ETHICS ALERT

Procurable from the author:

Simon Keller, Self-Effacement in Ethical
Theory
— It is often argued that consequentialism and deontology, but not
virtue ethics, are self-effacing, and that this is a reason to prefer virtue
ethics. I argue that virtue ethics is self-effacing too, and that it in fact
faces special problems in explaining why self-effacement (even if inevitable)
is regrettable. Then, I suggest that the real worries about self-effacement can
be navigated quite nicely by a certain form of consequentialism.

Simon Keller, Welfare as Success — I
try to diagnose the current, depressing state of the debate about the nature of
welfare, and try to offer a way forward.

Adam J. Kolber, Therapeutic
Forgetting: The Legal and Ethical Implications of Memory Dampening
, (draft,
forthcoming in the Vanderbilt Law Review).

Douglas W. Portmore, Welfare,
Achievement, and Self-Sacrifice
. Recently, some philosophers have argued
that, by holding that it’s the achievement of our aims or goals as opposed to
the fulfillment of our desires that contributes to our welfare, we can
accommodate what’s attractive about the desire theory of welfare while avoiding
its many problems. The view that the achievement of one’s goals contributes to
one’s welfare is what I call the “Achievement View.” A similar view holds that
the meaningfulness of one’s self-sacrifices contributes to one’s welfare, where
one’s self-sacrifices count as meaningful if and only if they were not for
naught. I call this view the “Not-for-Naught View,” or the “NFN View” for
short. In this paper, I argue that the NFN View has all the advantages that the
Achievement View has plus some others, that it has none of the disadvantages
that the Achievement View has, and that, therefore, those sympathetic to the
Achievement View should accept the NFN View instead.

 

Procurable from the publisher:

JUSTICE
AND VIOLENCE

ERMANNO BENCIVENGA
The Philosophical Forum;
Volume 37, Issue 3, 2006Sep1, Page 233

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9191.2006.00240.x?ai=2gb&ui=gfy1&af=T

————————————————————————
LOVE, FRIENDSHIP, MORALITY

BROOK J. SADLER
The Philosophical Forum;
Volume 37, Issue 3, 2006Sep1, Page 243

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9191.2006.00241.x?ai=2gb&ui=gfy1&af=T

————————————————————————
BECOMING MORAL

STEFAN B. BAUMRIN
The Philosophical Forum;
Volume 37, Issue 3, 2006Sep1, Page 321

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9191.2006.00243.x?ai=2gb&ui=gfy1&af=T

————————————————————————

Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews

2006-08-09 : View this Review
Online

Douglas Husak and Peter
de Marneffe, The Legalization of Drugs:
For & Against
, Cambridge University Press, 2005, 204pp., $18.99
(pbk), ISBN 0521546869.

Reviewed by William Hawk, James Madison University 

————————————–

Nigel
Pleasants, Nonsense on Stilts? Wittgenstein, Ethics, and the Lives of
Animals
. Volume 49 Number 4/August 2006 of Inquiry.

 

————————————–

 

Steve
Vanderheiden, Conservation, Foresight, and the Future Generations Problem.
Volume 49 Number 4/August 2006 of Inquiry.

 

————————————–

 

NOTICE: If you have an ethics paper (or a
new draft of one) that has recently become available online and you would like
me to link to it in the next Ethics Alert, then please send me an email or an email
attachment (.doc or .rtf) with the relevant information. The relevant
information should be properly formatted so that it can be simply cut and
pasted into a post. Thus it should look like this:

 

Richard
J. Arneson
, Luck
Egalitarianism: An Interpretation and Defense
, forthcoming in Philosophical Topics.

 

Not like
this:

 

<a href=
“http://philosophy2.ucsd.edu/~rarneson/index.html”>Richard J.
Arneson</a>, <a
href=“http://philosophy2.ucsd.edu/~rarneson/luckegalitarianism2.pdf”>Luck
Egalitarianism: An Interpretation and Defense</a>. forthcoming in
<i>Philosophical Topics</i>.