Uncategorized
Category

By In Ethics Discussions at PEA Soup, Metaethics, Uncategorized, Value Theory Comments (0)

Upcoming Ethics review forum: Eklund’s Choosing Normative Concepts, reviewed by Raskoff

We’re pleased to announce our next Ethics review forum on Matti Eklund’s Choosing Normative Concepts (OUP 2017), reviewed by Sarah Zoe Raskoff. Excerpts from the blurb and the review are below, but you can read both in their entirety via OUP’s website and Ethics, respectively. (Though of course, you are welcome to participate in the forum even if you haven’t read either. We get it: You’re busy; you’ve got things to do, places to be, normative concepts to choose.)

The forum will start on the morning of Friday October 12.

 

 

(more…)

Read more

By In Agency and Responsibility, ETMP Discussions at PEA Soup, Uncategorized Comments (0)

Upcoming Ethical Theory and Moral Practice Discussion on October 19-21: Ian Carter’s “Equal Opportunity, Responsibility, and Personal Identity”

We’re excited to announce the second Ethical Theory and Moral Practice discussion here at PEA Soup, which will be from Friday, October 19th until Sunday, October 21st. The discussion will be on Ian Carter‘s excellent “Equal Opportunity, Responsibility, and Personal Identity”. ETMP has generously provided free access to the article, which can be found here. Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen has kindly agreed to write a critical précis of the article, which will be posted on the 19th. We hope that you will join the discussion!

Read more

By In Uncategorized Comments (5)

NDPR Forum: Neil Sinhababu’s Humean Nature: How Desire Explains Action, Thought, and Feeling

   Welcome to our NDPR review forum on Neil Sinhababu’s Humean Nature: How Desire Explains Action, Thought, and Feeling (OUP 2017), reviewed by Nomy Arpaly. Please feel free to comment on any aspect of the book, the review, or the discussion below!

(more…)

Read more

By In Academia, Uncategorized Comments (15)

The Unfortunate End-Game of Some Fraught Debates

It is a fraught topic of broad and not merely academic interest. Strong and hurt feelings abound. You have a view you work to hone and carefully articulate. Good and earnest people resist your view and argue against it. They may even suggest that it is a view unworthy of you. You remain unconvinced and argue back but manage to persuade few who did not start out on your side. You feel the polite condemnation of good and thoughtful people, yet you continue to think you are right. Perhaps you are even surprised people disagree with you on this topic. You try to be mindful of whose interests are primarily at stake and whose first-personal experience lends their views more authority in such contexts. You try to avoid defensively feeling like just because you have taken a public stand you cannot change your mind. You remind yourself you are not making a one-sided lawyerly case for a position but trying to reach a balanced overall assessment. You try to not let the mere professional status of those who argue with or against you unduly influence your thinking.  Others are joining your side but, or so it seems to you, less cautiously. The rhetoric and tone escalate around you. It seems the distinctions you were at pains to clarify are sometimes lost in some of the complaints about your view. You become agitated and start thinking “I can’t let this take over my day and this is getting unpleasant.”

Where do you go from there?

(more…)

Read more

By In Uncategorized Comments Off on APPE Call for Proposals and Special PEA Soup Sessions

APPE Call for Proposals and Special PEA Soup Sessions

The Association for Practical and Professional Ethics will be having their annual conference in Baltimore February 28-March 3 2019. They recently opened up their call for papers/proposals. Also, we have the same arrangement with APPE this year that we did last year. Winners of the annual PEA Soup awards will be eligible to participate in a couple of special invited sessions.

If you would like to submit something for independent consideration, the deadline is October 26.

Read more

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 Discussions, ETMP Discussions at PEA Soup, Uncategorized Comments (7)

ETMP Discussion of Robin Zheng’s “What is My Role in Changing the System? A New Model of Responsibility for Structural Injustice”

Welcome to the first ever Ethical Theory and Moral Practice discussion! We’re looking at Robin Zheng‘s new article, “What is My Role in Changing the System? A New Model of Responsibility for Structural Injustice”, which can be downloaded here. Maeve McKeown kicks things off with a critical précis, which appears immediately below. Please join the discussion!

Structural injustice is ‘ordinary injustice’ (Young 2011). When individuals go about their daily lives, working, consuming, renting or buying property etc., there are unintended, cumulative outcomes that result in the oppression of certain social groups. The problem is, as Robin Zheng points out, how can individuals be held responsible for this? (more…)

Read more