Most contemporary moral and political philosophers would like to have an argument showing that morality is rationally required. In From Rationality to Equality, James P. Sterba provides just such an argument and further shows that morality, so justified, requires substantial equality. His argument from rationality to morality is based on the principle of non-question-beggingness and has two forms. The first assumes that the egoist is willing to argue for egoism non-question-beggingly, and the second only assumes that the egoist is willing to assent to premises she actually needs to achieve her egoistic goals. Either way, he argues, morality is rationally (i.e., non-question-beggingly) preferable to egoism. Sterba's argument from morality to equality non-question-beggingly starts with assumptions that are acceptable from a libertarian perspective, the view that appears to endorse the least enforcement of morality, and then shows that this perspective requires a right to welfare which, when extended to distant peoples and future generations, leads to equality. He defends his two-part argument against recent critics, and shows how it is preferable not only to alternative attempts to justify morality, but also to alternative attempts to show that morality leads to a right to welfare and/or to equality.

Social and Political Philosophy introduces some of the most important topics in contemporary political philosophy and questions whether these can be accommodated within the framework of liberal theory. It consists of specially written essays by prominent figures in social and political philosophy. Each essay carefully considers both the theoretical and practical problems of a major topic. Traditional perspectives are balanced with new challenges. Topics include:
* Moral Methodology
* Libertarianism
* Socialism
* Lesbian and Gay Perspectives
* Feminism
* Racial and Multicultural Perspectives
* Rationality
* Welfare Liberalism
* Environmentalism
* Virtue Ethics and Community
* Just War Theory and Pacifism
* Civil Disobedience.

The Pursuit of Justice: A Personal Philosophical History is a collection of renowned scholar and philosopher James P. Sterba's finest works - essays spanning the full spectrum of his illustrious career along with new scholarship on the enduring struggle for justice we face as a society, and as individuals in the modern world. That struggle, or pursuit, may be ongoing, but - as this book details - it has come a long way, and that progress, however frustrating it may be to obtain and secure, is a testament to the work to which scholars like Sterba have devoted their lives and careers. In Sterba's case, that pursuit begins with an analysis of the concept of desert that is thought to be at the core of justice. It provides accounts of retributive and distributive justice, ands contains a response to the egoist who seeks to undermine any such endeavor. It broadens to include feminist justice, environmental justice, racial justice, and justice for distant peoples and future generations. It is a pursuit that all are invited, even required, to join and make their very own.

This book conveys the breadth and interconnectedness of questions of justice--a rarity in contemporary moral and political philosophy. James P. Sterba argues that a minimal notion of rationality requires morality, and that a minimal libertarian morality requires the welfare and equal opportunity endorsed by welfare liberals and the equality endorsed by socialists, as well as a full feminist agenda. Feminist, racial, homosexual, and multicultural justice are also shown to be mutually supporting. The author further shows the compatibility between anthropocentric and biocentric environmental ethics, as between just war and pacifist theories. Finally, he spells out when normal politics, legal protest, civil disobedience, revolutionary action, and criminal disobedience are morally permitted by justice for here and now. This highly original and potentially controversial book is ideal for courses in moral and political philosophy, applied ethics, women's studies, environmental studies, and peace studies.

This book invites philosophers and their students to consider two of the most fundamental questions in moral and political philosophy: Why be moral? And, what does morality require? Distinguished philosopher James P. Sterba presents his unique views on these topics. Sterba first argues from rationality to morality and then from morality to substantial equality. Prominent scholars Charles W. Mills, Candace A. Vogler, Anita Superson, Russ Shafer-Landau, Allan F. Gibbard, Gerald Gaus, and Tibor Machan provide thought-provoking critical responses. In the final part, Sterba addresses these critiques, inviting readers to explore the various arguments and reach their own conclusions on these fundamental questions of moral and political philosophy. Morality: The Why and What of It is an essential text for all students and scholars of ethics and political philosophy.

The problem of evil has been an extremely active area of study in the philosophy of religion for many years. Until now, most sources have focused on logical, metaphysical, and epistemological issues, leaving moral questions as open territory. With the resources of ethical theory firmly in hand, this volume provides lively insight into this ageless philosophical issue.

