PEA Soup

The Next Chapter: Ethics Discussions at PEA Soup

We are very pleased to announce a new partnership between PEA Soup and the distinguished journal, Ethics.  In addition to our regular postings, PEA Soup's editors will select one article from each issue of Ethics to be the focus of a featured discussion on our blog.  Ethics, in turn, will make an on-line copy of the featured article available to our readers for free (for three months).  At the time of the article's publication, we will post a link to the open-access copy, and then a week later an open discussion of it will be introduced with a critical précis by an invited discussant.

We expect that this partnership will give rise to a series of lively and productive conversations.  Stay tuned for details on the first featured article, which will be selected from the next issue of Ethics (Volume 120, Number 1).

Special thanks to everyone at Ethics, especially its Editor, Henry S. Richardson, and Managing Editor, Catherine Galko Campbell, for their help and participation.

Welcome Anita Superson!

We are happy to announce that Anita Superson has accepted our invitation to be a contributor here at PEA Soup.  Anita is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Kentucky, and specializes in ethical theory, feminism, and issues at their intersections.  It's great to have you aboard, Anita!

Non-Consequentialism and Strength of Obligation

Walter Sinnott-Armstrong has given us a new argument for consequentialism (“How strong is this obligation?  An argument for consequentialism from concomitant variation,” Analysis 69 (2009): 438-442).  The datum: other things kept equal, the obligation to keep a promise to take a friend to the airport is stronger than the obligation to keep a promise to meet a friend for lunch—overriding the latter obligation takes less than overriding the former.  The best account of the source of this relative strength is that (in normal circumstances) the consequences of breaking the first promise are more harmful than the results of breaking the second.  If we generalize, it appears that the relative strength of all obligations depends on the level of harmful consequences that would result from violating the obligation.  Thus consequentialism seems to best account for strength of obligation.

Sinnott-Armstrong [WSA] recognizes that this argument “assumes that (i) the strength of the moral obligation does not explain the degree of harm…, (ii) no third factor can explain the strength, the harm, and their correlation…, and (iii) the correlation is not accidental…” (440).  I think that assumption (ii) is not well-founded.  More basically, we should question WSA’s ultimate assessment, that in order to respond to his argument, “deontologists need to explain why some moral obligations are stronger than others without invoking the harmful consequences of violating those moral obligations” (442).  There is another response available for deontologists, one that does invoke harm, and it undermines assumption (ii).  

Global Comments Feed...

... returns, thanks to Simon Rippon.  You can find the feed link in the top Navigation Bar.

Thank you, Simon, for getting this global comments feed back up and running for us!

Happy Fifth Birthday!

Thank you all—contributors, commentators, and readers—for another great year in the Soup!   This month marks PEA Soup's fifth "birthday" on the blogosphere, and because of all of you, it was clearly the best.  Thank you!

To celebrate, we've introduced a new design theme—Lone Tree Green!—and we've added a list of our contributors' most recent books.  Most importantly, we've put together a small "2008-2009 Yearbook" to highlight some of the noteworthy events that happened this year on the Soup, and, especially, events that happened to and for some of our contributors.  If contributors or readers have any more good news to share, please feel free to add it in the comments section.  So, thank you all again, and… drum roll please…

Welcome, Adrienne Martin!

We are pleased to announce that Adrienne Martin, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, has accepted our invitation to become a contributor here at PEA Soup.  Adrienne works on agency, practical reasoning, and Kantian ethics.  Her writings have appeared in such publications as Pacific Philosophical Quarterly and the Hastings Center Report.  Welcome!

We are pleased to announce that Adrienne Martin, Assistant Professor of Philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, has accepted our invitation to become a contributor here at PEA Soup.  Adrienne works on agency, practical reasoning, and Kantian ethics.  Her writings have appeared in such publications as Pacific Philosophical Quarterly and the Hastings Center Report.  Welcome!

A New Era Begins: Multiple Submissions

Thom Brooks alerts us to a new moral and political philosophy journal, Public Reason.  The journal looks to be noteworthy for a number of reasons, not least of which is that it is an open-access e-journal, following the recent (and I think wholly positive) trend set by journals like Philosophers' Imprint and the Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy.  Moreover, back when JESP debuted, there was some excitement over the idea that philosophy had its first journal (or one of its first journals?) that was willing to consider papers that are simultaneously under submission elsewhere.  As was noted at the time, this policy loses some sizzle if it is the only journal willing to do this.  Apparently now that is no longer the case, though: Public Reason will also consider simultaneous submissions, so there are at least two journals to which those working in moral/political/social philosophy can simultaneously submit.

For philosophers concerned with various timetables that increase pressure to publish, this will no doubt be welcome news.  It will be interesting to see how interested parties, particularly referees, respond to this development.  (Some have been bothered by the idea of simultaneous submissions of book proposals.)  As a referee, I don't think I'd be too bothered to learn that I had been working up a report for a paper that was withdrawn from the journal I was working for because it had been accepted elsewhere.  But I also think it would be nice if authors took advantage of this opportunity--and thus of referees--only when they are under some sort of career deadline or other unique pressure to publish.

In related news, and again like JESP, Public Reason will be publishing discussion notes, in addition to regular articles and book reviews.

Welcome, Sergio Tenenbaum!

We are pleased to announce that Sergio Tenenbaum, Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto, has accepted our invitation to become a contributor here at PEA Soup.  He has written numerous articles and chapters on a wide array of topics related to moral philosophy, and his book, Appearances of the Good: An Essay on the Nature of Practical Reason, was published in 2007 by Cambridge University Press. Welcome!

Welcome, Simon Keller!

We are pleased to announce that Simon Keller has accepted our invitation to become a contributor here at PEA Soup.  Simon is presently a Senior Research Fellow at CAPPE at the University of Melbourne and an Adjunct Assistant Professor at Boston University, and he is slated to join the Philosophy Program at Victoria University of Wellington as an Associate Professor.  His book, The Limits of Loyalty, has recently come out, and he works on such topics as patriotism, love, and welfare (among others).  It's great to have you aboard, Simon!

Three Cheers for These PEA Brains!

In lieu of the customary "here-are-some-amazing-statistics-about-PEA-Soup" birthday message, we thought it would be better to post a "Yearbook" to share some good things that have happened to some of our fellow PEA brains over this past year.  A lot of good news appears below the fold.  If there is any more good news that should be shared, by all means please add it in the comments section.