Book Description
In these two important lectures, distinguished political philosopher Seyla Benhabib argues that since the UN Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, we have entered a phase of global civil society which is governed by cosmopolitan norms of universal justice--norms which are difficult for some to accept as legitimate since they are sometimes in conflict with democratic ideals. In her first lecture, Benhabib argues that this tension can never be fully resolved, but it can be mitigated through the renegotiation of the dual commitments to human rights and sovereign self-determination. Her second lecture develops this idea in detail, with special reference to recent developments in Europe (for example, the banning of Muslim head scarves in France). The EU has seen the replacement of the traditional unitary model of citizenship with a new model that disaggregates the components of traditional citizenship, making it possible to be a citizen of multiple entities at the same time. The volume also contains a substantive introduction by Robert Post, the volume editor, and contributions by Bonnie Honig (Northwestern University), Will Kymlicka (Queens University), and Jeremy Waldron (Columbia School of Law).
Book Description
In this classic work, Leo Strauss examines the problem of natural right and argues that there is a firm foundation in reality for the distinction between right and wrong in ethics and politics. On the centenary of Strauss's birth, and the fiftieth anniversary of the Walgreen Lectures which spawned the work, Natural Right and History remains as controversial and essential as ever.
"Strauss . . . makes a significant contribution towards an understanding of the intellectual crisis in which we find ourselves . . . [and] brings to his task an admirable scholarship and a brilliant, incisive mind."—John H. Hallowell, American Political Science Review
Leo Strauss (1899-1973) was the Robert Maynard Hutchins Distinguished Service Professor Emeritus in Political Science at the University of Chicago.
Customer Reviews:
received wrong book.......2006-11-14
I was going to use the book last week but then I realized that I had gotten a totally different book than the one I ordered. I didn't realize it when I received it in the mail I guess.
Mostly incomprehensible.......2006-03-31
It is claimed that the Bush administration is loaded with neo-conservatives, supposedly followers of Strauss, who is known as the preeminent natural rights philosopher. So, do natural rights have a thing to do with their policies? First one must find out what a natural right is.
Alas, one turns to Strauss' basic work on the subject. My hat goes off to anyone who can figure out what a natural right is if they have the perseverance to wade through this book. "Obscure" hardly does justice to the convoluted, indecipherable writing of the author. In lieu of clearly outlining a coherent theory of natural rights, the author is most intent on skewering historicists, followers of Max Weber, modern liberals, and others who rely on what men have come to understand about society and thereby fashioned rights.
The idea of a natural right is bizarre anyway. The biological imperative to survive in nature is hardly a right. It's hard to see civilized society being built on the workings of raw nature: the utter harshness would have to be overcome. However, once two or more men come to agreement on behavior and rights, that agreement is relative to them and is not natural, though it may be practical or wise. Of course, the author disdains positive law, or man-made law. The idea that reasonable and self-moderating behavior is pre-social is pure delusion.
But it is interesting to see the dynamics of power with a good mixture of propaganda and ignorance being purified by subtly suggesting that those machinations are connected to philosophies of natural rights. That thinking is at least as obscure as the master's work.
Societies good vs. individual rights.......2006-03-13
Leo Strauss was a 20th century philosopher who spent his life studying and espousing the teachings of classical philosophical ideas. "Natural Right and History" delineates the fight between those who believe in the predominance of societal rights over individual rights. Here are a few quotes that help explain Strauss's thinking in this tug of war. "The contemporary rejection of natural rights leads to nihilism." "When liberals have to make a choice between natural right and individualism they gave up natural right, they want to be politically correct and tolerant of diversity and `individualism'". "In the case of man, reason is required for discerning what is by nature right with the ultimate regard to man's natural end".
Strauss writes that John Locke is most famous and influential teacher of modern natural right philosophy. Locke was certainly the most influential philosopher of our "Founding Fathers." Locke is the author of the phrase, "life, liberty and the pursuit of property" that should sound very familiar to most Americans. I enjoy reading Strauss, I agree with his and Aristotle's philosophical view on "the good life." The best state provides a guarantee of freedoms, less economic regulation, provide a safety net for people with bad luck, provide a good education so that we can be trained to make us morally virtuous citizens.
