Over the past twenty years, the debate between neutrality and perfectionism has been at the center of political philosophy. Now Perfectionism and Neutrality: Essays in Liberal Theory brings together classic papers and new ideas on both sides of the discussion. Editors George Klosko and Steven Wall provide a substantive introduction to the history and theories of perfectionism and neutrality, expertly contextualizing the essays and making the collection accessible to everyone interested in the interaction between morals and the state.

The question, "Why should I obey the law?" introduces a contemporary puzzle that is as old as philosophy itself. The puzzle is especially troublesome if we think of cases in which breaking the law is not otherwise wrongful, and in which the chances of getting caught are negligible. Philosophers from Socrates to H.L.A. Hart have struggled to give reasoned support to the idea that we do have a general moral duty to obey the law but, more recently, the greater number of learned voices has expressed doubt that there is any such duty, at least as traditionally conceived. The thought that there is no such duty poses a challenge to our ordinary understanding of political authority and its legitimacy. In what sense can political officials have a right to rule us if there is no duty to obey the laws they lay down? Some thinkers, concluding that a general duty to obey the law cannot be defended, have gone so far as to embrace philosophical anarchism, the view that the state is necessarily illegitimate. Others argue that the duty to obey the law can be grounded on the idea of consent, or on fairness, or on other ideas, such as community.

History of Political Theory: An Introduction not only explores the great works of Western political theory but demonstrates their continuing relevance. Volume II traces the origin and development of liberal political theory, and so the foundations for contemporary views. The work provides a readable, scholarly introduction to the great figures in Western political theory from Hobbes to Marx. Major theorists examined include Hobbes, Locke, Hume, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Burke, Mill, and Marx, not only major figures in the liberal tradition but liberal political theory's most important critics. Theorists are examined in their historical contexts, with extensive quotations allowing them to speak for themselves. Central concepts employed in their works are carefully examined, with special attention to both how they fit together to form coherent theories and how they bear on issues of contemporary concern. Major concepts examined include freedom, rights, political obligation, and revolution. Emphasizing depth rather than breadth, this work is an ideal introduction tool for instructors who have been searching for a text that combines careful exposition of important political theorists and clear, critical analysis.

With the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935, the US government ushered in a new era of social welfare policies, to counteract the devastation of The Great Depression. While political philosophers generally view the welfare state to be built on values of equality and human dignity, America's politicians, beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelt, argued on different grounds. From the beginning, Roosevelt based his defense of the welfare state on the individualist, or Lockean premises inherent in America's political culture. As a result, he not only encouraged the United States' commitment to individualism, but also contributed to distinctively harsh American stigmatization of welfare recipients. In The Transformation of American Liberalism, George Klosko explores how American political leaders have justified social welfare programs since the 1930s, ultimately showing how their arguments have contributed to notably ungenerous programs. Students of political theory note the evolution of liberal political theory between its origins and major contemporary theorists who justify the values and social policies of the welfare state. But the transformation of liberalism in American political culture is incomplete. Individualist values and beliefs have exerted a continuing hold on America's leaders, constraining their justificatory arguments. The paradoxical result may be described as continuing attempts to justify new social programs without acknowledging incompatibility between the arguments necessary to do so and American culture's individualist assumptions. An important reason for the striking absence of strong and widely recognized arguments for social welfare programs in American political culture is that its political leaders did not provide them.

History of Political Theory: An Introduction is an engaging introduction to the main figures in the history of Western Political Theory and their most important works. Volume I traces the development of political theory "from the beginning" in ancient Greece through the Reformation. Main subjects examined include the Classical political theory of the Greek polis, the Hellenistic period, the rise of Christian political theory, political theory of the middle ages, and the Reformation. Major figures examined include Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, St. Thomas, Marsilius of Padua, and Martin Luther. Throughout, the great theorists are closely examined in their historical contexts, with extensive quotations allowing them to speak for themselves. Central concepts employed in their works are carefully examined, with special attention to how these fit together to form coherent theories. The works of the great theorists are further considered in regard to how they bear on issues of contemporary concern, such as constitutionalism, natural law, and resistance to unjust authority. The result is not only an exploration of the great works of political theory but a demonstration of their continuing relevance.

In The Principle of Fairness and Political Obligation, George Klosko presents the first book-length treatment of political obligation grounded in the premises of liberal political theory. In this now-classic work, he clearly and systematically formulates what others thought impossible-a principle of fairness that specifies a set of conditions which grounds existing political obligations and bridges the gap between the abstract accounts of political principles and the actual beliefs of political actors. Brought up-to-date with a new introduction, this new edition will be of great interest to all interested in political thought.

In The Principle of Fairness and Political Obligation, George Klosko presents the first book-length treatment of political obligation grounded in the premises of liberal political theory. In this now-classic work, he clearly and systematically formulates what others thought impossible-a principle of fairness that specifies a set of conditions which grounds existing political obligations and bridges the gap between the abstract accounts of political principles and the actual beliefs of political actors. Brought up-to-date with a new introduction, this new edition will be of great interest to all interested in political thought.

