Peter Lindsay

Contrasts two seminal works of political and social theory that were published in 1944: F.A. Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” and Karl Polanyi’s “The Great Transformation.” Examines how so much common ground paradoxically resulted in so much normative distance, arguing that the clash sheds an interesting light on recent philosophical debates over “ideal” and “non-ideal” theory, one that suggests that there are clear limits to the applicability of the former.

Proposes a way of looking at ownership in which its central conceptual feature is the agreement that brings it into existence. Ownership, on this understanding, derives its legitimacy from the extent to which people living under it give it their uncoerced consent.

Describes the patterns of what students think about their learning, gathered from 45 classes using mid-semester Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID). Identifies insights into students’ perceptions of how learning works that are not included in the end-of-course student evaluations of instruction. Suggests possible clashes between student and faculty expectations.

Examines the issue of who owns cultural antiquities, the nations (often in the developing world) on whose soil they originated, or the museums of developed nations that have, through a variety of means, come into possession of them. Makes the case that some things have properties that undermine claims of private ownership, and that are, as a result, intrinsically common.

Argues that instructors should introduce students to abstract concepts only after they have provided concrete illustrations of them. Identifies the advantages of working from the concrete to the abstract as twofold: (1) students have an easier time conceptualizing abstractions from within a particular context, and (2) such a context provides them with a greater motivation to do so.

Explores why the use of Native American team names, logos and mascots by professional and scholastic athletic teams is unethical. Explores further whether such unethical actions are grounds for political bans, arguing the liberal democracy does not have the philosophical resources to support such bans.

Argues that laissez-faire, in spite of its perceived discrediting, has maintained a persistent influence over debates about distributive justice.

Examines C.B. Macpherson’s democratic vision and conception of human nature and a just society. Argues that Macpherson's central message regarding the importance of economic equality for democracy is as relevant today as it was when first presented.