Egalitarianism workshop at McGill


Egalitarianism Workshop 2012
Call for Papers
Egalitarianisms: Current Debates on Equality and Priority in Health, Wealth, and Welfare

March 30th -31st, 2012

McGill University, Montreal, Canada

Confirmed Speakers

Nir Eyal (Harvard)
Iwao Hirose (McGill)
Nils Holtug (Copenhagen)
Dennis McKerlie (Calgary)
Shlomi Segall (Hebrew University of Jerusalem)
Workshop Description

Egalitarian theories of distributive justice have recently encountered fundamental challenges. Is egalitarianism susceptible to the leveling down objection? Is it less plausible than prioritarianism? Does it support reducing the inequalities resulting from brute luck, but not option luck? Does it aim to equalize the distribution of welfare at each time or over a lifetime? What does egalitarianism make of the strong correlation between inequalities in health and inequalities in socio-economic conditions? In this two-day workshop, we will discuss current theoretical issues and seek common and unified grounds for future research into egalitarian theories of distributive justice.

Call for Papers

We invite high quality papers on the recent philosophical challenges to egalitarian theories of distributive justice. We will include at least 5 submitted papers in the program. Papers should be suitable for blind-review and no longer than 6,000 words (must include a 200 word abstract in the first page). Please submit paper (Word or PDF file) through www.mcgill.ca/aggregation/submit We welcome submissions from graduate students. For accepted papers, the organizers will cover the cost of accommodation (up to 3 nights in downtown Montreal) and workshop banquet.

Deadline for submission: November 20, 2011 (Notification of acceptance by December 20, 2011)

Click here to submit your paper

Indians in Madison's Constitutional Order

This paper is now online. One of the two epigraphs is one of my favorite Madison quotes:

‘‘What’’—they [the Indians] may say—‘‘have we to do with the Federal Constitution, or the relations formed by it between the Union and its members? We were no parties to the compact and cannot be affected by it.’’ And as to a charter of the King of England—is it not as much a mockery to them, as the bull of a Pope dividing a world of discovery between the Spaniards and Portuguese, was held to be by the nations who disowned and disdained his authority?