Course Manual

Law Justice and Morality

PPLE College 2024-2025

1. Introduction
1.1 General Information

Course number 3801LJQPVY

Credits in EC 6

Semester, period Semester 1 block 2

Lecturer(s) Dr. T.M. de Waal

1.2 Teaching format

Lectures and tutorials.

1.3 Content of the course

Objective: This course explores (1) the interrelationships between law, justice and morality; and (2)
it analyzes how relates to moral values and how it is used to advance notions of social justice.

Description of content: It is at times assumed that law, justice and morality come together to form a
single, coherent and straightforward entity. Media for instance often suggests, for example, that a
constitutional state equals just institutions, and that legal procedures, if they function properly, lead
to outcomes that are fair from a moral point of view. However, contrary to these popular views, law,
justice and morality are often not, and even not at all, aligned. For one thing, there are quite some
theories of justice, each proposing different and sometimes contrasting ways of organizing law and
the institutions of the state. Moreover, legal theory tends to emphasize that even unjust law can, in
specific instances, be legally valid. Finally, societies are characterized by a plurality of (e.g. religious
and secular) ideas of the good life (moralities). The question then becomes: how can law and formal
institutions offer just and effective solutions when such moralities conflict?

In this course, we will closely examine the concepts of law, justice, and morality, and explore how
they are interconnected. The course will focus on: 1) dominant philosophies of law (legal positivism
and natural law theories); 2) ethical theories (utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics); 3)
theories of justice (egalitarian liberalism, libertarianism, Marxism, and critiques of liberalism); and 4)
several case studies in which law, justice, and morality intersect, highlighting the exclusionary
limitations of the foundational concepts in modern (Western) political thought (race, animals and
migration).

Informed by these various legal-philosophical, ethical, and political-philosophical approaches, this

course discusses several issues on the intersection of law, justice, and morality, including the
following: to what extent does law as a formal system of rules in a specific society reflect ideas about
justice and morality; and what to do when law deviates (fundamentally) from such normative ideals?
how does the idea of a just society (justice) relate to various ideas of the good life (morality)?

During the course, these theoretical discussions are usually analyzed from actual political and legal
controversies and issues.
1.4 Learning Outcomes
➢ Can recognize, distinguish between, outline, and apply the dominant normative philosophies of
law, justice and morality: consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, liberalism, libertarianism,
Marxism and the various relevant critics of liberalism;
➢ can explain the disciplinary aims and structure of law itself (as opposed to private morality and to
public justice);
➢ can critically evaluate the main ideas of philosophical theories in relation to current political and
legal issues;
➢ are able to reflect on the relationship between law, justice, and morality, and discuss different
possible views on this relationship with arguments and examples;
➢ can articulate and apply the normative implications of dominant normative philosophies of law
and justice on several case studies.
➢ can demonstrate the above skills in short and long-form written essays, classroom debates, and
group presentations.

1.5 Timetable

Information about the timetable can be found on: https://rooster.uva.nl/schedule

1.6 Literature / readings

• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? London: Penguin Books.
This book provides the backbone for the course in that the several chapters provide an
introduction to the various themes. However, most lecture and tutorials revolve around primary
literature.
• Reader with literature, available on Canvas (under modules) and via https://uva.shop.canon.nl/

1.7 Weekly schedule

Week 1

Lecture 1A Introduction course

Mandatory reading:
• This syllabus!
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? (Chapter 1) London: Penguin Books.
• Fuller, L. L. (1948). The case of the speluncean explorers. Harvard Law Review, 62, 616-645.

Tutorial 1A Different perspectives on what is law

Mandatory reading / watching:
• Explanation video of IRAC method: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82z9VBr9azE
• Fuller, L. L. (1948). The case of the speluncean explorers. Harvard Law Review, 62, 616-645.
Lecture 1B Is unjust law, law at all?
Mandatory reading:
• Radbruch, G. (1946, 2006) ‘Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law’, Oxford Journal
of Legal Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, 26(1), 1–11.
• Hart, H.L.A. (1964). The Concept of Law, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1994,
pp. 208-212.

Tutorial 1B Terror case

Mandatory reading:
• Radbruch, G. (1946, 2006) ‘Statutory Lawlessness and Supra-Statutory Law’, Oxford Journal
of Legal Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1, 26(1), 1–11.
• Hart, H.L.A. (1964). The Concept of Law, 2nd edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1994,
pp. 208-212.
• Fuller, L. L. (1948). The case of the speluncean explorers. Harvard Law Review, 62, 616-645.

Week 2

Lecture 2 Utilitarianism as a moral theory

Mandatory reading:
• Bentham, J. (1789) Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (Selection).
• Mill, J.S. (1861) Utilitarianism (Selection).
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? (Chapter 2) London: Penguin Books.

