We’re excited to announce our next Ethics discussion, which will be about David Enoch‘s “Hypothetical Consent and the Value(s) of Autonomy.” The paper is available through open access here. Beth Valentine has kindly agreed to contribute a critical précis. Join us October 22-24!
The UPDirectory publicizes information about philosophers who are members of traditionally underrepresented groups in philosophy. The purpose of the directory is to provide an easy-to-use resource for anyone who wants to learn more about the work of philosophers who belong to underrepresented groups within the discipline.
The directory includes information about philosophers who belong to traditionally underrepresented groups in philosophy and who (1) write philosophy in English and (2) have a position researching or teaching philosophy, or (3) have previously held a position in philosophy and are still active in philosophy, or (4) have published an article in a philosophy journal or a book on a philosophy list, or (5) either hold or are working towards a PhD. or M.A. in philosophy and conduct research in philosophy.
Please consider signing up if you have not already, or, if you have, keeping your entry up to date.
It appears the Philosophical Gourmet Report is returning. The last installment was in 2014-5. We are now in the midst of a 3-year gap in rankings, which is the longest gap, I think, since the thing got going in the 90s. We may not have such a long gap again. So I got to thinking this might be a time to reflect on people’s experiences of doing without such a ranking for a while. What were the costs, if any? What were the benefits, if any? Or perhaps this was too short of a gap to serve as a useful test of life without rankings?
There are now many more surrogates for ranking than ever before. In large part as a result of pressure from the Report, most departments now provide detailed placement information. In addition most faculty at graduate programs list their CV and research interests. That, combined with a sense of what the top journals in the field are, and the availability of citation information, grad attrition information, etc. mean that people without rankings would be much less in the dark about where to go to grad school than I was back when dinosaurs roamed the plains and we lacked a widely consulted ranking of grad programs in philosophy in the 80s. (more…)
Journal of Moral Philosophy Discussion at PEA Soup: Preston Greene’s “Value in Very Long Lives,” with a critical précis by Michael Cholbi
Welcome to the second Journal of Moral Philosophy discussion here at PEA Soup. This is sure to be another insightful and productive discussion, this time on Preston Greene‘s absolutely fantastic paper “Value in Very Long Lives.” 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. Michael Cholbi has written a critical précis and commentary, which is included below. Please join the fun!
Michael Cholbi’s critical précis:
Longevity researcher Steven Austad has estimated that the average lifespan of “medically immortal” human beings —individuals invulnerable to aging, infectious disease, or endogenous diseases such as cancer but still vulnerable to death due to accidents, violence, etc. — would be just shy of 6,000 years. Should we welcome the prospect of medical immortality? Many actual human lives are no doubt made worse by death. For death often deprives us of goods that, had we lived longer, would have resulted in our lives being better overall. But some philosophers argue that it does not follow from the fact that many would benefit from living a bit longer that greatly extended lifespans would be better for us.
Upcoming Journal of Moral Philosophy Discussion, April 21st: Preston Greene’s “Value in Very Long Lives,” with a critical précis by Michael Cholbi
We are excited to announce our second Journal of Moral Philosophy discussion, which will take place on Friday April 21st. We will be discussing Preston Greene’s paper “Value in Very Long Lives.” The Journal of Moral Philosophy made the paper available for free here until the end of the month. Michael Cholbi will provide a critical précis. Please join the discussion!
Hoping folks will share with the group their favorite papers on the topic of Perfectionism or Neo-Aristotelian Ethics. Perhaps people might add what level they think the paper is most appropriate for (grad seminar, undergrad intro, etc.). A short explanation of what the paper says or what makes it great might be useful as well.