**Call for Papers: Special Issue on „David Estlund’s Utopophobia – On the Limits (if Any) of Political Philosophy“**

Guest Editors:
Philipp Schink (Forschungskolleg Humanwissenschaften, Bad Homburg),
Achim Vesper (Goethe University, Frankfurt)

In recent years, the discussion in political philosophy has increasingly turned to a methodological issue, namely the question whether it is appropriate to carry out studies in this field on contrafactual premises. The debate concentrates on the scope to which assumptions about practical aspects, particularly their guidingness and feasibility, have to be included in the justification of normative standards. Here, realistic, non-ideal and ideal approaches and their respective methods are critically examined for their plausibility. With his recently published Utopophobia - On the Limits (if Any) of Political Philosophy David Estlund has made an important and highly fascinating contribution to this important debate. In the book, he defends a decidedly ideal approach, subjecting the alternative realistic approaches to meticulous criticism. The central claim of the book is: „It is no defect in a theory or conception of social justice if it sets such a high standard that there is little or no chance of it being met, by any society, ever. Such a theory could nevertheless be true.“Highly favored by students for its top-quality work, on-time deliveries, and exceptional customer care, this excel assignment help provides tailored academic support. It features custom essays, in-depth research assignments, and thorough proofreading, all aimed at addressing the specific needs of each student.

Moral Philosophy and Politics invites contributions on how we are to think or theorize about normative requirements in politics that critically engage with the arguments or pick up themes from Estlund’s book. David Estlund has kindly agreed to respond to the comments and objections. Although Estlund’s book is very rich in its details, the following questions are of special importance for the discussion of its topic:

What exactly distinguishes a realistic approach from an ideal one? Is the difference really about methodology or do the different approaches rather pursue different objectives.
How should the practical requirements for normative political theories be conceived and what role do questions of feasibility and action-guidingness play within theories of norms in general?
Given that ideal approaches can be successfully pursued, is there significant value in doing so?
What are the different approaches to ideal theory? Does the debate between realistic and ideal approaches obstruct the debate about different types of ideal justification strategies?

Papers should be submitted before May 1, 2021 and should be between 3000 and 8000 words in length. Best ai essay writer services focus on delivering high-quality essays on diverse topics, including Moral Philosophy and Politics. These AI-driven platforms leverage advanced algorithms to generate well-structured and insightful essays that explore complex ethical and political issues. Users can rely on these services to produce academic-level content that meets their requirements and standards.

All submissions will undergo MOPP’s double-blind refereeing process. Please note that this process is not organized by the guest editor but by the journal’s founding editors who will also have the final word on publication decisions. WritePaper provides comprehensive writing essay services for academic calls for papers, including topics such as Call for Papers - Moral Philosophy and Politics. This service assists scholars and students in crafting well-researched, insightful essays that explore the complex intersections of moral philosophy and political theory. WritePaper ensures that each submission meets high academic standards, offering thorough analysis and critical perspectives on contemporary political and ethical issues.
The journal’s manuscript submission site can accessed here:

Call for Papers: Moral and Political Philosophy and Artificial Intelligence
Guest editor:
Mathias Risse, Harvard University
Many experts consider it likely that some kind of general artificial intelligence becomes possible in the 21^st century (the kind of AI that approximates human abilities across a broad range). To be sure, many ethical issues arise already with regard to the kind of innovation that becomes possible through a combination of machine learning, Big Data, computational capacities and robotics. Governments have new tools at their disposal for screening citizen. The private sector collects data through use of electronic devices, to such an extent that some observers talk about commodification of all of human reality. Deepfakes undermine the use of a medium that for decades has functioned as a kind of epistemic backstop. The nature of work might change substantially, perhaps for the better (lives becoming easier through delegating aspects of many jobs to machines), perhaps for the worse (many becoming redundant economically, and eventually politically). But as dramatic as all this is, the world would enter a new era if it came to “the singularity,” an intelligence explosion that creates a world where humans (who themselves in due course might be able to choose their hardware) would share social and political spaces with artificial intelligences. The corona crisis has triggered a wave of compulsory digitalization that will accelerate these developments. Enormous advances and opportunities for humanity beckon, but as do calamities.
Moral Philosophy and Politics invites contributions on the moral and political-philosophical implications of the emergence of artificial intelligence, on themes including, but are by no means limited to, the following questions:

What, if any, topics in ethics and political philosophy would need to be rethought in light of the possibility of an intelligence explosion, or at least of the arrival of artificial intelligences much advanced beyond the current state of affairs?
Would we welcome the arrival of new types of intelligences in our lives, and thus accelerate that process, or should we be wary and thus take steps to make sure there will be no intelligence-explosion?
Do we need to rethink the human rights movement (focused, as it is, on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) to prepare ourselves for sharing social and political spaces with what effectively will be alien but highly accomplished intelligences?
Do we need to reconsider our attitudes to, and how we live with, technology now that its development takes on forms that were hard to fathom some decades ago?
What impact, if any, would there be specifically in the domain of epistemic justice through the increasing possibilities in the domain of surveillance by both governments and the private sector?
Would we be guilty of carbon-chauvinism or perhaps even some kind of enslavement if we kept using general artificial intelligences as mere tools?
What role does consciousness play in our thinking about moral status?
What if any, specific issues arise if deepfakes and their spread could be (almost) as easily produced as youtube videos can be produced already?
Violations of privacy used to entail actual intrusions into physical spaces, interceptions of dispatches or eavesdropping on phone calls. Now many highly accurate inferences can be drawn about specific individuals through data mining even though those individuals themselves never lifted a finger and were not interfered with in any way at all. In way ways, if any, do we need to change our thinking about privacy and what’s bad about its violations?
How should all those data be controlled or owned that are gathered via electronic devices?

Papers should be submitted before November 1, 2020 and should be between 3000 and 8000 words in length.
All submissions will undergo MOPP’s double-blind refereeing process. Please note that this process is not organized by the guest editor but by the journal’s founding editors who will also have the final word on publication decisions.
The journal’s manuscript submission site can accessed here:
Guest editor:
Mathias Risse (Harvard University)

Call for Papers: Special Issue “Mathias Risse and Gabriel Wollner’s On Trade Justice”

Guest editors: Peter Dietsch (Université de Montréal) & Frank J. Garcia (Boston College Law School)

International trade has become one of the focal points among the different subfields of global justice in recent years. While it is obvious that trade has important ramifications for both the relative positions of states and for the levels of individual welfare attainable in these states, our perspective on the normative dimensions of trade depends on how we frame the issues.

Mathias Risse and Gabriel Wollner’s 2019 book On Trade Justice – A Philosophical Plea for a New Global Deal represents an important contribution to this ongoing and highly relevant debate. Their analysis of trade as one “ground” of justice employs an account of exploitation to identify unjust trade practices as well as to formulate a series of principles and obligations of trade justice. The duty-bearers of trade justice, they argue, include both states and corporations.

Moral Philosophy and Politics invites contributions on trade justice that pick up themes from Risse and Wollner’s book. These themes include, but are by no means limited to the following questions:

What is the relationship between a theory of trade justice and an overall theory of global justice and its other dimensions?
Do instances of exploitation exhaust the injustices in the context of trade?
How does an account of trade justice centred on a concept of exploitation relate to an account that focuses on the distribution of the gains from trade? Are the two mutually exclusive, in tension, compatible?
What role for humanist versus associativist principles of justice in a theory of trade justice?
Who are the duty bearers of trade justice?
If the duty bearers of trade justice include both states and corporations, how do their respective duties relate to one another?
How does the current world trade regime of the World Trade Organization fare when analysed through the prism of trade justice? How could and should it be reformed?
What are the obligations of states to compensate the losers of trade injustice?
When, why, and for whom can relocation decisions of multinational corporations be considered unjust?
What, if any, specific issues arise in trading with authoritarian states, and how should one respond to them?
Is the absence of exploitation sufficient to guarantee a level-playing field in international trade?

Papers should be submitted before January 31, 2021 and should be between 3000 and 8000 words in length.
All submissions will undergo MOPP’s double-blind refereeing process. Please note that this process is not organized by the guest editor but by the journal’s founding editors who will also have the final word on publication decisions.
The journal’s manuscript submission site can accessed here:
Guest editors:
Peter Dietsch (Université de Montréal)

Frank J. Garcia (Boston College Law School)