Tutorial 2A Case study of utilitarianism

Mandatory reading:
• Singer, P. (1972). “Famine, Affluence, and Morality.” Philosophy and Public Affairs 1(3), 229-
243.

Lecture 2B Utilitarianism as a theory of justice

Mandatory reading:
• Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty, chapter I-III, excerpts.
• Waldron, J. (2012) The harm in hate speech, (pp. 77-89) Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Zemmour v France [2022] ECHR 1130 (English translation, French version can be found
online)
Tutorial 2B Utilitarianism and freedom of speech
Mandatory reading:
• Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty, chapter I-III, excerpts.
• Waldron, J. (2012). The harm in hate speech, (pp. 77-89) Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
• Zemmour v France [2022] ECHR 1130 (English translation, French version can be found
online)

Week 3

Lecture 3A Deontology
Guest lecture Dr. Thomas Nys, Department of Philosophy, UvA

Mandatory reading:
• Kant, I. (1785). Fundamental Principles of The Metaphysic of Morals (selection). Translated by
Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, excerpts.
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? (Chapter 5) London: Penguin Books.

Tutorial 3A Case study of deontology

Mandatory reading/viewing:
• Kant, I. (1785). Fundamental Principles of The Metaphysic of Morals (selection). Translated by
Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, excerpts.
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? (Chapter 5) London: Penguin Books.
• Excerpts from the Convention Against Torture (1984)
• 8 U.S. Code § 2340 –
• Torture Utilitarian Argument Against Torture: Remarks by President Barack Obama
• Gäfgen v. Germany: threat of torture to save a life? Stijn Smet on Academic blog Strasbourg
Observers https://strasbourgobservers.com/2010/07/06/389/
• Deontological and Utilitarian Arguments About Torture: German Missing Child Case: Michael
Sandel interviews Dieter Grimm, Caroline Emcke, and Peter Singer, available at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FR-FuhN2HM (6:37).

Lecture 3B Deontology as a theory of justice (Rawls)

Mandatory reading:
• Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-19, 52-56,
118-123.
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (Chapter 6) London: Penguin
Books.

Tutorial 3B The Rawls Game

• Rawls, J. 1999. A Theory of Justice rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 3-19, 52-56,
118-123.
 • Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? (Chapter 6) London: Penguin
Books.
• Game on Rawls’ Second Principle (will be explained during tutorial)

Week 4

Lecture 4A Virtue ethics

Guest lecture Dr. Thomas Nys, Department of Philosophy, UvA

Mandatory reading:
• Wolff, J. (2020). An Introduction to Moral Philosophy: Second Edition. W.W. Norton &
Company.(Chapter 12 + 13, p. 269-309)
• Aristoteles, Ethics Nicomacheia, Chapter 2
Suggested reading:
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? (Chapter 8) London: Penguin Books.

Tutorial 4A Ethical judgement and moral vision

Mandatory reading:
• Wolff, J. (2020). An Introduction to Moral Philosophy: Second Edition. W.W. Norton &
Company.(Chapter 12 + 13, p. 269-309)
• Aristoteles, Ethics Nicomacheia, Chapter 2
• Nussbaum, M.C. (1990). Love’s Knowledge. Essays On Philosophy and Literature, pp. 54-55,
66-75, 93-104

Lecture 4B Virtue ethics and citizenship education

Mandatory reading:
• Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford University
Press. (Chapter 7, p. 284-326)
Suggested reading:
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? (Chapter 9) London: Penguin Books.
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? (Chapter 10) London: Penguin
Books.

Tutorial 4B Citizenship education

Mandatory reading:
• Kymlicka, W. (2002). Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction. Oxford University
Press. (Chapter 7, p. 284-326)
Week 5

Lecture 5A Race in Western political thought

Mandatory reading:
• Kleingeld, P. (2019) On Dealing with Kant’s Sexism and Racism. SGIR Review 2(2), pp. 3-22.
• Mills, C.W. (2017). ‘Rawls on Race/Race in Rawls’ (Chapter 8, pp.139-142; 145-152; 154-160)
in Black Rights/White Wrongs: The Critique of Racial Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Tutorial 5A Racial liberalism

Mandatory reading:
• Kleingeld, P. (2019) On Dealing with Kant’s Sexism and Racism. SGIR Review 2(2), pp. 3-22.
• Mills, C.W. (2017). ‘Rawls on Race/Race in Rawls’ (Chapter 8, pp.139-142; 145-152; 154-160)
in Black Rights/White Wrongs: The Critique of Racial Liberalism. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.

Lecture 5B No lecture!

Tutorial 5B In-class assignment!

Week 6

Lecture 6A Who should receive citizenship?

