Sagar Sanyal
PhD in political philosophy, University of Canterbury, New Zealand in 2009.
Post-doctoral researcher at the University of Melbourne (2011-16).
Adjunct lecturer, University of Melbourne, (2014-17)
Post-doctoral researcher at the University of Melbourne (2011-16).
Adjunct lecturer, University of Melbourne, (2014-17)
less
Related Authors
InterestsView All (6)
Uploads
Papers by Sagar Sanyal
I present a theory of exploitation from a Marxist perspective. To situate my theory within existing literature, it is useful to make a couple of contrasts. One, Marx discusses exploitation primarily as a phenomenon in the capitalist mode of production. I generalise the account so that it applies to all class societies. And I flesh out the normative and philosophical aspects of exploitation which are missing in Marx’s Capital since it is a work in political economy. Two, there is a literature in analytic political philosophy that engages with exploitation and distributive justice. This includes both liberal accounts which treat exploitation as a sort of unfairness, and the somewhat older literature from ‘Analytical Marxists’ which develops selected ideas from Marx in a framework of thought familiar to liberal thought. The Analytical Marxists discuss exploitation within the employer-employee relationship, whereas I broaden the discussion to include other aspects of Marx’s political economy. The liberal accounts treat exploitation as primarily a moral phenomenon, while I treat it as primarily a sociological or political economic phenomenon, albeit with moral ramifications. Analytic philosophy in general has tended to understand the moral upshot of exploitation as a matter of unfairness, whereas I take the moral upshot to be a matter of rule.
since the turn of the century. Issues discussed include whether specific types of enhancement are permissible
or even obligatory, whether they are likely to produce a net good for individuals and for society, and
whether there is something intrinsically wrong in playing God with human nature.We characterize the
main camps on the issue, identifying three main positions: permissive, restrictive and conservative positions.
We present the major sub-debates and lines of argument from each camp. The review also gives
a flavor of the general approach of key writers in the literature such as Julian Savulescu, Nick Bostrom,
Michael Sandel, and Leon Kass.
Drafts by Sagar Sanyal
The problem-set and philosophical framework of the analytic 'philosophy of war' literature is an ideological strait-jacket – not because it yields false answers to the questions you do consider, but because it keeps you to safe questions that won’t discomfit your masters. Dissident writers critical of the great powers should look beyond this literature because their dissidence does not have full intellectual space in which to develop and flower within those confines. As an alternative to the analytic debate, I outline the Marxist approach to philosophy of war.
In section one I present reasons why the political salience of the RtoP framework is waning. Section two is an ideological critique of the analytic approach to philosophy of war. The three strands of the critique concern (i) idealist and materialist foundations for international politics, (ii) the urgency of different tasks we can take up as philosophers, and (iii) the ruling class perspective of the Just War Theory tradition. In section three I outline a materialist foundation for philosophy of war to contrast to the analytic foundations (which I characterise as idealist). The materialist foundation hinges on the Marxist account of imperialism. Section four applies the theory of imperialism from the previous section to the broad geopolitical sweep of post-WW2 history. The section ends with a look at the escalating imperial tensions between US, Russia and China.
In section one I present reasons why the political salience of the RtoP framework is waning. Section two is an ideological critique of the analytic approach to philosophy of war. The three strands of the critique concern (i) idealist and materialist foundations for international politics, (ii) the urgency of different tasks we can take up as philosophers, and (iii) the ruling class perspective of the Just War Theory tradition. In section three I outline a materialist foundation for philosophy of war to contrast to the analytic foundations (which I characterise as idealist). The materialist foundation hinges on the Marxist account of imperialism. Section four applies the theory of imperialism from the previous section to the broad geopolitical sweep of post-WW2 history. The section ends with a look at the escalating imperial tensions between US, Russia and China
I present a theory of exploitation from a Marxist perspective. To situate my theory within existing literature, it is useful to make a couple of contrasts. One, Marx discusses exploitation primarily as a phenomenon in the capitalist mode of production. I generalise the account so that it applies to all class societies. And I flesh out the normative and philosophical aspects of exploitation which are missing in Marx’s Capital since it is a work in political economy. Two, there is a literature in analytic political philosophy that engages with exploitation and distributive justice. This includes both liberal accounts which treat exploitation as a sort of unfairness, and the somewhat older literature from ‘Analytical Marxists’ which develops selected ideas from Marx in a framework of thought familiar to liberal thought. The Analytical Marxists discuss exploitation within the employer-employee relationship, whereas I broaden the discussion to include other aspects of Marx’s political economy. The liberal accounts treat exploitation as primarily a moral phenomenon, while I treat it as primarily a sociological or political economic phenomenon, albeit with moral ramifications. Analytic philosophy in general has tended to understand the moral upshot of exploitation as a matter of unfairness, whereas I take the moral upshot to be a matter of rule.
since the turn of the century. Issues discussed include whether specific types of enhancement are permissible
or even obligatory, whether they are likely to produce a net good for individuals and for society, and
whether there is something intrinsically wrong in playing God with human nature.We characterize the
main camps on the issue, identifying three main positions: permissive, restrictive and conservative positions.
We present the major sub-debates and lines of argument from each camp. The review also gives
a flavor of the general approach of key writers in the literature such as Julian Savulescu, Nick Bostrom,
Michael Sandel, and Leon Kass.
The problem-set and philosophical framework of the analytic 'philosophy of war' literature is an ideological strait-jacket – not because it yields false answers to the questions you do consider, but because it keeps you to safe questions that won’t discomfit your masters. Dissident writers critical of the great powers should look beyond this literature because their dissidence does not have full intellectual space in which to develop and flower within those confines. As an alternative to the analytic debate, I outline the Marxist approach to philosophy of war.
In section one I present reasons why the political salience of the RtoP framework is waning. Section two is an ideological critique of the analytic approach to philosophy of war. The three strands of the critique concern (i) idealist and materialist foundations for international politics, (ii) the urgency of different tasks we can take up as philosophers, and (iii) the ruling class perspective of the Just War Theory tradition. In section three I outline a materialist foundation for philosophy of war to contrast to the analytic foundations (which I characterise as idealist). The materialist foundation hinges on the Marxist account of imperialism. Section four applies the theory of imperialism from the previous section to the broad geopolitical sweep of post-WW2 history. The section ends with a look at the escalating imperial tensions between US, Russia and China.
In section one I present reasons why the political salience of the RtoP framework is waning. Section two is an ideological critique of the analytic approach to philosophy of war. The three strands of the critique concern (i) idealist and materialist foundations for international politics, (ii) the urgency of different tasks we can take up as philosophers, and (iii) the ruling class perspective of the Just War Theory tradition. In section three I outline a materialist foundation for philosophy of war to contrast to the analytic foundations (which I characterise as idealist). The materialist foundation hinges on the Marxist account of imperialism. Section four applies the theory of imperialism from the previous section to the broad geopolitical sweep of post-WW2 history. The section ends with a look at the escalating imperial tensions between US, Russia and China