): 251-273.
- Miller, D. (2005), "Immigration: The Case for its Limits", in A.I. Cohen and C.H. Wellman (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 193-206.
- Ypi, L. (2008), "Justice in Migration: A Closed Borders Utopia?", Journal of Political Philosophy, 16(4): 391-418.
- Niño Arnaiz, B. (2022), "Should we open borders? Yes, but not in the name of global justice", Ethics & Global Politics, 15(2): 55-68.
* JUSTICE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
- Mollendorf, D. (2015), "Climate Change Justice", Philosophy Compass, 10(3), 173-186.
- Shue, H. (1993), "Subsistence Emissions and Luxury Emissions", in Climate Justice. Vulnerability and Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 47-67.
- Attfield, R. (2019), "Vital Needs and Climate Change: Inter-Human, Inter-Generational and Inter-Species Justice", in P.G. Harris (ed.), A Research Agenda for Climate Justice, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 15-26.
- Preston, C.J. (2013), "Ethics and geoengineering: Reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal", Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(1):pp. 23-37.
* GLOBAL HEALTH ISSUES
- Faden, R., Bernstein, J., and Shebaya, S. (2022), "Public Health Ethics", in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at the following link: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/publichealth-ethics.
- Buchanan, A. and DeCamp, M. (2006), "Responsibility for Global Health", Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 27(1), 95-114.
- Beaton, E., Gadomski, M., Manson, D. and Tan, K.C. (2021), "Crisis Nationalism: To What Degree is National Partiality Justifiable during a Global Pandemic?, Ethic Theory Moral Practice, 24(1): 285-300.
- Pogge, T. (2009), "The Health Impact Fund and Its Justification by Appeal to Human Rights", Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(4): 541-569.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
For attending students, the exam materials are organized with reference to the topics included in the syllabus. Readings are expected to be completed before the relevant session devoted to class discussion in order to be able to complete the cinnected "Questions and comments form" and to take active part in the discussion.
JUSTICE AND EQUALITY
- Carter, I. (2012) "Equality", in A. Besussi (ed.), A Companion to Political Philosophy. Methods, Tools, Topics, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 161-170.
- Arneson, R. (2007), "Equality", in R. Goodin, P. Pettit and T. Pogge (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 583-611.
THE RAWLSIAN PARADIGM
- Rawls, J. (1971), A Theory of Justice, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press: §§ 1-4, 11, 20-22, and 24-25 (pp. 3-33, pp. 60-65, pp. 118-130, pp. 136-150).
LUCK EGALITARIANISM
- Cohen, G.A. (2006), "Luck and Equality: A Reply to Hurley", Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 72(2): 439-446.
- Tan, K.C. (2008), "A Defense of Luck Egalitarianism", Journal of Philosophy, 105(11): 665-690.
LIBERTARIANISM
- Nozick, R. (1974), Anarchy, State, and Utopia, New York: Basic Books: pp. 149-164, and pp. 167-174.
- Vallentyne, P. (2009), "Left-Libertarianism as a Promising Form of Liberal Egalitarianism", Philosophic Exchange, 39(1): 56-71.
FROM DOMESTIC TO INTERNATIONAL DOMAINS: RESOURCES AND INTERDEPENDENCE
- Beitz, C. R. (1979), Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press: Part 3 - International Distributive Justice, Section 1 "Social Cooperation, Boundaries, and the Basis of Justice", Section 2 "Entitlements to Natural Resources", and Section 3 "Interdependence and Global Distributive Justice" (pp. 125-153).
- Rawls, J. (1999), The Law of Peoples, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press: §§ 2- 4 and 15-16 (pp. 23-43 and pp. 105-120).
FOR AND AGAINST GLOBAL JUSTICE
- Caney, S. (2001), "Cosmopolitan Justice and Equalizing Opportunities", Metaphilosophy, 32(1/2): 113-134.
- Nagel, T. (2005) "The Problem of Global Justice", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2): 113-147.
GLOBAL POVERTY: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE DUTIES
- Singer, P. (1972) "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(3): 229-243.
- Pogge, T.W. (2002), "Eradicating Systemic Poverty: Brief for a Global Resources Dividend", in World Poverty and Human Rights, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 196-215.
