Author

By In Uncategorized Comments (5)

Valuing Babies?

I would value your help in thinking about how to use the term “valuing”. In the disreputable circles I run in, people tend to say that valuing is a higher order attitude that babies, who admittedly have lots of desires, lack. Some say, for example that one’s valuings are expressed only in what you want yourself to want, or what you believe good, and babies will lack such complicated attitudes. This has led Eden Lin to say that subjective views have a problem in that the typical subjectivist views, which tend to claim the well-being or reasons determining attitude is a more complex higher order attitude, cannot capture the well-being of babies.

I think the word valuing is used to point toward our authentic evaluative take on the world. The heroin addict desires heroin but does not value it because her first order desire does not speak for her or express her evaluative point of view. But because creatures with an evaluative point of view can differ so widely in other ways, it seems to me which attitudes speak for an agent can differ quite widely as well. That is, I want to try out saying, what it is for different creatures to value something can be quite different depending on their capacities and depth of attitudes. A baby has a very simple evaluative point of view. They don’t second guess their initial instincts the way us sophisticates do. But still, there is a clear sense in which they care about stuff and have an evaluative point of view. (more…)

Read more

By In The Profession Comments (1)

PHILOSOPHICALLY LEGITIMATE EXCUSES FOR PLAGIARIZING PHILOSOPHY PAPERS

Travis Timmerman (Seton Hall) came up with these.

Read more

By In Ethics Discussions at PEA Soup Comments (12)

Ethics Reviews at PEA Soup: Exchange between Hanno Sauer and Regina Rini on Sauer’s book Moral Judgements as Educated Intuitions

I am pleased that PEA Soup will feature an exchange on Hanno Sauer’s book Moral Judgements as Educated Intuitions. Regina Rini reviewed this book in the most recent issue of Ethics. You can find an open access version of that review here.

Now we hear from Sauer in reply. And of course, as always, all are welcome to join in the discussion, ask clarificatory questions, press concerns, etc. Looking forward to a fruitful and thoughtful exchange. Here now is Sauer:

Reason in Nature? A Response to Rini

I tend to be relaxed about it when people engage with my work. Still, book reviews make me nervous. That one paper you wrote may be flawed – even embarassing, a dead end. But a whole book? It would be deeply unpleasant to find out if people thought that years of your toil had been worthless. When I heard that a review of my Moral Judgments as Educated Intuitionswas about to appear in Ethics, I got even more nervous. And the news that Regina Rini was its author really made me worry. (more…)

Read more

By In Ethics Discussions at PEA Soup Comments Off on Ethics Reviews at PEA Soup: Upcoming exchange between Hanno Sauer and Regina Rini on Sauer’s book Moral Judgements as Educated Intuitions

Ethics Reviews at PEA Soup: Upcoming exchange between Hanno Sauer and Regina Rini on Sauer’s book Moral Judgements as Educated Intuitions

Welcome to a newish series at Soup in which authors whose books were recently reviewed at Ethics continue the discussion with their reviewer. On July 9th we will have an exchange between Hanno Sauer and Regina Rini on Sauer’s book Moral Judgements as Educated Intuitions (MIT Press, 2017). All are welcome to participate in this exchange.

Today we provide a public access link to Rini’s review in Ethics to help people be in a better position to engage in the discussion.

Rini’s review can be found here.

Read more

By In Political Philosophy Comments (2)

CFP: Workshop for Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy

The 7th annual Workshop for Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy will take place in Syracuse, NY, August 21-3, 2019.

Keynote speakers will be:

Kwame Anthony Appiah, NYU

Sally Haslanger, MIT

Joseph Raz, Columbia

We invite submissions of full papers (not abstracts) of between 7500 and 12000 words, including footnotes, to fill the remaining slots for the conference. (more…)

Read more

By In Ethics Discussions at PEA Soup, Practical reasons, Reasons and rationality Comments (8)

An exchange between Chrisoula Andreau and Justin Snedegar’s on Snedegar’s book Contrastive Reasons.

With this post we are starting a new feature at PEA Soup: Author replies to book reviews published in Ethics. Our inaugural discussion is between Chrisoula Andreou (Utah) and Justin Snedegar (St. Andrews). Chrisoula reviews Justin’s new book, Contrastive Reasons (OUP, 2017) here. Justin Snedegar’s reply follows below.

Thanks first of all to the Daves for the opportunity to continue the discussion here. And thanks most of all to Chrisoula for her excellent review of my book. Her questions and objections have given me the chance to think harder about some central issues that didn’t receive all the attention they deserved in the book. In particular, she’s made clear that there are important questions about the nature of the objectives the promotion of which I appeal to in my contrastive analyses of reasons. I used a desire to remain neutral between competing views of these objectives as an excuse for not discussing them much, but this neutrality was about relatively substantive questions about whether the objectives were desires, values, etc. Chrisoula’s objections show that there are questions about structural or formal features of objectives and of the promotion relation which are crucial for my theory, and indeed for many theories of reasons.

(more…)

Read more

By In Ethics Discussions at PEA Soup, Metaethics, Practical reasons Comments Off on New Soup Feature: Replies to Ethics book reviews

New Soup Feature: Replies to Ethics book reviews

In our never-ending quest to expand to the limits of the Universe and beyond, Soup will begin having replies to Ethics book reviews.

First up, in about a week, will be Chrisoula Andreou’s review of Justin Snedegar’s Contrastive Reasons (OUP, 2017) which will be available open access here, together with Justin’s replies. Looking forward to the discussion!

Read more