As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be a great book to continue one's journey into political philosophy.
Review.......2006-02-25
I feel myself lucky to have a chance to read Strauss' "Natural Right and History", "Liberalism Ancient and Modern" and also "Studies in Platonic Political Philosophy". The books open new horizons to the reader to look at human history as a whole and bring interesting possibilities and different perspectives into the life of modern humanity. As commonly said whether Strauss' attempts to understand humanity and its struggle in life in terms of philosophy and religion are reached in a satisfactory state or not or his resolutions could be accepted as universal truths, certainly his challenge, wisdom and determination to bring many salient inalienable problems of human being he eternally confronts and challenges in the universe could not be ignorable and shall be visited honorably.
negative philosophy.......2006-01-13
This book shows how "traditional conservatives" are just plain dumb. (and apparently all the other reviewers of this book) Here you have a philosopher who at is core is a moral relavist. The classic conservative believes in absolutes, mostly biblical. Yet it is clear that neoconservatives are running the bush administration right now, and most sheepish conservatives do not even realize they are supporting people that are diametrically oppossed to them. What makes neocons dangerous is they are so motivated to be wrong. It is like revenge of the evil nerds. It's the battered wife syndrome. Jews get bullied so long they want to become the bullies. But at least be original, don't just copy nazi germany. Too bad there are not a cult of readers of the book "lila" by Pirsig that shows that there is a morality. Thank god for karma, and the fact that we all die eventually
God help this country.
Book Description
This book contains the political writing of T. H. Green and selections from those of his ethical writings which bear on his political philosophy. Green's best known work, "Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation," is included in full, as are the essay on freedom and the lecture "Liberal Legislation and Freedom of Contract." There are also extracts from Green's lectures on the English Revolution and from the "Prologomena to Ethics," and a number of previously unpublished essays and notes. All the texts have been corrected against Green's manuscripts, held in Balliol College. The editors have provided a list of variants, full notes and an introductory essay on the importance of Green's form of revitalised liberalism.
The volume will be a valuable sourcebook for students of Green's thought and the history of nineteenth-century liberalism.
Customer Reviews:
A watershed in the history of political theory.......2001-02-07
This is it, folks -- the point at which classical and modern liberalism began to diverge. Everybody in either camp is indebted, in one way or another, to the great Thomas Hill Green. And sooner or later, everybody in either camp will have to come to terms with him.
Now, in my own not entirely humble opinion, Green's criticisms of other liberal theorists are well-founded and he himself has gotten the philosophical foundations just about exactly right. Basically, his claim is that (my paraphrase) the source of our rights against one another, as well as the source of the state itself, is our possession of an ideal common end in which the well-being of each of us is coherently included.
He develops this account very painstakingly, and one of the joys of reading it is watching him make sense of Rousseau's tortured notion of the "general will." By the time Green is through rescuing this doctrine from Rousseau, it becomes something altogether respectable: that (my paraphrase again) there is an overarching ideal end at which our actions aim, and it is that end which we _would_ have if all of our present aims were thoroughly modified and informed by reflective reason.
I say "_would_ have" with some reservations, since for Green (as for Bosanquet and Blanshard, who followed him here) there is a clear sense in which we _really_ have this ideal end. But this point takes us afield into Green's metaphysics, which are better covered in his _Prolegomena to Ethics_.
As I said, this volume marks the watershed between classical and modern liberalism. Green is often associated with the "modern" side of the divide, but today's reader will be surprised to see just how "classical liberal" Green was (in, e.g., his opposition to paternalistic government and in a good many other respects). Why, heck, there are passages that could have been lifted from David Conway's _Classical Liberalism: The Unvanquished Ideal_.
It does seem, though, that in allowing a positive role for the governmental institutions of a geographically-demarcated State, he has started down the slippery slope to the modern welfare-warfare state. Like Hegel before him and like Bosanquet after him, Green usually means by "state," not the bureaucratic machinery of a territorial government, but the whole of society including _all_ of its "institutions of governance." But -- also like Hegel and Bosanquet -- he does not always keep these two things firmly distinguished, and at times he is clearly thinking specifically of the governmental institutions of a territorial nation-state rather than what some of us would call the "market."
