We ask folks to share with the group their favorite papers on the topic of consequentialism. 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.
Henry Richardson shares some thoughts that may be relevant for people considering aiming to succeed him as editor At Ethics. Here is Henry:
I’ve been invited to offer my perspective, as the current editor of Ethics, for the benefit of anyone who may be thinking of succeeding me on July 1, 2018, when my second five-year term comes to an end. I’m delighted to do so.
Editing Ethics is a service position that is an honor and a privilege to occupy. The role affords an unsurpassed overview of the best work being done in normative philosophy—in ethics, social, political, and legal philosophy, and on normativity itself. It also provides an opportunity to work closely with a terrific team of top people in these fields: the book review editor and the group of associate editors, now numbering fourteen, whose dedication, experience, and judgment are an incredible asset for the journal. (They are listed here; Sally Haslanger has recently replaced Cheshire Calhoun.)
It was a typical evening of poker. I am taking Shoemaker’s chips as reliably as Trump belittles accusers. I am reading his cards as if he had on mirrored sunglasses. Lesser players, such as Wall, are already turning their attention away from the game, which by now even they realize they are doomed to lose, to manufacturing excuses and rationalizations for their poor play.
I see that Shoemaker by luck has managed a decent hand on the turn, two pair, 6’s and 9’s. I’ve got nothing and no prospects. My only real hope is to persuade him I have a good hand and bluff him into folding. My betting post flop has intentionally represented that I am on a straight draw. Now on the river a card comes up completely compatible with my bluff. It is plausible that the river completes my straight and I bet as if it did in order to persuade him that I did. My body language is consciously managed to persuade him that I am not bluffing and that I hit my straight and am confident and want him to call. He buys it! I persuade him I have a better hand than him and he folds. I congratulate myself on my deception.
Hey again! I really think folks sharing their syllabi for others, esp younger philosophers, to make use of could be quite useful. This could be a lovely resource if folks would be willing to take a few moments to share. Please consider sharing your syllabi for your normative philosophy classes here.
Today we launch yet another new regular feature at Soup. Call it: Bleeding Heart Soup. Mmmmm, doesn’t that sound good! Our friends at the blog Bleeding Heart Libertarianism will regularly initiate posts on Soup in hopes of encouraging folks to more regularly hear points of view you might otherwise miss.
Today’s post is by Andrew Jason Cohen and Bill Glod. The issues discussed here are taken up at greater length in a forthcoming paper of theirs.
A Bleeding Heart Libertarian View of Paternalist Drug Laws
Andrew Jason Cohen and Bill Glod
Many believe the war on drugs is justified to protect people from harm done to themselves with drug use. Such paternalists should wonder about the effects of their laws. Self-harm does not occur in a vacuum, but neither does punishment. A heroin addict might be hurting his friends and family, but what happens to them when he is imprisoned? What happens to him?