If Badguy threatens Goodguy with harm, and Goodguy consents to giving his money to Badguy (to avoid the harm), Goodguy’s consent is invalid because coerced. But if under Badguy’s coercive ...

■連載コラム「日曜に想う」　コラムニスト・吉岡桂子　政治学の研究者でつくる「日本政治学会」（会員・約1800人）に女性初の理事長が誕生する。上智大学教授の三浦まりさん、1967年生まれ。ジェンダーと政…

Click on the article title to read more.

Having enough of a say

Faced with the failures of existing democracies, many democratic theorists conclude from recent empirical work in political science critical of the functioning of electoral institutions that citizens are too ignorant to hold office-holders to account and that representative democracies are not responsive to ordinary citizens. We argue that these conclusions are unwarranted. They hinge on highly contestable interpretations of the work in question and conflict with important contrary theoretical and empirical findings that democratic theorists have ignored. If our argument is convincing, it should weaken the case for alternative regime types (e.g., lottocracy or epistocracy), which rests in part on empirically grounding the assertion that representative democracies cannot deliver meaningful accountability. Our argument also highlights the importance of engaging with the social-scientific literature in a more careful and wide-ranging manner. 

Volume 12, issue 2 of the journal Moral Philosophy and Politics was published in 2025.

Karl Marx rejected the ideal of equality as bourgeois. And yet, the most significant attempt in recent years to distinguish socialist theory from liberal egalitarian theory, G.A. Cohen's critique of J...

Using AI systems to make decisions in the place of humans promises greater efficiency, but some authors raise a number of ethical worries about this. The undermining of responsibility, the removal of ...

みんなの決定はなぜ「正しい」のか。なぜ「素人」でも政治に貢献できるのか。現代デモクラシー論の第一人者による集合知からの応答。 エレーヌ・ランデモア 著

"The Journal of Political Philosophy will cease publication effective January 1, 2026." That's from an email sent by the journal's publisher, Wiley, earlier today, calling the move "a difficult decisi...

CMS,Netcommons,Maple

男女差別をする人は、出身地や親の価値観に影響されるのか。大阪大学元副学長・刑法学者の島岡まな教授は「人権意識の高いフランスで学んだ私は、息子が差別的な人間にならないよう育ててきたつもりだった。しかし

In this introductory essay to the special issue on relational equality and migration, I first introduce a familiar way of conceiving of the connection between equality and migration, one that focuses ...

The number of coauthors in peer-reviewed articles increased significantly in the last two decades, mainly driven by large multinational collaborations in physics and medicine. We are presenting a similar trend in the number of names used in eponyms. One-, two-, and three-name eponyms have been used for centuries, eponyms with four or five names appeared first at the end of the twentieth century, and creating six- and seven-name eponyms is a phenomenon of the last decade. Due to the plethora of eponyms in the scientific literature, most examples are related to nonlinear dynamical systems, the first-author’s field of research. Longer eponyms were usually first used in the article body and abstract before appearing in an article title. To combine scientific concepts and/or adding names to create new eponymns, some scientists use eponymic acronyms to shorten new eponyms while preserving the idea of honoring previous work or offering a ‘short hand’ for defining their system. Unfortunately, the more names are added, the more variations can be created. We discuss these issues and also highlight the importance of distinguishing between the use of hyphens [-] and dashes [–].