Jacobins and Utopians examines the politics of ideal societies and the means necessary to bring them into existence. George Klosko reveals how discussions of fundamental moral reform lead inexorably to questions of political power. Machiavelli classically articulated the claim that unarmed prophets go to the gallows. Themes of revolution play an integral role in Klosko's study-as the figures he explores frequently concerned themselves with the means of becoming armed. Klosko focuses particularly on what he calls "educational realism" as a means of channeling political power in pursuit of moral reform. If people are to become fit for an ideal society they must be subjected to intensive education, which in turn requires control of the educational environment and, consequently, of society as a whole. Klosko identifies Plato as an educational realist and contends that Plato, contrary to his reputation as a pure utopian, actually provides a searching analysis of the role of political power in fundamental moral reform. In addition to Plato, Jacobins and Utopians canvasses strategies of moral reform proposed by Plutarch's Lycurgus, Socrates, Thomas More, Machiavelli, Robespierre, Saint-Just, Bakunin, Charles Fourier, Marx, and Lenin. Klosko analyzes both the advantages of Jacobinism as a political strategy and its inherent flaws.

Democratic Procedures and Liberal Consensus seeks to examine empirical conditions under which people give their support to liberal democratic regimes and regard policies as legitimate.

The question, 'Why should I obey the law?' introduces a contemporary puzzle that is as old as philosophy itself. The puzzle is especially troublesome if we think of cases in which breaking the law is not otherwise wrongful, and in which the chances of getting caught are negligible. Philosophers from Socrates to H.L.A. Hart have struggled to give reasoned support to the idea that we do have a general moral duty to obey the law but, more recently, the greater number of learned voices has expressed doubt that there is any such duty, at least as traditionally conceived. The thought that there is no such duty poses a challenge to our ordinary understanding of political authority and its legitimacy. In what sense can political officials have a right to rule us if there is no duty to obey the laws they lay down? Some thinkers, concluding that a general duty to obey the law cannot be defended, have gone so far as to embrace philosophical anarchism, the view that the state is necessarily illegitimate. Others argue that the duty to obey the law can be grounded on the idea of consent, or on fairness, or on other ideas, such as community.

Political Obligations provides a full defense of a theory of political obligation based on the principle of fairness (or fair play), which is widely viewed as the strongest theory of obligation currently available. The work responds to the most important objections to the principle of fairness, and extends a theory based on fairness into a developed 'multiple principle' theory of obligation. In order to establish the need for such a theory, Political Obligations criticizes alternative theories of obligation based on a natural duty of justice and 'reformist' consent, and critically examines the non-state theories of libertarian and philosophical anarchists. The work breaks new ground by providing the first in-depth study of popular attitudes towards political obligations and how the state itself views them. The attitudes of ordinary citizens are explored through small focus groups, while the 'self image of the state' in regard to the obligations of its citizens is studied through examination of judicial decisions in three different democratic countries.

Since its publication twenty years ago, the first edition of this work has been the closest thing to a standard book on Plato's political theory. Like the first edition, this edition of The Development of Plato's Political Theory provides a clear, scholarly account of Plato's political theory in the context of the social and political events of his time, and draws connections between the development of his political theory and other aspects of his philosophy, especially his moral psychology. Special attention is paid to the political nature of Plato's political theory, to how his lifelong concern with questions of moral and political reform evolved along with other aspects of his theory, and to both Socrates' and his own efforts to reform actual cities. This second edition has been thoroughly revised to take into account scholarly developments during the last twenty years. Major changes from the first edition include reworking central aspects of chapters on the Statesman and Laws and detailed discussion of questions of interpretation, how Plato's dialogues should be read. Among other subjects receiving increased attention are Plato's alleged totalitarianism and racism and the place of the nocturnal council in the political theory of the Laws.

Political Obligations provides a full defense of a theory of political obligation based on the principle of fairness (or fair play), which is widely viewed as the strongest theory of obligation currently available. The work responds to the most important objections to the principle of fairness, and extends a theory based on fairness into a developed 'multiple principle' theory of obligation. In order to establish the need for such a theory, Political Obligations criticizes alternative theories of obligation based on a natural duty of justice and 'reformist' consent, and critically examines the non-state theories of libertarian and philosophical anarchists. The work breaks new ground by providing the first in-depth study of popular attitudes towards political obligations and how the state itself views them. The attitudes of ordinary citizens are explored through small focus groups, while the 'self image of the state' in regard to the obligations of its citizens is studied through examination of judicial decisions in three different democratic countries.

Liberal theory seeks agreement on political principles in spite of the moral, religious, and philosophical diversity of contemporary societies. Democratic Procedures and Liberal Consensus breaks new ground in developing principles from research on liberal citizen's attitudes towards rights and liberties, distributive justice, and religious beliefs. Because liberal citizens do not generally accept strong individual rights or strongly egalitarian principles of distributive justice, the principles of liberal consensus must be based on almost universal support for democratic political systems and democracy as a value. The details of central liberal principles, including those bearing on democracy itself, must be worked out by appropriate democratic procedures.