He is also a bit unclear on the ground of "rights." W.D. Ross rightly takes him to task for this in _The Right and the Good_: Green writes on one page that we have _no_ rights until these are recognized by society, and then turns around and writes as though "society" is recognizing rights we _already_ have. To my mind Ross clearly has the better of the argument here, though the problem is not, I think, terribly hard to fix.
On the whole, then, it is probably no wonder that Green and his crowd set into motion -- whether inadvertently or otherwise -- a stream of "liberalism" that would eventually find a far, far larger role for the State than any that Green himself would have approved. But to my mind, these difficulties are removable excrescences, not the heart of his theory. (And it is also worth bearing in mind that Green provides moral grounds for _resisting_ the State: he acknowledges that no actual State is really ideal and, insofar as it falls short of the ideal, should be brought firmly into the service of our common end.)
The theory itself seems to me to be sound. In fact, despite the aforementioned disagreements and several others, I would nominate this volume as perhaps _the_ single greatest work on liberal political theory.
Again, at some point every "liberal" of any stripe will have to come to terms with Green's ideas (perhaps in highly mutated form). And if, with minor tweezing, Green's basic outlook is sound, it also -- suitably adjusted -- forms the proper basis for the classical-liberal commonwealth.
It therefore behooves classical liberals and libertarians to get the word directly from Green himself. Those other "liberals" aren't _entirely_ wrong.
Average customer rating:
|
Litigation and Settlement in a Game With Incomplete Information: An Experimental Study (Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems)
Wolfgang Ryll
Manufacturer: Springer
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
 General
| Popular Economics
| Business & Investing
| Subjects
| Books
Theory
| Economics
| Business & Investing
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Business & Investing
| Subjects
| Books
Arbitration, Negotiation & Mediation
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
Civil Procedure
| Procedures & Litigation
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Law
| Subjects
| Books
General
| Applied
| Mathematics
| Professional Science
| Professional & Technical
| Subjects
| Books
All Amazon Upgrade
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Business & Investing
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Law
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
Professional & Technical
| Amazon Upgrade
| Stores
| Books
All Titles
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Business & Investing
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
Professional
| Qualifying Textbooks - Fall 2007
| Stores
| Books
ASIN: 3540613048 |
Book Description
The book investigates a two-person game of litigation and settlement with incomplete information on one side. The experimental design allows investigation of how subjects solve the bargaining problem. A prominence level analysis is applied to the data and suggests that subjects tend to choose "round" numbers. It is shown that there exists a correlation between machiavellianism and subjects' adjustment behaviour in the game. The learning behaviour is discussed extensively. Plaintiffs' acceptance limits polarize at the beginning of the second play. A model of learning direction theory applied to explain subjects's behaviour over the course of the game.
Book Description
In a lucid, concise volume, Jeremy Waldron defends the role of legislation, presenting it as an important mode of governance. Aristotle, Locke and Kant emerge as proponents of the dignity of legislation. Waldron's arguments are of obvious importance and topicality, especially in countries that are considering the introduction of a Bill of Rights. The Dignity of Legislation is original in conception, trenchantly argued and very clearly presented, and will be of interest to a wide range of scholars and thinkers.
Customer Reviews:
He might be right about something........2002-01-28
The ultimate justification for the topics covered in this book might be that it recognizes certain disagreements about how law ought to be applied, that certain questions might be raised with any authority that seeks to apply laws in a manner which, according to Lon Fuller, seems to violate "practical wisdom applied to problems that may broadly be called those of social architecture. St. Thomas Aquinas stands for many as a kind of symbol of all that is dogmatic and theological in the tradition of natural law. Yet as one writer has recently pointed out, Aquinas in some measure recognized and dealt with all eight of the principles of legality discussed in my second chapter." (pp. 241-2). If anything, trying to impose morality on an enterprise as quixotic as the law is more likely to meet with indifference today than ever, and already in Chapter IV of this book, Fuller admitted that scholars could mean him when discussing "Law and Morals" and complaining: "Again, if this is what the necessary connexion of law and morality means, we may accept it. It is unfortunately compatible with very great iniquity." (p. 154). Just thinking about very great iniquity reminds me of what most people think prosecutors are for, and in the interest of harmony in the marketplace, I will make no further comments on this book. If only the law could always be so lucky.
