Andrea Sangiovanni's latest article 'Justice and the Priority of Politics to Morality', is highly recommended - it provides a very helpful summary of recent developments in global justice (and justice more generally) research, and brings together some very important issues. But what struck me most while reading it was the uneasy feeling of seeing my own ideas and thoughts written out much more clearly and succintly that I have so far managed to do. I also had this feeling at the ALSP conference listening to Kok Chor Tan's excellent plenary lecture. On both occasions, I had a sense of satisfaction, in that I was pleased that people higher in the profession than I am share my understanding of the issues. It's always reassuring to know that you are on the right track and working in areas that other people agree are important. But I also had a feeling of frustration that maybe because someone else has managed to get these ideas down first my contribution is therefore less valuable. Of course, I'm not claiming that I think my ideas are particularly insightful, innovative or important, and it's natural that some of the other people working in the same area will come to the same conclusions as you (or understand the debate in the same particular way). Indeed, about 85% of me feels pleased and reassured by the presence of similar ideas to mine in work by such accomplished academics. Should this be 100% though - should one be completely pleased to see that other people share your views and understanding of an issue?
Pack your bags, we're moving
8 years ago