|Topic||Global Justice Paper 3|
|Sources / references||5|
|Description / paper instructions
Global Justice Paper 3 Prompts
Choose one of the following 5 prompts and answer it in a paper of 2,000 words maximum.
Some general advice: Basically, what you should be doing in a paper like this is making an argument. You will have some position (a thesis) that you want to argue for, and everything in your paper should play some role in contributing to your argument. You should be taking positions and making arguments of your own. That is, it’s not enough to reproduce the arguments of the authors we’ve read. This is an exercise in developing your own analytical skills, not an exercise in recalling information or (mere) reading comprehension. You should be drawing on the course readings to help develop/support your arguments (or to explore possible objections to them), but your own arguments should be the centerpiece of the paper.
Some things you should do:
-Identify which prompt you are answering.
-Write as clearly and directly as you can to effectively communicate your ideas. This often means using plain language, as opposed to trying to sound “academic” or “intellectual.”
-Clearly state your thesis near the beginning of the paper.
-Make sure you answer the prompt.
-Provide arguments/evidence to back up your claims.
-When you use a quote or other piece of evidence, make sure you explain to the reader what you think it shows (what role it’s playing in your argument) and why.
-Explicitly communicate what each part of your paper is contributing to your overall argument and how the different parts of your paper relate to each other.
-Sometimes it’s also a good idea to introduce what you think is the clearest/strongest objection to your position and try to answer it.
And, if you want more advice, here are the guides to philosophical writing also linked on the syllabus:
The Pink Guide: https://sites.google.com/a/wellesley.edu/pinkguidetophilosophy/ The Jim Pryor Guide: http://www.jimpryor.net/teaching/guidelines/writing.html
A note on grading: I will generally be more lenient with the memo grades and less lenient with the paper grades. The memos are short and meant to be exploratory, but you have more space to develop your ideas in the papers and they should generally be more complete and polished.
1. What, if any, restrictions are states morally justified in placing on emigration (people moving permanently out of the state)? In your answer, draw on at least two of the following: Abizadeh, Carens, Stilz, Ypi. (Note: Possible “restrictions” include, but are not limited to, bans on emigration, taxes levied at the point of emigration, taxes on foreignearned income after emigration, and requirements that emigrants perform some amount of service in their home country before leaving.)
2. In “The Case for Open Borders,” Carens makes what he calls the “cantilever argument,” which says, roughly: if it’s the case that we should recognize freedom of movement within states as a human right, then we should also recognize freedom of movement across state borders (including the right to enter and settle in another state of one’s own choosing) as a human right. Do you think the cantilever argument succeeds?
Note: Don’t argue for or against the position that we should recognize freedom of movement within states as a human right. What you should do is assess whether one who accepts that position should also, to be logically consistent, accept the position that we should recognize freedom of movement across state borders as a human right.
If you do think the cantilever argument succeeds, why? Be sure to address at least one objection to the cantilever argument and explain why you think the objection fails.
If you don’t think the cantilever argument succeeds, why not? What is your alternative view and why do you think it’s preferable to Carens’s?
3. How (if at all) should an institution’s or concept’s past entanglement with racist ideas or practices affect our assessment of that institution or concept today? Answer with reference to ONE of the following: immigration policy, international human rights law, or the concept of sovereignty. Draw on at least two of the following in your answer: Fine, Mills, Mutua, Anghie, Valdez.
4. Imagine you buy goods from a large company that you know employs subcontractors who operate “sweatshops.” In these sweatshops, workers work excessively long hours in unsanitary and unsafe conditions, are frequently subject to harassment, and are not
allowed to unionize or take sick days. As an individual consumer, are you required by justice to do anything to mitigate the harms workers in the sweatshops suffer? If not, why not? If so, what are you required to do and why?
How (if at all) and why would your answer change if you were the CEO of the large company instead of a consumer?
Draw on at least two of the following in your answer: Young, Nagel, Julius.
5. Assume you are a participant in global politics, looking to promote reform in line with your favorite theory of global justice. You must choose whether to focus your energy on civil-society activism (e.g., participating in protests and consumer boycotts, working with and through NGOs and transnational activist movements) or on working directly through formal political institutions (e.g., voting in elections, volunteering on political candidates’ campaigns, lobbying elected officials). How should you choose to focus your energy? What are the major moral reasons for and against each option? Draw on at least two course readings to support your answer.