Mandatory reading:
• De Schutter, H., & Ypi, L. (2015). The British Academy Brian Barry Prize Essay: Mandatory
Citizenship for Immigrants. British Journal of Political Science, 45(2), 235-251.
Suggested reading:
• Kymlicka, W., and Donaldson, S. ‘Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship.’ Oxford Journal
of Legal Studies 34.2 (2014): Vol. 34, No 2, pp. 201-219.

Tutorial 6A: Citizenship for animals

Mandatory reading:
• Kymlicka, W., and Donaldson, S. ‘Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship.’ Oxford Journal
of Legal Studies 34.2 (2014): Vol. 34, No 2, pp. 201-219.

Lecture 6B Libertarianism
Mandatory reading:
• Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia, (pp. 149-164; 167-174) New York: Basic Books,
excerpts.
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? (Chapter 3) London: Penguin Books.
Tutorial 6B Do we own ourselves?
Mandatory reading:
• Nozick, R. 1974. Anarchy, State and Utopia, (pp. 149-164; 167-174) New York: Basic Books,
excerpts.
• Sandel, M. J. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? (Chapter 3) London: Penguin Books

Week 7

Lecture 7A Marxism
Guest lecture Dr. Jan Overwijk, Institut für Sozialforschung an der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am
Main

Mandatory reading:
• Marx, K. (1843) On the Jewish Question (part I, p. 28-50) Published online by Cambridge
University Press
• Wood, M. W. (2020). Democracy. In M. Musto (Ed.), The Marx Revival: Key Concepts and
New Critical Interpretations (Chapter 3, pp. 51–69). Cambridge University Press.

Tutorial 7B The Marx Revival

Mandatory reading:
• Marx, K. (1843) On the Jewish Question (part I, p. 28-50) Published online by Cambridge
University Press
• Wood, M. W. (2020). Democracy. In M. Musto (Ed.), The Marx Revival: Key Concepts and
New Critical Interpretations (Chapter 3, pp. 51–69). Cambridge University Press.
Suggested reading:
• Engels, F. (1847) The Principles of Communism Selected Works, Volume One, (p. 81-97),
Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1969. (See Canvas)

Lecture 7B The right to have rights and migration

Guest lecture Dr. Nanda Oudejans, Amsterdam Law School, UvA

Mandatory reading:
• Arendt, H. (1976 [1951]). ‘The Perplexities of the Rights of Man’, Chapter 8 in The Origins of
totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, 290-302.
• Achiume, E. (2019). Migration as Decolonization. Stanford Law Review, 71(6), (selection:
p.1533 A. Colonial Imperialism to p.1547 III. Revisiting the Right to Exclude

Tutorial 7B Migration as decolonization

• Arendt, H. (1976 [1951]). ‘The Perplexities of the Rights of Man’, Chapter 8 in The Origins of
totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt, 290-302.
• Achiume, E. (2019). Migration as Decolonization. Stanford Law Review, 71(6), (selection:
p.1533 A. Colonial Imperialism to p.1547 III. Revisiting the Right to Exclude
• Case of N.D. and N.T. vs. Spain (EctHR), summary
• Concurring Opinion of Judge Pejchal
 1.8 Weblecture Policy

The lecture recordings will be shared on Canvas one week before the exam for revision purposes
only. We expect students to attend the lectures in person therefore access before the above date
will not be granted.

2. Assessment and testing

2.1 Assessment

Short essays, short presentations, final exam

2.2 Examination Scheme

Component Deadline/date Weight Minimum Resit

grade - 5.5

Short essay* Week 3 20% No No

In-class assignment * Week 5 20% No No

Presentation** Varies 10% No No

Final exam*** 17 December 50% 5.5 Yes

12:30-15-30

Resit 4 February 50% 5.5 No

18:00-21:00

Ad 1 In order to complete the course, the grade for the final exam should be 5.5 or higher.

Ad 2 In order to complete the course, the total rounded average should be 6.0 or higher.

Ad 3 In accordance with Regulations and Guidelines EB a component (including the resit) may not
weigh more than 70% of the final grade. Individual work comprises minimum of 50% of the final grade.

Ad 4 Maximum two components with a minimum requirement of 5.5

Ad 5 Resit opportunities only apply on components with a minimum grade requirement.

*Short Essay + in-class assignment – Students will write a short thought paper in week 3 and 5 in
response to a question related to the readings and upload it through canvas. The first assignment
will be published one week ahead on Canvas. See under modules (tutorials week 2) instructions
about APA reference style and the rubric used for grading the essay. The second essay assignment
will be on campus – more information on this will follow. All essays will be graded and will be run
through the plagiarism detection software. Each of the essays represent 20% of the final grade.
** In-Class Presentation – In class, beginning week two, students have to present readings of that
week and are asked to formulate a (tentative) critique. The presentations should not take longer
than 15 minutes. See under modules (tutorials week 2) the rubric used for grading the presentations.