Customer Reviews:
Notes for a Longer Book.......2002-12-19
I don't know why The Ages of American Law is regarded as a classic of American legal history. It's clearly written but tries to cover way too much ground in a very short space (111 pages of text with large print and big margins). Based on a series of lectures, The Ages of American Law strings together short observations on legal topics ranging from Lord Mansfield to the development of the Uniform Commercial Code. No subject is developed in depth: at best, the "book" is notes for a real book. One of my professors at law school used to rave about this book. It must have been because he's mentioned favorably in an endnote.
engaging intellectual history.......2001-01-22
A very interesting history of American law, useful for those about to enter the legal profession or enroll in law school, or anyone wishing to learn more about the history of ideas in law.
A concise classic........2000-04-09
When Lawrence M. Friedman wrote his landmark "A History of American Law," he remarked that American legal history has been a neglected field. Some progress (although not enough) has been made in the field since Friedman published his History in 1973. Part of that progress has been the publication of Grant Gilmore's little book, "The Ages of American Law," which is justly considered to be a classic. The book is based on the lectures Gilmore gave during the 150th Anniversary of Yale Law School for the Storrs Lecture Series in 1974. Although "The Ages of American Law" is an "expanded" version of the Storrs Lectures, the book is still remarkable for its concision as well as for its clarity. Gilmore does not purport to offer an authoritative history of American law in the same vein as Friedman's History. Rather, he captures the grand sweep of history and condenses it into a gem of 154 pages. It remains in print nearly twenty-five years after first publication for good reason-it is well worth reading.
Book Description
Pound, Roscoe. An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1922. 307 pp. Reprint available 2003 by The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd. LCCN 2002044351. ISBN 1-58477-327-8. Cloth. $70. Pound's Introduction outlines the philosophical foundations that support Anglo-American common law. A written version of the Storrs Lectures delivered at Yale University during the academic year 1921-1922. "Dean Pound has given us a clear, concise introduction to the philosophy of the law. It is so concise that it is impossible to summarize it so as to give any idea of its wealth of learning....An excellent, impartial and concise presentation of the subject..." William Herbert Page, Harvard Law Review 36:115-117 cited in Marke, A Catalogue of the Law Collection at New York University (1953) 922.
Customer Reviews:
A must-have for anyone studying the law.......2006-04-26
I'm a college student with a legal studies concentration. I've taken 8 courses on our legal system so far, most of which concentrate on the judicial system. In two chapters this book covers more than any textbook I've been assigned for my courses. Pound's discussions on the application of law are worthwhile in and of themselves. This is clearly the definitive classic text on american jurisprudence, most of which is still relevant despite its age.
That said, there is a downside to the book. It takes hours to read certain pages. In a few sentences Pound manages to convey the same information other authors do in pages. This is not hyperbole. I'm currently taking Judicial Process and Business Law. The combined texts for those classes border on 750 pages. This one book discusses all of the same topics, in much more precise and clear language, in 168 pages. If you want to learn why the law is the way it is, this is the one book you must buy.
