War and Moral Consistency

Provides an opinionated overview of some recent debates within the ethics of war

Civil War and Revolution

The vast majority of work on the ethics of war focuses on traditional wars between states. In this chapter, I aim to show that this is an oversight worth rectifying. My strategy will be largely comparative, assessing whether certain claims often defended in discussions of interstate wars stand up in the context of civil conflicts, and whether there are principled moral differences between the two types of case. Firstly, I argue that thinking about intrastate wars can help us make progress on important theoretical debates in recent just war theory. Secondly, I consider whether certain kinds of civil wars are subject to a more demanding standard of just cause, compared to interstate wars of national-defence. Finally, I assess the extent to which having popular support is an independent requirement of permissible war, and whether this renders insurgencies harder to justify than wars fought by functioning states

Without foundation: the EYFS framework and its creation of needs

This chapter examines the language and underpinning ideas of the Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) and its supporting documents. It explores how notions of diversity and difference emerge, in particular the construction of special educational needs and disability. It considers the underlying contradictions which arise, including links to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The chapter examines the claims that the framework is not about a staged notion of development, and relates this to its vision of what education is for and how parents should be involved. As well as challenging the norm based notions of development and assessment underpinning the EYFS, the chapter questions why difference is not threaded through the document but emerges as an occasional add on. It also highlights the challenges which emerge in relation to equitable access to support at a time when there is a shift away from centralised systems towards an increasing diversification of provision. It questions whether the processes the framework encourages practitioners to undertake will result in more effective practice which is genuinely responsive to the learning needs of children and relevant to practitioners

Ongoing exclusion within universal education: why education for all is not inclusive

In this chapter we acknowledge that the marketisation of education has impacted on both the Education for all and Inclusive education for all agendas but we also recognize that the specific cultural context within different nations and localities will also shape how universal education is interpreted and developed (Miles and Singal 2010). We will therefore look at three countries in order to consider not only the wider constraints imposed by neo-liberal educational ideology but also the particular legacy of previous policies, practices and provision within each state. In doing so we hope to explore recurrent trends, contradictions and tensions in their development of inclusion within an Education for all agenda and discuss how widening participation in established education systems often simply reconstitutes the exclusion of those who are perpetually marginalised. Our discussions will underline why, despite the declaration at Jomtien, meeting at Salamanca was a necessity to provide a blueprint to reconstitute traditional education systems and how following that blueprint encounters frequent obstructions and diversions

Parry response to Dialectical Anthropology forum on Classes of Labour

The paragraphs that follow respond to some of the criticisms and comments that the contributors to this forum have made on my book. Many of these revolve around the central issue of social class and around my analysis of the manual blue-collar workforce of the central Indian steel town of Bhilai as sharply divided between two ‘classes of labour’ with separate and sometimes antagonistic interests. Some earlier commentaries on this argument had been sceptical, and many of the observations made here invoke much the same issues. In the first part of this response, I attempt to summarize my central argument about the class structure, the main criticisms of it, and my earlier attempts to answer these. The second part responds directly to the observations and comments made by those who have so generously participated in the present discussion

The scope of the means principle

This paper focuses on Quong's account of the scope of the means principle (the range of actions over which the special constraint on using a person applies). One the key ideas underpinning Quong's approach is that the means principle is downstream from an independent and morally prior account of our rights over the world and against one another. I raise three challenges to this 'rights first' approach. First, I consider Quong's treatment of harmful omissions and argue that Quong's view generates counter-intuitive results. Second, I argue that cases of harmful omissions raise problems for Quong's claim that intentions are irrelevant to permissibility. Third, I consider Quong's extension of the means principle to include uses of persons' rightfully-owned property. I suggest that, contra Quong, questions of distributive justice are not morally prior to the ethics of defensive harm. Instead the two normative domains mutually inform one another