Lots of good stuff over on Agoraphilia by Glen Whitman and Tom Bell. I was especially taken with this post by Glen, entitled Moral Philosophy by Backward Induction. Here's the gist:

In intellectual circles, we usually regard moral philosophy as preceding political philosophy. We therefore address these two questions either (a) separately, or (b) in that order. We decide who constitutes a moral person -- whose rights or interests therefore deserve consideration -- and then we talk about the political status of such persons. But in practical politics, I think people consciously or unconsciously answer these questions using a kind of backward induction, considering political status first and then moral personhood. That is, they begin by asking what rights, privileges, and powers will be accorded to persons within a political system, and then (taking the previous answer as given) they decide who ought to be regarded as a person and to what extent.

(BTW, this is just a particular example of the more general point he is making.) I might add that this is one of the reasons why my contracts casebook starts with remedies, an organization first pioneered by Lon Fuller in his path-breaking 1940's casebook , Basic Contract Law. Most students thing one should start with contract formation (mutual assent + enforceability) before studying remedies, and most casebooks reflect this organization. But knowing what the consequence is for finding someone liable for breach of contract will influence what we think it should take to make a contract.