The problem of evil has been an extremely active area of study in the philosophy of religion for many years. Until now, most sources have focused on logical, metaphysical, and epistemological issues, leaving moral questions as open territory. With the resources of ethical theory firmly in hand, this volume provides lively insight into this ageless philosophical issue.

This book invites philosophers and their students to consider two of the most fundamental questions in moral and political philosophy: Why be moral? And, what does morality require? Distinguished philosopher James P. Sterba presents his unique views on these topics. Sterba first argues from rationality to morality and then from morality to substantial equality. Prominent scholars Charles W. Mills, Candace A. Vogler, Anita Superson, Russ Shafer-Landau, Allan F. Gibbard, Gerald Gaus, and Tibor Machan provide thought-provoking critical responses. In the final part, Sterba addresses these critiques, inviting readers to explore the various arguments and reach their own conclusions on these fundamental questions of moral and political philosophy. "Morality: The Why and What of It" is an essential text for all students and scholars of ethics and political philosophy.

Are the political ideals of liberty and equality compatible? This question is of central and continuing importance in political philosophy, moral philosophy, and welfare economics. In this book, two distinguished philosophers take up the debate. Jan Narveson argues that a political ideal of negative liberty is incompatible with any substantive ideal of equality, while James P. Sterba argues that Narveson's own ideal of negative liberty is compatible, and in fact leads to the requirements of a substantive ideal of equality. Of course, they cannot both be right. Thus, the details of their arguments about the political ideal of negative liberty and its requirements will determine which of them is right. Engagingly and accessibly written, their debate will be of value to all who are interested in the central issue of what are the practical requirements of a political ideal of liberty.

Most contemporary moral and political philosophers would like to have an argument showing that morality is rationally required. In From Rationality to Equality, James P. Sterba provides just such an argument and further shows that morality, so justified, requires substantial equality. His argument from rationality to morality is based on the principle of non-question-beggingness and has two forms. The first assumes that the egoist is willing to argue for egoism non-question-beggingly, and the second only assumes that the egoist is willing to assent to premises she actually needs to achieve her egoistic goals. Either way, he argues, morality is rationally (i.e., non-question-beggingly) preferable to egoism. Sterba's argument from morality to equality non-question-beggingly starts with assumptions that are acceptable from a libertarian perspective, the view that appears to endorse the least enforcement of morality, and then shows that this perspective requires a right to welfare which, when extended to distant peoples and future generations, leads to equality. He defends his two-part argument against recent critics, and shows how it is preferable not only to alternative attempts to justify morality, but also to alternative attempts to show that morality leads to a right to welfare and/or to equality.

Are the political ideals of liberty and equality compatible? This question is of central and continuing importance in political philosophy, moral philosophy, and welfare economics. In this book, two distinguished philosophers take up the debate. Jan Narveson argues that a political ideal of negative liberty is incompatible with any substantive ideal of equality, while James P. Sterba argues that Narveson's own ideal of negative liberty is compatible, and in fact leads to the requirements of a substantive ideal of equality. Of course, they cannot both be right. Thus, the details of their arguments about the political ideal of negative liberty and its requirements will determine which of them is right. Engagingly and accessibly written, their debate will be of value to all who are interested in the central issue of what are the practical requirements of a political ideal of liberty.

This book conveys the breadth and interconnectedness of questions of justice - a rarity in contemporary moral and political philosophy. James P. Sterba argues that a minimal notion of rationality requires morality, and that a minimal libertarian morality requires the welfare and equal opportunity endorsee by welfare liberals and the equality endorsed by socialists, as well as a full feminist agenda. Feminist, racial, homosexual, and multicultural justice, are also shown to be mutually supporting. The author further shows the compatibility between anthropocentric and biocentric environmental ethics, as between just war and pacifist theories. Finally, he spells out when normal politics, legal protest, civil disobedience, revolutionary action, and criminal disobedience are morally permitted by justice for here and now. This highly original and potentially controversial book is ideal for courses in moral and political philosophy, applied ethics, women's studies, environmental studies, and peace studies.

