I’ll try to keep this brief, and so will likely run roughshod over important points. I’m curious about what’s doing the work on our intuitions in so-called manipulation cases when people deploy them to theorize about responsibility. These are cases in which someone is one way, values-wise, and then her brain is manipulated by a team of neuroscientists/god to produce within her a new set of values (or subset of values), so that she now performs some action for which she is not responsible — or at least that’s what our intuitions are supposed to be.
Here. It’s a true mess, with lots of flights into the city cancelled, and now many members at one main hotel downtown unable to get across the river to the convention center to attend and participate in today’s sessions.
Welcome to our NDPR Forum on Kit Wellman’s “Rights Forfeiture and Punishment,” which was recently reviewed by David Dolinko in NDPR. Kit has agreed to kick off this forum by contributing a new post on one of the issues raised in his book, namely, on whether there is or should be, on the rights forfeiture view, additional culpability for hate crimes. Please join in on the discussion. I herewith give you Kit:
Number 5: Chrisoula Andreou’s “Decisive Reasons and Rational Supererogation”
Number 4: David Sobel’s “(Additional) Reasons to Rule Out Initiating Sexual Relationships with Those You Have Power Over”
Number 3: NDPR Forum: Jason Brennan’s Against Democracy
Number 2: By far our most-read original discussion post of the year was Vida Yao’s and Sam Reis-Dennis’s Featured Philosophers’ “‘I Love Women’: The Conceptual Inadequacy of ‘Implicit Bias’.”
Number 1: No surprise, in this year that started out so tragically for moral philosophy, our most-read post of 2017 was our notice of “The Death of Derek Parfit.”
Thanks so much to all of our contributors and readers for a great year discussing Philosophy, Ethics, and Academia (the PEA in PEA Soup). It will be our pleasure to serve more Soup for you in 2018 and beyond. Have a Happy New Year!
Continuing on with our look back at the most-viewed discussions this past year:
- In March, Molly Gardner’s JMP paper “On the Strength of the Reason Against Harming” generated a lot of excellent comments.
- In April we had a lively discussion of Paulina Sliwa’s Ethics paper, “Moral Understanding as Knowing Right from Wrong”
- Also in April was a discussion of Theron Pummer’s P&PA paper, “Whether and Where to Give”
- In October, we hosted a discussion of David Enoch’s Ethics paper, “Hypothetical Consent and the Value of Autonomy”
Our top five posts of the year next!
What a year! Our first full year on the new site and under the guidance and financial support of the Prindle Institute seemed to have brought many new readers to the scene, as well as many new features and lots of excellent philosophy. Over the next few days, we’ll revisit our top-viewed posts of the year. And teaser: We’ll end the week by opening up a new forum on Kit Wellman’s new book, Rights Forfeiture and Punishment, which will feature familiar discussants from around the world. All are, as always, welcome to join in on the discussion.
We’ll re-introduce the top posts in three groups of five throughout the coming week. Our first group involved featured philosophers, NDPR forums, and journal discussions.
- The Journal of Moral Philosophy discussion of Jeff Sebo’s “Agency and Moral Status”
- Ingmar Persson’s searching discussion of The Point of Moral Philosophy
- Derek Baker (Featured Philosopher) on Why Bad People Will Find it Hard to be Patriotic
- Tosi and Warmke on their “Moral Grandstanding” paper
- Owen Flanagan’s NDPR Forum on his Geography of Morals
See link for information and instructions for applying here.