Customer Reviews:
Short but Prophetic.......2006-09-18
I'm teaching this year in New Orleans, but I'm new to the area since the initial season of distress. I have, however, learned a great deal from my new colleagues as well as my neighbors-- people from diverse social milieus and ideologies-- and if I have gained at least one insight from them all, it is the growing indistinction between natural and man-made disasters, and the potential feedback between forms of injustice and misfortune in the wake of Katrina. This very point seemed provocative when it was made by the late political theorist Judith Shklar in her "Faces of Injustice" (Yale University Press, 1990), collected from her Storrs Lectures of 1988. This short book is a favorite of mine to re-read, and it seems more prophetic every time I read it, though to many residents of New Orleans it would seem uncontroversial. Shklar uses the public response to the Lisbon earthquake to illustrate how people who once regarded certain kinds of suffering as misfortunes, "acts of God," came to view them as injustices-caused by the action or inaction of the powerful."Someone simply must be blamed to maintain the unquenchable belief in a rational world, but the exculpation of God has not made it easier to know whom to accuse. Nor has it helped us to decide which of our travails are due to injustice and which are misfortunes. When can we blame others and when is our pain a matter of natural necessity or just bad luck? . . . . The very distinction betweeninjustice and misfortune can sometimes be mischievous . . . .On the border between misfortune and injustice we must deal with the victim as best we can, without asking on which side her case falls."
When the horror stories of Hurricane Katrina New Orleans and the Gulf Coast gave way to a surge of criticism of Federal disaster preparedness; the Bush Administration seemed prepared at least for one aspect of this disaster: the spin. It's not that there weren't people on the other side already poised to find fault with the Administration's handling of the crisis, but the White House was already set to shape the discourse on disaster? President Bush stated and his partisans followed in chorus over the next several days? They weren't going to play the "blame game." Shklar says: "In mature democracies, planning to minimize the harm of natural disasters or contain their consequences has become institutionalized." Government responsibility models for us civic responsibility, and Even if God is not available for our blame, there are still responsible agents, and in our society we have a duty to protect, a duty to warn, a duty to prevent, a duty not to contribute to harm, not to make worse. And if this is not pushing too far in the direction of Europe and Vermont, perhaps even a duty to rescue. It has now been a year since the Bush Administration spun the phrase the "blame game," suggesting that these disasters by their nature, by their connection to nature, are conversation stoppers, they are acts of god, and unless we are going to engage in Theodicy (putting God on trial) the buck stops there. In the context of stuttering on and off laissez-faire government, the Bush Administration responded in the context of the times, and the only question is the quality of the response. If the Hoover Administration's handling of droughts served as a model for the Roosevelt Administration to handle an economic crisis on the scale of a natural disaster, the government itself has had to adapt to changing notions of responsibility and responsiveness. By placing FEMA (a four letter word in New Orleans) in the Department of Homeland Security, the Administration follows in the tradition of ambivalent interventionists.
Average customer rating:
|
Law and Philosophy: A Symposium
Manufacturer: New York University Press
ProductGroup: Book
Binding: Paperback
General
| Philosophy
| Nonfiction
| Subjects
| Books
ASIN: 0814733867 |
Books:
- AP Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law (Associated Press Stylebook and Briefing on Media Law)
- Arbitration: Essential Concepts
- Architectural Graphic Standards
- Architecture: Form, Space, and Order
- Ashes to Ashes: America's Hundred-Year Cigarette War, the Public Health, and the Unabashed Triumph of Philip Morris
- Bipolar Disorders: Mixed States, Rapid Cycling and Atypical Forms (Cambridge Studies in International and Comparative Law New Series)
- Blessed Unrest: How the Largest Movement in the World Came into Being and Why No One Saw It Coming
- Blog Rules: A Business Guide to Managing Policy, Public Relations, And Legal Issues
- Brain Tumors: An Encyclopedic Approach
- Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes
Books Index
Books Home
Recommended Books
- The Memory Keeper's Daughter
- Protector of the Flight
- Human Sexuality Today
- Introduction to Tensor Products of Banach Spaces
- Maus : A Survivor's Tale : My Father Bleeds History/Here My Troubles Began/Boxed
- North Shore Long Island: Country Houses, 1890-1950
- Lonesome George: The Life and Loves of a Conservation Icon
- What Ever Happened to Orson Welles
- Images of Fin-De-Siecle Architecture and Interior Decoration
- If Only My Patients Could Speak--English, That Is!
The Divided West
The Rights of Others: Aliens, Residents, and Citizens (The Seeley Lectures)
Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers (Issues of Our Time)
Inhuman Conditions: On Cosmopolitanism and Human Rights
Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership (The Tanner Lectures on Human Values)