This unique anthology helps readers place the historical development of Western ethics into feminist and multicultural contexts. Confucius, Jorge Valadez, Ward Churchill, Moshoeshoe II, and Eagle Man present multicultural perspectives to the works of Plato, Aristotle, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Sartre, Rawls, MacIntyre, Korsgaard, and others. Noted feminists Christine de Puzan, Simone de Beauvoir, Carol Gilligan, Annette Baier, Susan Okin, and Rosemarie Radford Ruether also offer alternative views.

This collection of essays aims to present the central ideas in the moral theory of major thinkers in the western tradition from Plato to Rawls. The contributors address the ethical theory of each philosopher and attempt to characterize the body of his thought in an historical context against the cultural, intellectual and personal conditions of its time.;James Gouinlock is the author of "John Dewey's Philosophy of Value" and "Excellence in Public Discourse". James Sterba has written several books including "Morality in Practice The Ethics of War and Nuclear Deterrence" and "How to Make People Just".

Aristotelian ethics, Kantian ethics, and utilitarian ethics have been for some time now the main options within (Western) ethics, and the central task over the years has been to determine which of the three is right. Is this book yet another attempt to fulfill this same old task? Not at all. Sterba argues that in their ongoing attempts to put forward for general consideration the most morally defensible versions of their views, advocates of Aristotelian ethics, Kantian ethics, and utilitarian ethics have jettisoned much of what had originally distinguished their theories from each other. The upshot is that, in their current most morally defensible formulations, Aristotelian ethics, Kantian ethics, and utilitarian ethics no longer differ in the practical requirements they endorse. This makes the resolution of moral problems far easier. Sterba drives home his claims by taking up some of the most challenging and important moral problems of our time--sexual harassment, affirmative action, and international terrorism and Iraqi War II. This book is an ideal supplementary text for courses in introductory ethics, history of ethics, contemporary moral problems, and various applied ethics courses. Featuring a lucid writing style and coverage of current moral issues, it is also captivating reading for general readers.

This a collection of contemporary popular and scholarly writing on the subject of sexual harassment. The book is designed to clarify and enrich understanding of a topic that in recent years, especially in the United States, has been the subject of contentious debate in the media, the law, and the academy. The book's variety of political analysis, legal theory, philosophical debate, multicultural and international perspectives, regulatory documents, and Supreme Court case law is unprecedented in any single volume on the subject.

Using yet untapped resources from moral and political philosophy, this book seeks to answer the question of whether an all good God who is presumed to be all powerful is logically compatible with the degree and amount of moral and natural evil that exists in our world. It is widely held by theists and atheists alike that it may be logically impossible for an all good, all powerful God to create a world with moral agents like ourselves that does not also have at least some moral evil in it. James P. Sterba focuses on the further question of whether God is logically compatible with the degree and amount of moral and natural evil that exists in our world. The negative answer he provides marks a new stage in the age-old debate about God's existence.

Aristotelian ethics, Kantian ethics, and utilitarian ethics have been for some time now the main options within (Western) ethics, and the central task over the years has been to determine which of the three is right. Is this book yet another attempt to fulfill this same old task? Not at all. Sterba argues that in their ongoing attempts to put forward for general consideration the most morally defensible versions of their views, advocates of Aristotelian ethics, Kantian ethics, and utilitarian ethics have jettisoned much of what had originally distinguished their theories from each other. The upshot is that, in their current most morally defensible formulations, Aristotelian ethics, Kantian ethics, and utilitarian ethics no longer differ in the practical requirements they endorse. This makes the resolution of moral problems far easier. Sterba drives home his claims by taking up some of the most challenging and important moral problems of our time--sexual harassment, affirmative action, and international terrorism and Iraqi War II. This book is an ideal supplementary text for courses in introductory ethics, history of ethics, contemporary moral problems, and various applied ethics courses. Featuring a lucid writing style and coverage of current moral issues, it is also captivating reading for general readers.