Foundations of Civic Engagement is a comprehensive survey and reassessment of the entire field of social and political philosophy. Suitable for use as a primary text for courses on political thought, this book explores the basic arguments of the most important historical and contemporary figures—including Ancient Greek, modern and contemporary theories of communitarianism, social contract, feminism, postmodernsim, Marxism, and theories of communicative actions—and offers a thematic critique and integration of these philosophies.

It seems to me that there are two ways we can approach Cohen's work in Elevations. One way is to ask if these essays fairly, if not insightfully and creatively, represent the philosophies of Rosenzweig and Levinas. In this case, the discussion would focus on Cohen as an interpreter of another's work. Even if we are of a certain analytical mind, we might ask a variation of the same sets of questions to wonder if the essays 'make sense' or render (...) anything intelligible. But in either case, one focuses on Cohen as an interpreter of an-other's work. (shrink)

This paper argues that we need to rethink what the object of economic analysis is; that is, what the intelligible relations of an economy are. The paper starts by acknowledging that economies are a constitutive element of human habitats. It also agrees that modern economic analysis based on the price-auction market has provided substantial knowledge about the operation of economies. However, I argue that a more fruitful line of inquiry than the price-auction market is to focus on the schemes of (...) personal and social meaning that set the context for economies. In developing this argument, I describe how such schemes function as a network of human relationships which provide the conditions of the possibilities of the emergence of economic technologies. That is, the explanandum of economy is not the classical price-auction market but the recurrent social cooperative structure (order) of economy in which markets are embedded. (shrink)

This paper takes up an underdeveloped argument of Charles Taylor that linguisticality is constitutive of moral agency. Taylor’s position is part of a set of contemporary arguments that language, especially as dialogue or discourse, is the normative framework which grounds or validates fundamental norms or values. Taylor’s contribution to this “dialogical turn” is substantial and innovative, but it is not without weakness. Rather than deal with all the issues involved in this dialogical turn, I argue just that language does ground (...) morality as a distinctively human way of creating meaning, that is, as Taylor argues, constitutive of the self and self-understanding. Self-understanding, or the appropriation of moral self-consciousness, is what is meant by the authenticity and autonomy which constitute moral authority. I argue in essence that language provides a necessary and constitutive link between private and public spheres of meaning in a way that renders moral discourse meaningful and constitutively human. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Just Results: Ethical Foundations for Policy AnalysisJames B. Sauer Just Results: Ethical Foundations for Policy Analysis. Ralph D. Ellis. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, 1998.Editor's note:The following review was written by the late Jim Sauer, who selflessly managed the business of this journal’s forerunner, The Personalist Forum, from 1998 until 2004. Jim was a beloved member of the academic community, known far and wide for his service, his (...) humility, and the upright life he led. This review was written at a time when the journal was being published only sporadically. It was set aside when it should have been published, but it is a privilege to publish it now. In publishing the review, we honor this journal more than we honor Jim, because Jim was better than most of us.This book addresses one of the most significant problems in the field of public policy: how to incorporate qualitative social values into the traditional quantitative models used in policy making. Ellis’s practical argument that qualitative social value, what Ellis calls “the justice factor” (171), can be meaningfully incorporated into cost-benefit models is ambitious and innovative. He delivers admirably on his promise to provide “quantitative methods of measuring justice, so that it can become commensurable with utility in a coherent and rationally defensible decision principle” (2).The argument of the book is tightly organized and clearly presented as befits its relative brevity. Chapters 1and 2 set up the problem of the incommensurability of utility, justice, and procedural legitimacy. In the process, Ellis provides a succinct, articulate, and critical account of five “values systems” (ethical theories) that could easily be used in an introductory ethics class without obscuring the nuances of current debates well-known to philosophers. Ellis shows that at heart of the utility-justice debate there is an underexamined assumption of philosophers and policy analysts that values are incommensurate, which gives by default the field of policy formation to various forms of quantified utilitarianism. Because “happiness” is desired by all people (without prejudging what makes anyone happy) and since happiness can be quantified by reference to willingness to pay for what makes one happy, utilitarianism has commended itself as the only reliable way, adjudicating among values in the pluralistic public sphere. However, this view is not [End Page 127]without problems because there are cases where relatively trivial economic values trump more substantive, though admittedly qualitative, human values such as the right to life, access to basic goods to maintain life, and a reasonably salubrious environment.Ellis carefully examines the arguments for moral subjectivism upon which claims of incommensurability are based. He finds they are not sustainable because it can be demonstrated by rational argument and empirical evidence that there are (1) objectively true value statements and (2) a core of common intrinsic value claims regardless of value system that do not conflict. Thus, there is no incommensurable pluralism of value systems (55) because the divergent extrinsic values of different systems are meant to promote similar intrinsic values (56). So the meaningful conflict among value systems is not about whatshould be valued but howthe things people do value are to be equitably distributed. This debate is not intractable but is, in fact, what debate about policy is about. Whether or not a policy achieves an equitable distribution of value is a social outcome, so what is needed is a means of combining claims for justice with a justifiable and practical means of measuring the outcomes of justice achieved.Chapters 3 and 4 lay out in more detail the problems already set up and provide a method for addressing them. Ellis takes a standard “problems” approach to deal with utilitarianism and rights-based decision-making principles. These chapters, however, are rich because of the extensive literature and concrete cases that Ellis draws on. Ellis’s argument does not head toward an either-or choice between utility or justice as do some standard accounts. Consistent with his setup, he argues for the methodological possibility of weighing conflicting values against each other by giving utility and distributive justice their “appropriate place” in a comprehensive decision principle that he sketches out in chapter... (shrink)