MIGRATION: OPEN V. CLOSED BORDERS
- Carens, J. (1987), "Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders", Review of Politics, 49(2): 251-273.
- Miller, D. (2005), "Immigration: The Case for its Limits", in A.I. Cohen and C.H. Wellman (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 193-206.
JUSTICE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
- Shue, H. (1993), "Subsistence Emissions and Luxury Emissions", in Climate Justice. Vulnerability and Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 47-67.
- Attfield, R. (2019), "Vital Needs and Climate Change: Inter-Human, Inter-Generational and Inter-Species Justice", in P.G. Harris (ed.), A Research Agenda for Climate Justice, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 15-26.
GLOBAL HEALTH ISSUES
- Buchanan, A. and DeCamp, M. (2006), "Responsibility for Global Health", Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 27(1), 95-114.
- Beaton, E., Gadomski, M., Manson, D. and Tan, K.C. (2021), "Crisis Nationalism: To What Degree is National Partiality Justifiable during a Global Pandemic?, Ethic Theory Moral Practice, 24(1): 285-300.
The midterm written test for attending students will focus on all the readings listed above plus the slides with the lecture notes, which will be available on the myAriel website of the course.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the myAriel website of the course.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
The exam materials for non-attending students are divided between a list of "General readings" - necessary for the first part of the written test - and "Specific readings", which are organized into thematic groups and which are to prepared for addressing the second part of the written test.
2.2. GENERAL READINGS:
Familiarity with all the readings listed below is necessary to address the questions included in the first part of the written test:
- Arneson, R. (2007), "Equality", in R. Goodin, P. Pettit and T. Pogge (eds.), A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 583-611.
- Arneson, R. (2006), "Justice after Rawls", in J.S. Dryzek, B. Honig and A. Phillips (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 45-64.
- Maffettone, S. (2012) "Justice", in A. Besussi (ed.), A Companion to Political Philosophy. Methods, Tools, Topics, Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 183-194.
- Brown, C (2006), "From International to Global Justice", in J.S. Dryzek, B. Honig and A. Phillips (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Theory, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 621-635.
- Blake, M. and Smith, P.T. (2015), "International Distributive Justice", in E.N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy; available at the following link: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2015/entries/international-justice/
- Brock, G. (2017), "Global Justice", The Stanford Encyclopedia of available at the following link: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2017/entries/justice-global/
- Beitz, C. R. (1979), Political Theory and International Relations, Princeton: Princeton University Press: Part 3 - International Distributive Justice, Section 1 "Social Cooperation, Boundaries, and the Basis of Justice", Section 2 "Entitlements to Natural Resources", and Section 3 "Interdependence and Global Distributive Justice" (pp. 125-153).
- Freeman, S. (2007), "The Law of Peoples", in Rawls, London and New York: Routeledge, pp. 416-456.
- Rawls, J. (1999), The Law of Peoples, Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press: §§ 2- 4 and 15-16 (pp. 23-43 and pp. 105-120).
- Nagel, T. (2005) "The Problem of Global Justice", Philosophy & Public Affairs, 33(2): 113-147.
2.3. SPECIFIC READINGS:
Non-attending students are required to choose one topic from those listed below and prepare all and only the connected readings. Familiarity with such readings is necessary to address the relative thematic question proposed in the second part of the written test.
GLOBAL POVERTY: NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE DUTIES
- Singer, P. (1972) "Famine, Affluence, and Morality," Philosophy & Public Affairs, 1(3): 229-243.
- Barry, B. (1982), "Humanity and Justice in Global Perspective", in J. Pennock and J. Chapman (eds.), NOMOS XXIV: Ethics, Economics and the Law, New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf; now in Barry, B. (1989), Liberty and Justice, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 182-210.
- Pogge, T.W. (2002), "Eradicating Systemic Poverty: Brief for a Global Resources Dividend", in World Poverty and Human Rights, Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 196-215.
- Patten, A. (2005), "Should we stop thinking about poverty in terms of helping the poor?", Ethics & International Affairs, 19(1): 19-27.
MIGRATION: OPEN V. CLOSED BORDERS
- Carens, J. (1987), "Aliens and Citizens: The Case for Open Borders", Review of Politics, 49(2): 251-273.
