PEA Soup - Page 2 of 140 -

On September 27, 2017 By Conner Gordon In Announcements Comments (2) 9

Announcing the 2017 PEA Soup Award Winners

After considered deliberation, the editors and readers have chosen the recipients of the first annual PEA Soup Awards! The awards are split into four categories: PEA Soup Ideas, for posts that have been published on PEA Soup; Good Citizen Awards, which recognize the most active contributors to the PEA Soup community; the PEA Soup Paper Prize, which recognizes the readers’ and editors’ favorite philosophy papers featured on the site; and the External Online Ethics Prize, which recognizes great philosophy writing elsewhere on the web.

Congratulations to all the winners, and be sure to check out these ideas well worth recognizing.

PEA Soup Ideas Awards

Applied Ethics
First Place: Joshua Knobe, “What Does it Mean to ‘Normalize’ Trump?”
Second Place: Lawrence Blum, “Justice and Equal Opportunity in Higher Education.”

Normative Ethics
First Place: Victor Tadros, “Wrongs and Crimes.”
Second Place: Jussi Suikkanen, “Does the Shape of an Outcome Matter?”

Metaethics
First Place: Eden Lin, “Sophisticated Theories of Welfare.”
Second Place: Reid Blackman, “Roles Ground Reasons; So Internalism is False.”

Political Philosophy
First Place: Jessica Flanigan, “Rational Egalitarianism and Politics.”

Good Citizen Awards

Contributor Award for Audience Engagement
Andrew Forcehimes
Mark Alfano

Contributor Award for Number of Contributions
Brad Cokelet

Top Commentator Award
Sergio Tennenbaum
Dale Miller

Paper Prize

Editors’ Choice
Molly Gardner, “On the Strength of the Reason Against Harming.”

Readers’ Choice
Theron Pummer, “Whether and Where to Give.”

External Online Ethics Prize

First Place: Adam Hosein, “Do Outsiders Have Legal Rights?”
Second Place: Nils-Hennes Stear, “Syrian Refugees and a Bowl of Skittles.”
Honorable Mention: Howard J. Curzer, “Voting Ethics And The Lesser Evil.”
Honorable Mention: Gary Comstock, “You Should Not Have Let Your Baby Die.”

On September 21, 2017 By David Shoemaker In Ideas, Metaethics, NDPR Discussion Forum, Normative Ethics Comments (11) Like

The Point of Moral Philosophy: An NDPR Forum with Ingmar Persson

Welcome to another in our regular series providing forums for authors reviewed in NDPR to respond and discuss features of their new books. We are very pleased to welcome Ingmar Persson today, whose new book Inclusive Ethics (OUP 2017) was just reviewed two days ago by David Kaspar for Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. Ingmar has chosen to do something different this time: Rather than responding directly to the points made in the review, he has written up a guest post about a topic in the book not included in the review, namely, on the point — or lack thereof — of doing moral philosophy. What follows is that post. We encourage our readers to join in on the discussion of what is a very interesting post.

(more…)

On September 6, 2017 By Brad Cokelet In Experimental Philosophy, Featured Philosophers, Ideas, Moral Psychology Comments (8) 5

‘I Love Women’: The Conceptual Inadequacy of ‘Implicit Bias’ (by Yao and Reis-Dennis)

Hi everyone! Thanks very much for the opportunity to discuss our work-in-progress, “‘I Love Women’: The Conceptual Inadequacy of ‘Implicit Bias.’”

Tests for implicit bias, in particular the Implicit Association Test (IAT), have recently come under scrutiny. Two different meta-analyses, by Oswald et al. (2013) and Forscher et al. (2016) (recently discussed in the Chronicle of Higher Education) have concluded that measurements of “implicit bias” do not reliably predict biased behavior.

In our paper, we offer a different critique of implicit bias testing, one which philosophers and other humanistic thinkers might be well-suited to address. We argue that the dominant implicit bias tests assume crude and implausible conceptions of explicit prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the morally bad and wrong actions supposedly best explained by something interestingly implicit are instead best explained by non-obvious but nonetheless explicit prejudice.[i]

(more…)

On August 31, 2017 By Brad Cokelet In Featured Philosophers Comments Off on Coming Featured Philosopher post on The Conceptual Inadequacy of ‘Implicit Bias’ 1

Coming Featured Philosopher post on The Conceptual Inadequacy of ‘Implicit Bias’

I am happy to announce our next Featured Philosophy post. On next Wednesday, September 6th, Vida Yao (Rice) and Samuel Reis-Dennis (Johns Hopkins) will be sharing their post titled ‘I Love Women’: The Conceptual Inadequacy of ‘Implicit Bias’”. Please swing by then to join the discussion!

On August 29, 2017 By David Sobel In Applied Ethics Comments (3) 1

The Place of Sports in the Academy

This post can also be found here.

I am repeatedly being sent a letter from the assistant director of student-athlete development that informs me that yet another student in my class will be missing classes due to their participation in athletics. In the most recent case, a team is taking an optional trip to compete and those students will miss the start of classes as a result. Here is a portion of that letter:

“As previously acknowledged by the Office of the Vice Chancellor and Provost, student/athletes are obligated to meet both their academic and athletic commitments. It is possible that required competition may occasionally conflict with class schedules and/or other academic responsibilities. We would appreciate your assistance in providing the student with an opportunity to complete any assignments, exams, and/or projects that will be missed during their absence from your course.

(more…)

On August 15, 2017 By Conner Gordon In Announcements Comments Off on Vote Now in the PEA Soup Reader’s Choice Awards! Like

Vote Now in the PEA Soup Reader’s Choice Awards!

The nominations are in for the PEA Soup Reader’s Choice Awards! The following four papers discussed in the 2016-2017 academic year have been nominated for the Reader’s Choice Paper Prize. Click on each title below to view the nominated post:

“Whether and Where to Give” by Theron Pummer
“On the Strength of the Reason Against Harming” by Molly Gardner
“Intention, Expectation, and Promissory Obligation” by Abe Roth
“Self-Defence Against Multiple Threats” by Kerah Gordon-Solmon

Once you’ve read through the nominated papers, click here to cast your vote in the Reader’s Choice paper prize. The polls close on August 30th, so make sure to have your vote in by then!

On August 14, 2017 By David Shoemaker In Applied Ethics, NDPR Discussion Forum, Political Philosophy Comments (21) 2

NDPR Forum: Fritz Allhoff’s Terrorism, Ticking Time-Bombs, and Torture (Reviewed by Chris Morris)

Welcome to another installment of our NDPR Forums, in which we invite both the author of a book reviewed in NDPR, as well as the reviewer, to talk about the review, the book, and anything else related to the topic. We also welcome anyone else to jump in to comment on any of those topics as well. Today we are opening a thread on Fritz Allhoff’s book Terrorism, Ticking Time-Bombs, and Torture: A Philosophical Analysis (University of Chicago Press), which was reviewed last week in NDPR by Chris Morris. Blurbs below the fold.

(more…)