Comments:

the "spoilage clause" in John Locke's labor theory of property as a hedge against excessive acquisition of property (excessive because it threatens the equal right of others to pursue property and can conflict with the "trump" right - the right to life).

Locke's labor theory of property as appropriated by Marx to critique laissez-faire capitalism (labor as the means for creating the material artifacts which express who one is as a unique human being [analogue with one's sexuality as expression of uniqueness, unique commitment to an Other, etc.] vs. wage-labor in exchange for money as universal means of commodity exchange [analogue with prostitution]).

NOTE: current U.S. economic arrangements - like those of other "capitalist" countries - is not laissez-faire: rather, we incorporate a variety of "socialist" arrangements and mechanisms (e.g., free public schooling - a Marxist idea!).  ["Mixed economies" - capitalism modified by "socialist" values and ideas - as a middle ground between pure laissez-faire capitalism and "pure" "communism."]

Marx's roots in modern Enlightenment + Jewish-Christian prophetic values (reading from James, chs. 2, 4): the Marxian (not Marxist-Leninism of the former Soviet Union) / Enlightenment utopia as secular version of prophetic "kingdom [Presence] of God" --> Gutierrez and Liberation Theology (this synthesis of Marxian analysis with Christian prophetic values is in part a recovery of the prophetic values at root in Marx's analyses, critiques, and prescriptions for society).

Four groups:

1) Marx/Gutierrez

2) Marx/Ake

3) Rawls/Editors

4) Judges

a) are there universal human rights, as the Editors of the Harvard Law Review claim?

If so, how would we know what these are?

If you argue that there are universal human rights - how do you defend your claims against the Marxist critiques - echoed by Ake - that Western conceptions of human rights are really the ideological ally of laissez-faire capitalism and its alleged oppression and exploitation?

(You may want to refer back to Kant, Bok, Ross, and/or Rawls to justify your claims).

b) Should other nations make any effort to abolish the practice of female "circumcision" (clitorectomy) as practiced in some tribes and countries, as the Editors of the Harvard Law Review argue?

How would you support your position?

Boss, 360-

[DO NOT WRITE ON THESE JUST YET - BUT REVIEW FOR DISCUSSION]

366, # 1: 2 OR 4 [not both]

369, #1: 2 OR 3 [not both]

374, # 2: 3 OR 4 [not both]

380, # 1, 5]

ALSO READ: "Mary Midgley, Trying Out One's New Sword," in: Arthur, ch. 4, 116-119 (see also notes on Web site)

Be prepared to continue our group discuss ion of the questions we have started (above).