- Miller, D. (2005), "Immigration: The Case for its Limits", in A.I. Cohen and C.H. Wellman (eds.), Contemporary Debates in Applied Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 193-206.
- Ypi, L. (2008), "Justice in Migration: A Closed Borders Utopia?", Journal of Political Philosophy, 16(4): 391-418.
- Niño Arnaiz, B. (2022), "Should we open borders? Yes, but not in the name of global justice", Ethics & Global Politics, 15(2): 55-68.
* JUSTICE AND CLIMATE CHANGE
- Mollendorf, D. (2015), "Climate Change Justice", Philosophy Compass, 10(3), 173-186.
- Shue, H. (1993), "Subsistence Emissions and Luxury Emissions", in Climate Justice. Vulnerability and Protection, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 47-67.
- Attfield, R. (2019), "Vital Needs and Climate Change: Inter-Human, Inter-Generational and Inter-Species Justice", in P.G. Harris (ed.), A Research Agenda for Climate Justice, Edward Elgar Publishing, pp. 15-26.
- Preston, C.J. (2013), "Ethics and geoengineering: Reviewing the moral issues raised by solar radiation management and carbon dioxide removal", Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(1):pp. 23-37.
* GLOBAL HEALTH ISSUES
- Faden, R., Bernstein, J., and Shebaya, S. (2022), "Public Health Ethics", in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, available at the following link: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2022/entries/publichealth-ethics.
- Buchanan, A. and DeCamp, M. (2006), "Responsibility for Global Health", Theoretical medicine and bioethics, 27(1), 95-114.
- Beaton, E., Gadomski, M., Manson, D. and Tan, K.C. (2021), "Crisis Nationalism: To What Degree is National Partiality Justifiable during a Global Pandemic?, Ethic Theory Moral Practice, 24(1): 285-300.
- Pogge, T. (2009), "The Health Impact Fund and Its Justification by Appeal to Human Rights", Journal of Social Philosophy, 40(4): 541-569.
Please note: Readings which are difficult to find will be available on the Ariel website of the course.
Assessment methods and Criteria
PLEASE NOTE: EPS's students enrolled from a.y. 2024-25 should attend at least 50% of classes to be able to take the exam. Only if both this minimum requirement and the additional requirements listed below are satisfied, EPS's students enrolled from a.y. 2024-25 can take the exam as attending students. Otherwise, if they satisfy only the minimum requirement of attending 50% of classes, they will need to take the exam as non-attending students.
The exam structure is different for 1. attending students and 2. non-attending students.
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
Attending students are expected to regularly attend classes and to actively participate in discussions and other in-class activities. More specifically, attending students are required to:
- fill in the online "Registration form" within the deadline specified at the beginning of the course;
- before each class devoted to discussion, deliver remarks on the readings at stake by completing the relevant online "Questions and comments form";
- sit for the midterm written test;
- select the topic on which they will work with their team for the debate sessions;
- take active part during their assigned debate session;
- deliver a final paper.
The deadline for each assignment, the relevant forms, and the date of the midterm written test will be available on the myAriel website of the course before classes start.
Please note: The mentioned requirements and the connected deadlines admit no exception: students who fail to comply with any of them will have to take the exam on the program for non-attending students.
For students fulfilling all the above requirements and complying with all the relevant deadlines, final grades (out of thirty) result from the weighted mean between the grades for the:
- midterm written test (40%) [see section 1.1];
- debate session (25%) [see section 1.2];
- paper (35%) [see section 1.3].
Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
Final grades for attending students will be published on the Ariel website of the course before official registration.
