Postgraduate "Work In Progress" Seminar
Postgraduate Work-In-Progress SeminarA weekly seminar for Philosophy postgraduates to present their in-progress work, followed by a well-spirited trip to the pub. OverviewThe WIP provides a risk-free and supportive space for postgraduates to present their work and receive feedback from other graduates and faculty.
Attendance optional but highly recommended. All postgraduates are welcome to present or attend -- whether MA, MPhil, PhD, Visitors, etc. Useful InfoThe WIP is a unique opportunity for graduates to develop their presenting and writing skills, take risks, test out ideas, and receive constructive feedback from peers.
Presentations need not be watertight or polished pieces at all. You are encouraged to present work at all stages of the writing process. Should you present?Are you a postgraduate? Then yes, you should present. |
NEXT TALKRozemin Keshvani (PhD) Kant Thursday 25/06/2026 5pm - 6:15pm S1.50 ORGANISERS |
|
|
|
Postgraduate Work in Progress Seminar
Michele Giavazzi will present a paper titled 'A Civic Arguement for Epistocracy', followed by discussion and drinks at The Dirty Duck. The seminar will take place at 4pm on Wednesday in S0.17. All students and staff are welcome.
Abstract:
Most political philosophers converge on the idea that an equal right to vote is a requirement of democratic political legitimacy. The purpose of this talk, on the contrary, will be to defend the claim that it can be legitimate to disenfranchise some citizens, namely those who are politically incompetent.
The structure of the argument is the following. (1) I start with outlining a generic civic that all members of a political community should comply with. (2) Subsequently, I argue that voting is to be conceived as an institutional practice that serves to identify and pursue what represents the common interest of the polity. As such, the civic duty鈥檚 demands apply to whomever takes part in a procedure of voting. (3) Among these demands, epistemic responsibility has a crucial place. If the argument is correct, then incompetent voters fail to honour a commitment implicit in their institutional role, violating a duty that they have towards institutions and fellow citizens as well.
Given that violations of this kind usually justify some form of reproach, their power of voting can be justifiably removed or reduced.