*** Final Exam – There will be a (open book) final exam. See date of final exam (and resit) in
examination scheme above. In the exam, students have to answer two shorter knowledge questions
on the prescribed material. In addition, they are given a case study to which they have to apply parts
of the prescribed material.

3. Changes/updates in the course.

Compared to last year, there are: a) slightly fewer readings, b) new material added on virtue ethics
and civic education, c) a slightly different structure for the weeks, and d) the addition of Marxism.

4. Attendance & Responsibilities

4.1 Attendance

Attendance to tutorials is mandatory in all accounts in line with the objective of the learning
outcomes of this course. In the event of extenuating circumstances, a maximum of two missed
attendances will be permitted without explicit permission from the Examinations Board. Any
additional absences will result in exclusion from the course, unless an individual request submitted
to the Examinations Board is granted (see: https://student.uva.nl/en/topics/submit-a-request-to-
the-examinations-board).

4.2 Late policy

Lateness will be monitored by your tutor. Being late three times leads to one full absence.

4.3 Deadlines

Assignments that are handed in after the respective deadlines are to be graded as ‘1’.

5. PPLE College guidelines for a positive and productive classroom

environment

At PPLE we strive for a learning atmosphere that is pleasant and effective for both the students and
the staff. In order to maintain such an environment, we should all work together towards
minimising distractions in the classroom by following these steps:

• Refrain from using social media/your mobile phone during the tutorials.
• Please switch off the sound on your laptop/mobile devices before the tutorial
begins.
• Please refrain from eating during the lesson.
• Do not take photographs during tutorials.
• Leave the tutorial room the way you found it (or cleaner).
• Be considerate of others.
6. Fraud and Plagiarism
For all written assignments, a Turnitin Similarity assignment is made on Canvas. Turnitin Similarity is
a tool that can detect work that is copied. All suspected cases of fraud and/or plagiarism will be
reported to the Examinations Board. This course uses the 'Regulations Governing Fraud and
Plagiarism for UvA Students'. For more information,
see http://student.uva.nl/pple/shared/studentensites/uva-studentensite/en/az/plagiarism-and-
fraud/plagiarism-and-fraud.html?origin=bg5ujKpfRM6MmU9azVVbsw. For group
work, complicity rules apply. See the PPLE Rules and Guidelines of the Examinations Board.

7. More information
This course has a Canvas page. Here you can find the necessary details, like the group information of
your tutorials, the assignments etc. You are expected to look at this website regularly, because any
updates will be communicated through Canvas.

You are registered for this course via GLASS. This means that you are automatically registered for
exams that are part of this course. Should you wish to deregister, please email Educationdesk-
[email protected] For more information about SIS visit: www.student.uva.nl/sis .

8. Contact information
Lecturer:
● Dr.mr. Tamar de waal [email protected]

Tutors:
● Eva van Diepen [email protected]
● Jessica Commins [email protected]
● Shuyu Huang [email protected]
● Leo Fruth [email protected]
● Lizan Nijkrake (coordinator) [email protected]
● Aristidis V. Agoglossakis Foley [email protected]
● Zita Kosaras [email protected]

9. Reading philosophical texts

In this course we will read some canonical texts in law, legal- and political philosophy. They are not
an easy read, especially if you want to grasp the underlying ideas. Here are some guidelines.

1. What conclusion does the author wants to reach?

Understanding what conclusion an author wants to reach is the first and most important step in
reading a paper. This conclusion is usually an answer to a research question, description of a
problem, etc., which is usually presented in the introduction. If you do not know what claim an
author will defend, it is impossible to understand the structure of the paper, and impossible to take
a critical position towards the text (since you do not know of what you should be critical about).
2. Why is the conclusion interesting?
You should only attend courses when you think the central subject is interesting. If you do, most of
the literature in the course should be at least partly interesting. If a text does not look appealing at
first sight, try to understand why the instructor has included the text into the reading list – the
instructor apparently thinks there is something valuable to be learned from the paper. If authors
disagree, try to find out what they’re disagreeing about, and which position you yourself hold.
Therefore, the first few weeks are harder than the later, because during the course you will get more
and more background knowledge, helpful for reading later texts.

3. What is the argument and what are premises of the argument?

The conclusion is usually a result of a line of reasoning based on specific premises and arguments.
Which assumptions are being made? Which inferences are being made during the argument? What
are the links between the different steps in the argument?

4. Should the premises of the argument be accepted?

Premises are usually never supported with arguments, they are assumed to be accepted or true? But
are they? Do they contradict common sense? Can you find counter examples? If an argument is
based on false premises, it does not prove anything.

5. Is the argument valid in its own terms?

Reading philosophical papers should always be based on the principle of charity. Give an author the
benefit of the doubt. If you think he or she is wrong, make very clear for yourself what you think he
is saying and why you think he is mistaken. Grant all arguments a fair hearing, especially those with
which you disagree.