1.1. MIDTERM WRITTEN TEST
The test comprises open questions meant to verify the knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and of the topics addressed during classes and discussions. More precisely, students are expected to be able to:
- explain the relationship between justice and equality;
- elucidate the difference, and discuss the connections, between the basis and the currency of equality;
- compare and assess the relative merits and limits of egalitarian, sufficientarian and prioritarian approaches to distributive justice;
- illustrate the distinguishing features of the approaches to distributive justice for the domestic domain addressed during classes and/or in the readings and comparatively assess such approaches by considering both their theoretical soundness and their practical implications:
- spell out the specificities attributed, in scholarly or public debates, to the international or global domain and critically assess their empirical soundness and normative relevance;
- discuss whether it is possible and/or fruitful to extend approaches elaborated for domestic contexts to the international or global domain;
- describe the approaches elaborated for the international or global domain and assess them by considering their theoretical or empirical soundness as well as their practical or normative implications;
- clarify what is at stakes in the scholarly and public debates concerning global poverty, migration, climate change and global health and discuss whether the approaches to distributive justice addressed during classes or in the readings can be fruitful to tackle similar issues;
- argue for/against the theoretical or concrete proposals meant to tackle global poverty, migration, climate change and global health addressed during classes and/or in the readings and advance alternative proposals for dealing with such issues.
The written tests will be marked with grades out of thirty, which result from the separate evaluation of each provided answer. The evaluation is based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of content of the provided answers, and it also considers the answers' clarity, their level of detail and the coherence, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed by the students [see section 3]. The overall grade for the written test is determined by the mean between the grades attributed to each answer. Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5. The results of the midterm written test for attending students will be published on the myAriel website of the course.
1.2. DEBATE SESSIONS
Each debate session involves two teams, one arguing in favour and the other arguing against a specific proposition provided in advance. Debate sessions are formally structured, with specific roles attributed to the teams' members and with strict time constraints to respect.
Each team and its members are required to: deliver an opening statement; develop a rebuttal statement challenging the position defended by the other team; address questions and comments by students in the audience; provide a closing statement supporting their assigned position. The details about the structure of the debate sessions, the roles to be attributed to teams' members and the time constraints will be defined considering the actual number of attending students. Accordingly, more precise indications will be provided on the myAriel website a few weeks after the beginning of the course.
For the debate sessions, students will be assessed individually considering their capacity to: 1. clearly state and justify the position they defend (up to 10 points); 2. rebut the arguments of the other team (up to 10 points); 3. effectively answer questions and address comments by the members of the other team and by students in the audience (up to 10 points); 4. respect time constraints and efficiently use the time at their disposal (up to 3 points). The overall grade (out of thirty) for the debate session is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. Please note: 30 cum laude is equal to 33, and it is obtained with a minimum score of 31. The grades will published on the myAriel website of the course at the end of all debate sessions.
1.3. PAPER
The final paper is intended to be an argumentative essay. Students need to select one of the propositions proposed for the debate sessions (not the one they addressed with their team) and to argue in favour or against it. The paper is expected to be no longer than 15.000 characters (titles, notes, included - bibliography not included). More details on how to write the final paper will be provided during classes and on the myAriel website of the course.
For the final paper, students will be assessed considering: 1. the clarity and insightfulness of their thesis (up to 6 points); 2. the consistency and the originality of the reasoning and of the arguments provided to support their thesis (up to 9 pints); 3. the seriousness in identifying possible counterarguments or opposing positions, and the rigour in addressing them (up to 9 points); 4. the overall structure of the paper (up to 6 points); 5. the relevance of the sources and materials referred to in the paper and the appropriateness of their use (up to 3 points). The overall grade (out of thirty) for the paper is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. Please note: 30 cum laude is equal to 33, and it will obtained with a minimum score of 31. The grades for the final paper will be published on the my Ariel website of the course.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists of one single written test, divided into two parts. The materials to prepare for the test are accordingly divided between "General readings" and "Specific readings".
The two parts of the test are meant to ascertain the acquisition of different competences and capacities, and hence, they are assessed separately [see sections 2.2 and 2.3] and the test is considered passed only if both its two parts are completed successfully. The two grades (out of thirty) contribute equally to the final grade for the course. The overall grade for the exam is determined by the mean between the grade for the first part of the written test and that for the second part. Please note: 30 cum laude is equal to 33, and it will obtained with a minimum score of 31.5. Final grades for non-attending students will be published on the Ariel website of the course before official registration.
