The first annual Workshop for Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy will take place in Tucson, AZ from Oct. 17-19. Check out the program schedule here. Registration is free but required. You can register at the above link. Hope to see you there.
Brian Weatherson has posted a new paper in which he argues against "moral hedging" -- roughly, refraining from A-ing on the grounds that there's a non-zero probability that A-ing is wrong and a zero probability that not A-ing is wrong. I'd like to explain why I think his central argument fails, and hear what y'all have to say both about that argument and about the issue in general.
The argument is that one cannot hedge without exhibiting unseemly motivations in so doing, and so one ought not to hedge. Specifically, Weatherson says, one cannot hedge without thereby being motivated to avoid wrongdoing as such. He asks us to imagine a person who has some credence that eating meat is wrong, and so refrains from eating meat. The content of her ultimate motivation cannot be to refrain from subsidizing the killing of cows, since she does not (fully) believe that this is wrong; rather, it must be to refrain from doing what's morally wrong (whatever that happens to be).
I'm very pleased to welcome Elizabeth Anderson to PEA Soup for a round of featured philosophizing. Liz is Arthur F. Thurnau Professor and John Rawls Collegiate Professor of Philosophy and Women's Studies, and is an extremely exciting figure in political philosophy and ethics more generally. We're very happy to have her here! Her post is below the fold.
UPDATE: Gauthier has responded to the second round of questions. Thanks, everyone, for a great discussion!
We are pleased to present our Ethics discussion of David Gauthier's "Twenty-Five On."
Gauthier's article has been made open access here. Susan Dimock, professor of philosophy at York University, kicks off the discussion with a critical précis of Gauthier's article below the fold. You might also want to check out Christopher Morris's helpful Introduction to the symposium that Gauthier's article is part of, here. Here now is Dimock:
I am pleased to announce the official launch of Philosophical Trajectories, a data-collection project dedicated to helping philosophers learn from each other's publishing experiences. Many thanks to those of you who helped with the beta testing. I encourage everyone to participate; the more data we collect, the more useful the site will become. If you have any comments, questions or suggestions, please don't hesitate to email me.
We are pleased to announce that our next Ethics discussion will be on David Gauthier's new article, "Twenty-Five On." The article has been made open access here. It is part of a symposium on Gauthier's Morals by Agreement; you might want to check out Christopher Morris's helpful Introduction to the symposium here.
Update: We are also very pleased to announce that Susan Dimock, professor of philosophy at York University, will be kicking off the discussion with a critical précis of Gauthier's article.
will begin this Thursday, July 18, and proceed in two spurts. Between
July 18-20, you can post your first round of questions and comments.
Gauthier will respond by Wednesday, July 24, at which point a second
round of questions begins (July 24-26). Hope to see many of you joining
I communcate with lots of academics regularly, as I'm sure most readers of this blog do. This is not surprising. But what I do find surprising is how frequently academics simply do not respond to, or even acknowledge, communications from professional colleagues. This includes communications of the following sorts: invitations to give a talk, invitations to contribute a paper, invitations to review a paper, messages sharing a copy of published work that engages their views, messages sharing in-progress work that engages their views, and messages asking specific questions about their own published work. (The list is not exhaustive.)
Hi all! It's a great pleasure to welcome Sally Haslanger to the Soup for a stint as Featured Philosopher. As Sally does a great job summarizing some of her recent work below, I'm going to lay off here. Suffice it to say, we're all very excited, and looking forward to a lively discussion!
I am starting a new project to help philosophers share and learn from each other's publishing experiences. The project combines some of the goals of my (essentially defunct) Venue Poll project with ideas I got from using Andrew Cullison's fantastic Journal Surveys site. The project is currently in beta, and I'm asking people to check out the site, play with the survey, and provide feedback. All data collected during the beta is for testing purposes and will be deleted when the site officially goes live, at which point I encourage people to return and take the survey for real. In addition to looking for general feedback, I ask about a specific issue below the fold.