Discussions
Category

By In Announcements, Discussions Comments Off on The Most-Viewed Posts of 2017, Tippety-Tip-Top

The Most-Viewed Posts of 2017, Tippety-Tip-Top

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!

Read more

By In Announcements, Discussions Comments Off on Most-Viewed Posts of 2017, Group 2

Most-Viewed Posts of 2017, Group 2

Continuing on with our look back at the most-viewed discussions this past year:

Our top five posts of the year next!

Read more

By In Announcements, Discussions Comments Off on Top-Viewed 2017 Posts (and teaser for upcoming Kit Wellman forum)

Top-Viewed 2017 Posts (and teaser for upcoming Kit Wellman forum)

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.

Read more

By In Discussions, JMP Discussions, Metaethics Comments (9)

JMP Discussion on Preston Werner’s “Moral Perception without (Prior) Moral Knowledge”

Welcome to what we expect will be an interesting and productive discussion on Preston’s Werner‘s “Moral Perception without (Prior) Moral Knowledge” (which the Journal of Moral Philosophy has generously provided free access to until the end of November). David Faraci has kindly agreed to contribute a critical précis, and it appears immediately below. Please join in the discussion!

Critical Précis by David Faraci:

Thanks to PEA Soup and to the Journal of Moral Philosophy for offering me this opportunity to discuss Preston Werner’s excellent “Moral Perception without (Prior) Moral Knowledge.”

Preston’s paper is, in large part, a response to my “A Hard Look at Moral Perception” (Philosophical Studies 2015), and I want to thank him for taking the time to trudge through that paper. I’ve written a longer reply to Preston, which is also forthcoming in JMP. What I’ll say here is a mix of things I say there and some new stuff.

(more…)

Read more

By In Discussions, Ethics Discussions at PEA Soup, Metaethics, Normative Ethics, Political Philosophy Comments (31)

Ethics Discussion at PEA Soup: David Enoch’s “Hypothetical Consent and the Value(s) of Autonomy,” with a critical précis by Beth Valentine

Welcome to what we expect will be a very interesting and productive discussion of David Enoch’s “Hypothetical Consent and the Value(s) of Autonomy.” The paper is published in the most recent edition of Ethics and is available through open access here. Beth Valentine has kindly agreed to contribute a critical précis, and it appears immediately below. Please join in the discussion!

Précis by Beth Valentine

“Hypothetical consent is puzzling.” (p.1)  This is how Enoch begins his paper, but by the end I was convinced that this claim is false. “Hypothetical Consent and the Value(s) of Autonomy” motivates this initial puzzlement by pointing to intuitions regarding hypothetical consent that, at first, appear to lack a cohesive explanation. Through examining actual consent and autonomy, he does much to explain away this puzzlement and argues that hypothetical consent can, in some contexts, make a normative difference.

(more…)

Read more

By In Discussions, JMP Discussions, Normative Ethics Comments (26)

JMP discussion: Jeff Sebo’s “Agency and Moral Status”

Welcome to the fourth Journal of Moral Philosophy discussion here at PEA Soup (September 29th to October 1st). This is sure to be another insightful and productive discussion, this time on Jeff Sebo‘s “Agency and Moral Status” This paper is currently available in the “Advance Articles” section online at the Journal of Moral Philosophy. They have kindly provided free access to the paper, which can be viewed or downloaded here. José Luis Bermúdez wrote a critical précis and commentary which is posted below. Please join the fun!

(more…)

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