2.2. FIRTS PART OF THE WRITTEN TEST
The first part of the written test comprises open questions meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the general readings as well as the students' capacity to establish connections between the various topics and to comparatively and critically assess different approaches. More precisely, students are expected to be able to:
- explain the relationship between justice and equality;
- elucidate the difference and discuss the connections between the basis and the currency of equality;
- compare and assess the relative merits and limits of egalitarian, sufficientarian and prioritarian approaches to distributive justice;
- illustrate the distinguishing features of the approaches to distributive justice for the domestic domain addressed in the exam materials and comparatively assess such approaches by considering both their theoretical soundness and their practical implications:
- spell out the specificities attributed, in scholarly or public debates, to the international or global domain and critically assess their empirical soundness and normative relevance;
- discuss whether it is possible and/or fruitful to extend the approaches elaborated for domestic contexts to the international or global domain;
- describe the approaches elaborated for the international or global domain adressed in the exam materials and assess them by taking into account their theoretical or empirical soundness as well as their practical or normative implications;
For the first part of the written test, answers are evaluated individually based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of their content and considering their clarity, their level of detail and the coherence and relevance of the arguments proposed by the students [see section 3]. The grade for the first part of the test is determined by the mean between the grades attributed to the each answer. Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation of the first part of the test, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
2.2. SECOND PART OF THE WRITTEN TEST
The questions included in the second part of the written test require to discuss different and competing arguments concerning one of the following topics: "Global poverty: negative and positive duties"; "Migration: open v. closed borders"; "Justice and climate change"; "Global health issues". More precisely, there will be one question for each of the mentioned topics and students will have to select one of the proposed questions, depending on the list of specific readings they have prepared. Based on their preparation, students are expected to be able to:
- clarify what is at stakes in the scholarly and public debates concerning their selected topic and discuss whether the approaches to distributive justice addressed in the general readings can be fruitful to tackle the relevant issues;
- argue for/against the theoretical or concrete proposals for tackling the selected topic addressed in the exam materials and advance or defend alternative proposals for dealing with the relevant issues.
For the second part of the written test, students are assessed considering: 1. their knowledge of the relevant readings (up to 11 points); 2. their capacity to apply such knowledge to addressed the proposed question (up to 11 points); 3. the clarity, consistency and originality of their arguments (up to 11 points). The grade for the second part of the test is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. Please note: 30 cum laude is equal to 33, and it will obtained with a minimum score of 31.
3. GRADES SCALE FOR WRITTEN TESTS' ANSWERS
The following indications apply to the midterm written test for attending students and to the first part of the written test for non-non attending students.
Each of provided answers is assessed singularly and grades (out of thirty) are attribute as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies and/or excessive irrelevant remarks or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies and/or few irrelevant remarks or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
The exam structure is different for 1. attending students and 2. non-attending students.
1. ATTENDING STUDENTS
Attending students are expected to regularly attend classes and to actively participate in discussions and other in-class activities. More specifically, attending students are required to:
- fill in the online "Registration form" within the deadline specified at the beginning of the course;
- before each class devoted to discussion, deliver remarks on the readings at stake by completing the relevant online "Questions and comments form";
- sit for the midterm written test;
- select the topic on which they will work with their team for the debate sessions;
- take active part during their assigned debate session;
- deliver a final paper.
The deadline for each assignment, the relevant forms, and the date of the midterm written test will be available on the myAriel website of the course before classes start.
Please note: The mentioned requirements and the connected deadlines admit no exception: students who fail to comply with any of them will have to take the exam on the program for non-attending students.
For students fulfilling all the above requirements and complying with all the relevant deadlines, final grades (out of thirty) result from the weighted mean between the grades for the:
- midterm written test (40%) [see section 1.1];
- debate session (25%) [see section 1.2];
- paper (35%) [see section 1.3].
Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
Final grades for attending students will be published on the Ariel website of the course before official registration.
1.1. MIDTERM WRITTEN TEST
The test comprises open questions meant to verify the knowledge and understanding of the readings included in the exam program and of the topics addressed during classes and discussions. More precisely, students are expected to be able to:
- explain the relationship between justice and equality;
- elucidate the difference, and discuss the connections, between the basis and the currency of equality;
- compare and assess the relative merits and limits of egalitarian, sufficientarian and prioritarian approaches to distributive justice;
- illustrate the distinguishing features of the approaches to distributive justice for the domestic domain addressed during classes and/or in the readings and comparatively assess such approaches by considering both their theoretical soundness and their practical implications:
- spell out the specificities attributed, in scholarly or public debates, to the international or global domain and critically assess their empirical soundness and normative relevance;
- discuss whether it is possible and/or fruitful to extend approaches elaborated for domestic contexts to the international or global domain;
- describe the approaches elaborated for the international or global domain and assess them by considering their theoretical or empirical soundness as well as their practical or normative implications;
- clarify what is at stakes in the scholarly and public debates concerning global poverty, migration, climate change and global health and discuss whether the approaches to distributive justice addressed during classes or in the readings can be fruitful to tackle similar issues;
- argue for/against the theoretical or concrete proposals meant to tackle global poverty, migration, climate change and global health addressed during classes and/or in the readings and advance alternative proposals for dealing with such issues.
