What is the moral law and what role does it and should it play in political theory and political practice? In this entry we will try to answer these important questions by first examining what the moral law is, before investigating the different ways in which the relationship between morality and politics can be conceptualized.

Je propose ici un argument « dilemmatique » en faveur de l’anti-paternalisme libéral. Soit il est vrai, comme le soutiennent les kantiens, que les règles impersonnelles, impartiales et universelles jouissent d’une priorité éthique ; soit il est vrai, comme le soutiennent des communautariens comme MacIntyre, que de telles règles ne jouissent pas d’une priorité éthique. Si les kantiens ont raison, alors – comme le veut la sagesse conventionnelle des manuels de philosophie politique – la neutralité de l’Etat à l’endroit des (...) conceptions du bien est justifiée. Et si les communautariens ont raison, alors – étonnamment – la neutralité de l’Etat est aussi justifiée. Donc la neutralité de l’Etat est justifiée. La première prémisse étant tautologique, elle s’impose d’elle-même. La seconde prémisse, établissant un lien entre priorité des règles universelles et neutralité de l’Etat, est trop connue pour retenir ici notre attention. La troisième prémisse, en revanche, établissant un lien entre la non-priorité des règles universelles et la neutralité de l’Etat, sonne comme un paradoxe. C’est donc sur elle que portera l’examen.I shall offer here a “dilemmatic” argument for liberal anti-paternalism. Either it is the case – as Kantians maintain – that impersonal, impartial and universal rules enjoy ethical priority ; or it is the case – as Communitarians like MacIntyre maintain – that universal rules do not enjoy any such priority. If Kantians are right, then – as suggested by the conventional wisdom of textbooks in political philosophy – State-neutrality towards conceptions of the good is justified. And if Communitarians are right, then – surprisingly – State-neutrality is justified too. Therefore State-neutrality is justified. The first premiss is tautological, and needs no special study. The second premiss, linking the priority of universal rules to State-neutrality, is too well known to deserve our attention. But the third premiss, linking the non-priority of universal rules to State-neutrality, sounds like a paradox. The paper thus focuses on that third controversial premiss. (shrink)

Should those who get dirty hands be punished? There is strong disagreement among even those who support the existence of such scenarios. The problem arises because the paradoxical nature of dirty hands - doing wrong to do right - renders the standard normative justifications for punishment unfit for purpose. The Consequentialist, Retributivist and Communicative approaches cannot accommodate the idea that an action can be right, all things considered, but nevertheless also a categorical wrong. This paper argues that punishment is indeed (...) appropriate for those who dirty their hands and that there are three normative justifications that can be used to support this claim. These are the justifications from ‘Catharsis’, ‘Recognition of Evil Suffered’ and ‘Causal Responsibility’. Together they provide the sui generis justifications for punishing dirty hands. (shrink)

Critics often charge that Kantian ethics is implausibly rigoristic: that Kantianism recognizes a set of perfect duties, encapsulated in rules such as ‘don’t lie,’ ‘keep one’s promises,’ etc., and that these rules apply without exception. Though a number of Kantians have plausibly argued that Kantianism can acknowledge exceptions to perfect duties, this acknowledgment alone does not indicate how and when such exceptions ought to be made. This article critiques a recent attempt to motivate how such exceptions are to be made, (...) namely, the constitutive approach developed by Tamar Schapiro. I argue that the constitutive approach is vulnerable to the objection that it is too permissive, justifying many morally dubious exceptions to perfect duties. I conclude by briefly outlining an alternative ‘fine print’ approach to the rigorism objection that appears to avoid the objection leveled at Schapiro’s approach, focusing on how modifying the constituents of agents’ maxims can change the deontic status of an act of a generally impermissible kind. (shrink)