By In Announcements Comments (3)

Valerie Tiberius’s Advice to her Friend, Philosophy. Plus Important Survey Data from over 2500 Philosophers.

A draft of Valerie Tiberius’s Presidential Address at the Central Division of the APA is linked to below. The text below is her teaser for the address. Her advice to Philosophy is informed by important data, revealed below, from a survey of over 2500 philosophers.

Of this piece Valerie writes “I am really hoping that the survey (and my discussion of the results) will be helpful to other philosophers.  I’m very grateful to the editors of PEASoup for linking to it and hosting a discussion.  I’d love to hear your comments and I would be glad to answer questions. (I might be a little slow to answer certain questions about data, or to respond to requests for data, since I’ll have to ask my collaborator about these).”

Here now is Valerie:

I have been writing about well-being and about how to think about well-being when we are trying to help our friends.  In this context, I believe we should focus on the values of the person we are trying to help and on how those values could be improved in light of shared norms and the facts about personality and environment.  Well-being, on this view, is success in terms of appropriate values over time, or “value fulfillment” as I call it.

Given my research, I started thinking… what if PHILOSOPHY were my friend?  I might worry.  Philosophy, what are you doing with your life?  You’re in the news, and not in a good way.  Thinking about philosophy as my friend led me to wonder what would happen if I took my own approach to helping and applied it here.  And that led me to creating “The Value of Philosophy Survey”.  My hope in creating the survey was to find out what philosophers value about philosophy. I anticipated finding some conflicts among these values and my goal was to use this information to recommend a “healthy” and sustainable path that we can follow, given our values, given what philosophy is like (our “personality”) and given the academic, economic and political environment in which we have to work.  My presidential address is the results of these efforts.  It reports findings from the survey and recommends a path forward that I call the “broaden and balance” path.

The Well-Being of Philosophy

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

Read more

By In Discussions, Normative Ethics, P&PA Discussions, Value Theory Comments (24)

Philosophy and Public Affairs Discussion at PEA Soup: Theron Pummer’s “Whether and Where to Give” with a critical précis by Johann Frick

Welcome to what we expect to be an engaging and productive discussion of Theron Pummer‘s “Whether and Where to Give.” The paper appears in the Winter 2016 issue of Philosophy and Public Affairs, and it is available through open access here. Our conversation begins below with a critical précis by Johann Frick. Please join in the discussion!

Précis by Johann Frick:

It is a pleasure to kick off our discussion of Theron Pummer’s excellent and thought-provoking article “Whether and Where to Give” (Philosophy & Public Affairs, 2016). I will begin with a brief synopsis of some of Theron’s main claims, followed by some critical comments and questions.

(more…)

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

Read more

By In Applied Ethics, Philosophy of Law Comments Off on Journal of Applied Philosophy Prizewinning Essay

Journal of Applied Philosophy Prizewinning Essay

Federico Picinali’s essay, “Base-Rates of Negative Traits: Instructions for Use in Criminal Trials,” has won the Journal of Applied Philosophy’s annual prize (of a thousand pounds) for best essay of the year (in JAP), and it is available to read open access here.

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

Read more

By In Discussions, P&PA Discussions, Value Theory Comments Off on Upcoming Philosophy and Public Affairs Discussion at PEA Soup: Theron Pummer’s “Whether and Where to Give” with a critical précis by Johann Frick

Upcoming Philosophy and Public Affairs Discussion at PEA Soup: Theron Pummer’s “Whether and Where to Give” with a critical précis by Johann Frick

We are pleased to announce our new discussion series based on recent articles from Philosophy and Public Affairs. Our first article for discussion will be Theron Pummer‘s “Whether and Where to Give,” available here. Here is the paper’s central thesis to whet your appetite:

The main claim I will argue for here is that in many cases it would be wrong of you to give a sum of money to charities that do less good than others you could have given to instead, even if it would not have been wrong of you not to give the money to any charity at all. … What makes my main claim particularly interesting is that it is inconsistent with what appears to be a fairly common assumption in the ethics of giving, according to which if it is not wrong of you to keep some sum of money for yourself, then it is likewise not wrong of you to donate it to any particular charity you choose. Roughly: if it is up to you whether to donate the money, it is also up to you where to donate the money. I will challenge this common assumption.

Johann Frick will start our conversation with a critical précis on April 7. Please join us for what we expect to be a lively and engaging discussion of the ethics of charitable giving.

 

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

Read more

By In Applied Ethics, Business Ethics Comments (2)

Where Does Business Ethics Happen?

[From the Editors: We’re happy to introduce to you Jeff Moriarty, Chair of the Department of Philosophy at Bentley University, who will occasionally post about a variety of topics pertaining to business ethics. We soon hope to introduce experts in various other fields of applied ethics as well to provide posts about topics in those fields.]

Suppose you have an interest in ethical issues that attend commercial activities and/or productive organizations. Where might you go to learn more, or to present to your work? To a conference in business ethics, of course! But where are those?

Both philosophers (and other normative folks) and social scientists “do” business ethics, though in different ways. Very roughly: philosophers think about what is right in business, while social scientists think about what the causes and effects of right behavior in business are. So it is worth deciding what sort of people you want to talk with before deciding where to go. Here are some options, with the more “philosophical” options at the top, and the more “social science-y” options at the bottom.

(more…)

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

Read more

By In NDPR Discussion Forum, Political Philosophy Comments (2)

NDPR Discussion: Ryan Muldoon’s Social Contract Theory for a Diverse World: Beyond Tolerance

NDPR just posted a review by Michael Frazer of Ryan Muldoon’s recent book. We have invited both Ryan and Michael to discuss the review as they see fit, and we also invite interested readers to contribute any questions or comments they may have on either the book or the review here as well.

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

Read more

By In Discussions, JMP Discussions, Normative Ethics Comments (32)

Journal of Moral Philosophy Discussion at PEA Soup: Molly Gardner’s “On the Strength of the Reason Against Harming,” with a critical précis by Fiona Woollard

Welcome to what will surely be an incredibly interesting and productive discussion of Molly Gardner‘s excellent paper “On the Strength of the Reason Against Harming.” This paper was published in the first issue of this year’s Journal of Moral Philosophy. They have kindly provided free access to the paper, which can be viewed or downloaded here. Fiona Woollard has written a critical précis, which is included below. Please join today’s discussion!

(more…)

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

Read more