The written tests will be marked with grades out of thirty, which result from the separate evaluation of each provided answer. The evaluation is based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of content of the provided answers, and it also considers the answers' clarity, their level of detail and the coherence, relevance and originality of the arguments proposed by the students [see section 3]. The overall grade for the written test is determined by the mean between the grades attributed to each answer. Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5. The results of the midterm written test for attending students will be published on the myAriel website of the course.
1.2. DEBATE SESSIONS
Each debate session involves two teams, one arguing in favour and the other arguing against a specific proposition provided in advance. Debate sessions are formally structured, with specific roles attributed to the teams' members and with strict time constraints to respect.
Each team and its members are required to: deliver an opening statement; develop a rebuttal statement challenging the position defended by the other team; address questions and comments by students in the audience; provide a closing statement supporting their assigned position. The details about the structure of the debate sessions, the roles to be attributed to teams' members and the time constraints will be defined considering the actual number of attending students. Accordingly, more precise indications will be provided on the myAriel website a few weeks after the beginning of the course.
For the debate sessions, students will be assessed individually considering their capacity to: 1. clearly state and justify the position they defend (up to 10 points); 2. rebut the arguments of the other team (up to 10 points); 3. effectively answer questions and address comments by the members of the other team and by students in the audience (up to 10 points); 4. respect time constraints and efficiently use the time at their disposal (up to 3 points). The overall grade (out of thirty) for the debate session is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. Please note: 30 cum laude is equal to 33, and it is obtained with a minimum score of 31. The grades will published on the myAriel website of the course at the end of all debate sessions.
1.3. PAPER
The final paper is intended to be an argumentative essay. Students need to select one of the propositions proposed for the debate sessions (not the one they addressed with their team) and to argue in favour or against it. The paper is expected to be no longer than 15.000 characters (titles, notes, included - bibliography not included). More details on how to write the final paper will be provided during classes and on the myAriel website of the course.
For the final paper, students will be assessed considering: 1. the clarity and insightfulness of their thesis (up to 6 points); 2. the consistency and the originality of the reasoning and of the arguments provided to support their thesis (up to 9 pints); 3. the seriousness in identifying possible counterarguments or opposing positions, and the rigour in addressing them (up to 9 points); 4. the overall structure of the paper (up to 6 points); 5. the relevance of the sources and materials referred to in the paper and the appropriateness of their use (up to 3 points). The overall grade (out of thirty) for the paper is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. Please note: 30 cum laude is equal to 33, and it will obtained with a minimum score of 31. The grades for the final paper will be published on the my Ariel website of the course.
2. NON-ATTENDING STUDENTS
For non-attending students, the exam consists of one single written test, divided into two parts. The materials to prepare for the test are accordingly divided between "General readings" and "Specific readings".
The two parts of the test are meant to ascertain the acquisition of different competences and capacities, and hence, they are assessed separately [see sections 2.2 and 2.3] and the test is considered passed only if both its two parts are completed successfully. The two grades (out of thirty) contribute equally to the final grade for the course. The overall grade for the exam is determined by the mean between the grade for the first part of the written test and that for the second part. Please note: 30 cum laude is equal to 33, and it will obtained with a minimum score of 31.5. Final grades for non-attending students will be published on the Ariel website of the course before official registration.
