By In Announcements Comments (0)

Vote Now in the PEA Soup Reader’s Choice Awards!

The nominations are in for the PEA Soup Reader’s Choice Awards! The following four papers discussed in the 2016-2017 academic year have been nominated for the Reader’s Choice Paper Prize. Click on each title below to view the nominated post:

  1. “Whether and Where to Give” by Theron Pummer
  2. “On the Strength of the Reason Against Harming” by Molly Gardner
  3. “Intention, Expectation, and Promissory Obligation” by Abe Roth
  4. “Self-Defence Against Multiple Threats” by Kerah Gordon-Solmon

Once you’ve read through the nominated papers, click here to cast your vote in the Reader’s Choice paper prize. The polls close on August 30th, so make sure to have your vote in by then!

Read more

By In Applied Ethics, NDPR Discussion Forum, Political Philosophy Comments (15)

NDPR Forum: Fritz Allhoff’s Terrorism, Ticking Time-Bombs, and Torture (Reviewed by Chris Morris)

Welcome to another installment of our NDPR Forums, in which we invite both the author of a book reviewed in NDPR, as well as the reviewer, to talk about the review, the book, and anything else related to the topic. We also welcome anyone else to jump in to comment on any of those topics as well. Today we are opening a thread on Fritz Allhoff’s book Terrorism, Ticking Time-Bombs, and Torture: A Philosophical Analysis (University of Chicago Press), which was reviewed last week in NDPR by Chris Morris. Blurbs below the fold.

(more…)

Read more

By In NDPR Discussion Forum, Political Philosophy Comments (2)

NDPR Discussion Forum: Alan Thomas’s Republic of Equals

Welcome to the NDPR discussion of Alan Thomas’s new book Republic of Equals: Predistribution and Property-Owning Democracies, recently reviewed by James Lindley Wilson at NDPR. We have invited both Alan and James to participate, and we encourage readers to comment as well on anything related to Alan’s book or James’s review. Blurbs for each below the fold.

(more…)

Read more

By In Applied Ethics, Featured Philosophers, Ideas, Political Philosophy Comments (12)

Why Bad People Will Find it Hard to be Patriotic (by Featured Philosopher Derek Baker)

Re-posting after a technical glitch this morning (eds.)

1.

Current events are reminding us that patriotism, at least of the sort that gets publicly acknowledged, is a confusing virtue. I don’t mean that the patriot might get drawn into doing bad things on behalf of his country. Patriotism is a form of loyalty, and loyalty, whether to friends, family, one’s university, or whatever, can draw us into doing bad things on their behalf. I mean instead that those who say they care about patriotism seem surprisingly okay with others doing bad things without regard for the interests of their country.

(more…)

Read more

By In Featured Philosophers Comments (0)

Featured Philosophers & The Moral Demands of Patriotism

I am happy to announce the Featured Philosophers series will be running on a regular basis again and that it will now include more early career philosophers and advanced graduate students.  The first post by Derek Baker (Lignan University) will go up Monday, August 7th and it will be titled “Why Bad People Will Find It Hard to Be Patriotic”.  Please swing by then to join the discussion.

Read more

By In Discussions, Normative Ethics, P&PA Discussions Comments (7)

Philosophy & Public Affairs Discussion at PEA Soup: Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke’s “Moral Grandstanding,” with a critical précis by C.A.J. (Tony) Coady

Welcome to what should be a very engaging and productive discussion of Justin Tosi and Brandon Warmke’s “Moral Grandstanding.” The paper, which appears in the Summer 2016 issue of Philosophy & Public Affairs, is available through open access here. C.A.J. (Tony) Coady has generously provided a critical précis to begin the discussion, which is immediately below. Please join in!

(more…)

Read more

By In The Profession Comments (13)

The Wine Spectator Model of Philosophy Publication

It is radical but my idea is that one submits to ranking houses (which could remain the existing journals). Every paper submitted will be published online and ranked. You may submit a paper only once. You fix it up in light of (presumably more careful and more numerous) referee reports, but then it is published with a numerical ranking. Advantages include 1) less refereeing overall and so, potentially, more careful refereeing from people who more closely specialize in the area. 2) much quicker time from submission to publication, eliminating pressure to choose where to submit on strategic grounds, 3) encourages people to finish papers before submitting them, rather than treating submissions as entering a lottery 4) as is the difference between just in and just out of a journal is enormous–this system allows one to get credit for “very close to making it into Phil Rev”. Call this the Wine Spectator Model.

(more…)

Read more