Uncategorized
Category

By In Uncategorized Comments (21)

Subjectivism and Moral Criticism

Suppose that Sue’s considered opinion was that Joe had all things considered most reason to do one thing. In what sense could Sue, in consistency with that thought, earnestly criticize Joe for failing to do something else? Of course, it could be that Sue thinks that Joe had no good reason to believe that he had good reason to act as he did, despite having most reason to act that way, and so was irrational, given his information, to act as he did. Such a possibility opens the door to the earnest criticism of Joe that he was irrational. But let us ignore cases where the assessor and the actor have different information. Additionally, of course, Sue might criticize Joe merely with an eye to the causal upshot of that criticism. She might hope that the criticism would produce a situation that she thinks is better. But here the criticism is less than fully earnest in that it does not truly express Sue’s view of what there was most reason for Joe to do. So let us ignore cases where one criticism of the agent misrepresents one’s view of what the agent has most reason to do.

(more…)

Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!

Read more

By In Uncategorized Comments (1)

PhOnline

There’s a new papers database, PhOnline, maintained by Richard Heck. It seems like it might be a useful thing.

Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!

Read more

By In Uncategorized Comments (1)

Editorial Policy

Since the Newsweek article was published last week, we’ve been getting more hits than usual. (Out of the roughly 8800 hits received in the last 5.5 weeks, 3100 were received in the last week alone). Overall, we’re very pleased that there’s so much interest. However, some participants have recently posted comments that our readers might find to be a distraction from the more narrow philosophical discussions that this blog is intended to facilitate. Accordingly, we’ve recently begun deleting some of these comments.

Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!

Read more

By In Uncategorized Comments Off on Hooker Responds

Hooker Responds

I want to bring to the attention of our readers that Brad Hooker has responded to our original posts — see here, here, and here. On behalf of all us, I would like to thank Brad for his thoughtful responses.

Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!

Read more

By In Uncategorized Comments Off on Welcome!

Welcome!

Thanks for visiting PEA Soup, a blog dedicated to philosophy, ethics, and academia (the focus being on ethics). The principals involved are Dan Boisvert (California State University, Bakersfield), Josh Glasgow (Occidental College), Dave Shoemaker (Bowling Green State University), and myself, Doug Portmore (California State University, Northridge). Along with issues in moral philosophy (including metaethics, normative ethics, and applied ethics), we’ll address ethical issues relating to academia and the philosophical profession. Please check back periodically, as we expect to post new entries on a regular basis.

Love this idea? Nominate it for the Annual PEA Soup Awards!

Read more