2.2. FIRTS PART OF THE WRITTEN TEST
The first part of the written test comprises open questions meant to ascertain the acquisition of appropriate knowledge and understanding of the topics addressed in the general readings as well as the students' capacity to establish connections between the various topics and to comparatively and critically assess different approaches. More precisely, students are expected to be able to:
- explain the relationship between justice and equality;
- elucidate the difference and discuss the connections between the basis and the currency of equality;
- compare and assess the relative merits and limits of egalitarian, sufficientarian and prioritarian approaches to distributive justice;
- illustrate the distinguishing features of the approaches to distributive justice for the domestic domain addressed in the exam materials and comparatively assess such approaches by considering both their theoretical soundness and their practical implications:
- spell out the specificities attributed, in scholarly or public debates, to the international or global domain and critically assess their empirical soundness and normative relevance;
- discuss whether it is possible and/or fruitful to extend the approaches elaborated for domestic contexts to the international or global domain;
- describe the approaches elaborated for the international or global domain adressed in the exam materials and assess them by taking into account their theoretical or empirical soundness as well as their practical or normative implications;
For the first part of the written test, answers are evaluated individually based on the pertinence, completeness and correctness of their content and considering their clarity, their level of detail and the coherence and relevance of the arguments proposed by the students [see section 3]. The grade for the first part of the test is determined by the mean between the grades attributed to the each answer. Please note: The mean is rounded up from 0.5 upwards, 30 cum laude equals 33 and, in the overall evaluation of the first part of the test, 30 cum laude is obtained with a minimum score of 31.5.
2.2. SECOND PART OF THE WRITTEN TEST
The questions included in the second part of the written test require to discuss different and competing arguments concerning one of the following topics: "Global poverty: negative and positive duties"; "Migration: open v. closed borders"; "Justice and climate change"; "Global health issues". More precisely, there will be one question for each of the mentioned topics and students will have to select one of the proposed questions, depending on the list of specific readings they have prepared. Based on their preparation, students are expected to be able to:
- clarify what is at stakes in the scholarly and public debates concerning their selected topic and discuss whether the approaches to distributive justice addressed in the general readings can be fruitful to tackle the relevant issues;
- argue for/against the theoretical or concrete proposals for tackling the selected topic addressed in the exam materials and advance or defend alternative proposals for dealing with the relevant issues.
For the second part of the written test, students are assessed considering: 1. their knowledge of the relevant readings (up to 11 points); 2. their capacity to apply such knowledge to addressed the proposed question (up to 11 points); 3. the clarity, consistency and originality of their arguments (up to 11 points). The grade for the second part of the test is determined by the sum of the scores obtained for each of the mentioned aspects. Please note: 30 cum laude is equal to 33, and it will obtained with a minimum score of 31.
3. GRADES SCALE FOR WRITTEN TESTS' ANSWERS
The following indications apply to the midterm written test for attending students and to the first part of the written test for non-non attending students.
Each of provided answers is assessed singularly and grades (out of thirty) are attribute as follows:
- between 10 and 14 to non-pertinent answers (missing answers are treated as non-pertinent, and they are automatically assigned 10/30);
- between 14 and 17 to incomplete answers;
- between 12 and 17 to pertinent and complete but incorrect answers;
- between 18 and 23 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing serious inaccuracies and/or excessive irrelevant remarks or resulting unclear, not detailed, not contextualized or not supported by arguments;
- between 24 and 26 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing only minor inaccuracies and/or few irrelevant remarks or resulting partially unclear, not appropriately detailed, not adequately contextualized or not supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 27 and 28 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks and resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized and supported by fully satisfactory arguments;
- between 29 and 30 to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and including some original insights;
- 30 cum laude to pertinent, complete and correct answers containing no inaccuracies or irrelevant remarks, resulting clear, appropriately detailed, well contextualized, supported by fully satisfactory arguments, exhaustive, and showing the capacity to rework and articulate acquired notions and knowledge in a rigorous and original way.
SPS/01 - POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY - University credits: 6
Lessons: 40 hours
Professor:
Pasquali Francesca
Shifts:
Turno
Professor:
Pasquali FrancescaProfessor(s)
Reception:
On campus: Tuesday, 16:30-18:00 - Online: Tuesday 18:00-19:30
No appointment required to attend office hours, which are held online (on MS Teams: https://tinyurl.com/549e8pje) or on campus (Dept. of Social and political science, 2nd floor, room 205). For info about theses, check the following link: