The virtue of mercy is widely admired, but is now marginalized in contemporary public life. Yet for centuries it held a secure place in western public discourse without implying a necessary contradiction with justice. Alex Tuckness and John M. Parrish ask how and why this changed. Examining Christian and non-Christian ancient traditions, along with Kantian and utilitarian strains of thought, they offer a persuasive account of how our perception of mercy has been transformed by Enlightenment conceptions of impartiality and equality that place justice and mercy in tension. Understanding the logic of this decline, they argue, will make it possible to promote and defend a more robust role for mercy in public life. Their study ranges from Homer to the late Enlightenment and from ancient tragedies to medieval theologies to contemporary philosophical texts, and will be valuable to readers in political philosophy, political theory, and the philosophy of law.

Manipulation is a source of pervasive anxiety in contemporary American politics. Observers charge that manipulative practices in political advertising, media coverage, and public discourse have helped to produce an increasingly polarized political arena, an uninformed and apathetic electorate, election campaigns that exploit public fears and prejudices, a media that titillates rather than educates, and a policy process that too often focuses on the symbolic rather than substantive.

Manipulating Democracy offers the first comprehensive dialogue between empirical political scientists and normative theorists on the definition and contemporary practice of democratic manipulation. This impressive array of distinguished scholars-political scientists, philosophers, cognitive psychologists, and communications scholars-collectively draw out the connections between competing definitions of manipulation, the psychology of manipulation, and the political institutions and practices through which manipulation is seen to produce a tightly-knit exploration of an issue at the heart of democratic politics.

Manipulation is a source of pervasive anxiety in contemporary American politics. Observers charge that manipulative practices in political advertising, media coverage, and public discourse have helped to produce an increasingly polarized political arena, an uninformed and apathetic electorate, election campaigns that exploit public fears and prejudices, a media that titillates rather than educates, and a policy process that too often focuses on the symbolic rather than substantive. Manipulating Democracy offers the first comprehensive dialogue between empirical political scientists and normative theorists on the definition and contemporary practice of democratic manipulation. This impressive array of distinguished scholars-political scientists, philosophers, cognitive psychologists, and communications scholars-collectively draw out the connections between competing definitions of manipulation, the psychology of manipulation, and the political institutions and practices through which manipulation is seen to produce a tightly-knit exploration of an issue at the heart of democratic politics.

Problems of individual moral choice have always been closely bound up with the larger normative concerns of political theory. There are several reasons for this continuing connection. First, the value conflicts involved in private moral choice often find themselves reproduced on the public stage: for example, states may find it difficult to do right by both justice and mercy in much the same way individuals do. Second, we frequently find conflicts among the values at stake in individual life and public life, such that the moral choice we must make is between private and public goods. Loosely speaking, choices which express these conflicts are what philosophers call moral dilemmas: choices in which no matter what one does one will be forfeiting some important moral good; in which wrongdoing is to some degree inescapable; in which one is (perhaps literally) damned if one does and damned if one doesn't. The eight essays collected in this volume explore the philosophical problem of moral dilemmas as that problem finds expression in ancient drama, classic and contemporary novels, television, film, and popular fiction. They consider four main types of dilemmas. In the first section, the authors examine dilemmas associated with political stability and regime change as expressed in the HBO television series Deadwood and in Stephen King's novels and short stories. The second section confronts dilemmas associated with public leadership, considering the ethical conflicts in Aeschylus's classical dramas The Suppliants, Tolkien's Lord of the Rings, and in the contemporary FOX television series 24. In the volume's third section, the authors examine dilemmas of institutional evil, specifically slavery, as they emerge in Harriet Beecher Stowe's classic novel Uncle Tom's Cabin and in J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter novels. Finally, the collection considers dilemmas of community and choice in Toni Morrison's novel Paradise and in the contemporary film A Simple Plan.

How do the hard facts of political responsibility shape and constrain the demands of ethical life? That question lies at the heart of the problem of 'dirty hands' in public life. Those who exercise political power often feel they must act in ways that would otherwise be considered immoral: indeed, paradoxically, they sometimes feel that it would be immoral of them not to perform or condone such acts as killing or lying. John Parrish offers a wide-ranging account of how this important philosophical problem emerged and developed, tracing it - and its proposed solutions - from ancient Greece through the Enlightenment. His central argument is that many of our most familiar concepts and institutions - from Augustine's interiorised ethics, to Hobbes's sovereign state, to Adam Smith's 'invisible hand', understanding of the modern commercial economy - were designed partly as responses to the ethical problem of dirty hands in public life.

How do the hard facts of political responsibility shape and constrain the demands of ethical life? That question lies at the heart of the problem of ???dirty hands??? in public life. Those who exercise political power often feel they must act in ways which would otherwise be considered immoral: indeed, paradoxically, they sometimes feel that it would be immoral of them not to perform or condone such acts as killing or lying. John Parrish offers the first wide-ranging account of how this important philosophical problem emerged and developed, tracing it - and its proposed solutions - from ancient Greece through the Enlightenment. His central argument is that many of our most familiar concepts and institutions - from Augustine's interiorized ethics, to Hobbes's sovereign state, to Adam Smith's ???invisible hand??? understanding of the modern commercial economy - were designed partly as responses to the ethical problem of dirty hands in public life.

The virtue of mercy is widely admired, but is now marginalized in contemporary public life. Yet for centuries it held a secure place in western public discourse without implying a necessary contradiction with justice. Alex Tuckness and John M. Parrish ask how and why this changed. Examining Christian and non-Christian ancient traditions, along with Kantian and utilitarian strains of thought, they offer a persuasive account of how our perception of mercy has been transformed by Enlightenment conceptions of impartiality and equality that place justice and mercy in tension. Understanding the logic of this decline, they argue, will make it possible to promote and defend a more robust role for mercy in public life. Their study ranges from Homer to the late Enlightenment and from ancient tragedies to medieval theologies to contemporary philosophical texts, and will be valuable to readers in political philosophy, political theory, and the philosophy of law.

Watergate, 1973–1974 explores America's most dramatic constitutional crisis of the twentieth century: the investigation of the Watergate burglary. The scandal brought the nation's political system to the brink of disaster: the US president had defied established norms of democracy, and his enemies and allies alike struggled to hold together the country's fragile constitutional order. In the game, students portray members of Congress,journalists, and key figures from the Nixon administration, all seeking to advance their faction's goals while also seeking a way to resolve the Watergate crisis.