PEA Soup

Soup has moved and improved!!!

This will be the last post on Old PEA Soup. Be hip and with it and come migrate with us and read about the exciting changes here.

Big Changes Afoot...

PEA Soup is switching platforms this week, with a big media push coming. As a result, it might be best for folks to hold off on posting anything till the move is complete. 

More soon....

CEPPA's New Webpage

I'm pleased to announce that the Centre for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs (CEPPA) at St Andrews University now has a new website:  http://ceppa.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/

In particular, check out our projects on:

- Effective Altruism
- Knowledge, Democracy, and Public Discourse
- Philosophy and Education
- Virtue and Character
- Human Rights

Please send me an email ([email protected]) if you're interested in collaborating with us or participating in any events!

CFP: The Future of Work, Automation, and a Basic Income

Call for Abstracts

The Bowling Green Workshop in Applied Ethics and Public Policy

The Future of Work, Automation, and a Basic Income

April 7-8, 2017

Invited Speakers include: Matt Zwolinski (USD) and Evelyn Forget (Manitoba)

Those interested in presenting a paper are invited to submit a 2-3 page abstract (double-spaced) by Dec. 1, 2016. Papers need not address each element of the workshop theme.  We are casting a wide net, and encourage thinking broadly about the theme.

Only one submission per person is permitted. Abstracts will be evaluated by a program committee and decisions will be made by the end of January, 2017.

Please submit abstract to Irene Harris ([email protected]).

Information about previous workshops is available at the workshop website: http://www.bgsu.edu/arts-and-sciences/philosophy/workshops-and-conferences/policing-and-prisons.html. Information about the 2017 workshop will be posted soon.

Open Letter Regarding Compensation for Bone Marrow Cell Donation

I hope the Soupers won't mind a bit of public philosophy! http://donationethics.com

Arguably, the jury is still out regarding the ethics of compensation for organ donation (and even more so for allowing organ purchase). Legally speaking, in the United States such compensation is outlawed under 1984's National Organ Transplant Act (NOTA). New technology has recently altered the relevant legal landscape. It is now possible to collect bone marrow stem cells for transplantation, not through the traditional, invasive procedure of inserting a needle into the donor's marrow itself, but by giving the donor a drug that stimulates and releases stem cells into the surrounding blood, where it can be collected through something akin to a traditional blood donation procedure ("aphoresis") . In Flynn v. Holder, it was ruled that given this procedure's similarity to blood and plasma donation, for which compensation is legal, NOTA does not apply. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing an amendment to NOTA that would effectively prohibit compensation for donation through aphoresis. My friend and colleague, Peter Jaworski, has written an open letter (with input from myself and others) to HHS opposing this amendment. He, myself, and the others who signed the letter agree that there is no legitimate ethical basis for the amendment. Importantly, I think even many of those who are wary of compensation for organ donation generally should share this view. Most if not all of the ethical concerns that attach to (e.g.) kidney markets simply do not apply here. 

Peter is inviting other ethicists to sign the letter. If you're interested, please check out the website (which I'm managing). If you'd like to add your name, you can contact Peter or myself. And, of course, comments are welcome, here or via email.

Intuitive Expertise -- X-Phi Results

Over at the X-Phi Blog.

CfP: Philosophy's Practical Turn

The Yale Journal of Law & the Humanities (YJLH) is seeking full submissions for a symposium section of the Spring 2017 issue. The journal seeks submissions that employ methods of philosophy (broadly construed) to investigate practical legal issues. We hope to publish articles representative of an array of philosophical traditions and contemporary issues. The special section aims to exemplify how philosophical approaches and insights provide distinctive and significant contributions to practical legal debates.

Populus: A Hopefully-Soon-to-Be Journal with Crowd-Sourced Peer Review

As has been widely discussed both here (at least a couple of times) and elsewhere, there are numerous problems with traditional publishing models. Some of these have been admirably addressed by the move to open access journals like Philosophers' Imprint and Ergo. For the most part, however, these journals have simply exported the traditional publishing process to the Internet. I think it's time we try something genuinely new. To that end, I've put together a prospectus for a new project, Populus, that will be both a curated archive (think (the non-horrific parts of) Reddit meets PhilPapers) and a philosophy journal with an experimental crowd-source peer review process. I am coming to you, Soupers, because:

• I'm looking for feedback on the project itself and/or its expression through the prospectus. 
• I'm hoping those of you who support the project, or at least think it's worth a go, will help me spread the word.
• I'm looking for help.
  • I'd like to put together an editorial board whose association with the project will boost its credibility. I anticipate this' requiring little actual work. If you are a famous person who likes my idea and would like to get on board, that would be great.
  • This project will likely require some funding. I'm looking for suggestions for sources.
  • I need people with web development or other relevant technical experience who would like to donate (or, if we get funding, be paid for) their time. 
  • I'm looking for people who want to help or get involved in any other way, especially ones with the general entrepreneurial skills I lack. 

Here that's link one more time: Populus Prospectus

Two options for displaced/refugee academics holding a PhD

The University of Konstanz currently offers two options for displaced researchers/ refugees (holding a PhD). 

(1) At the Zukunftskolleg we will offer up to three Zukunftskolleg Bridge Fellowships for Displaced Researchers (any discipline represented at the University of Konstanz). The positions are available as soon as 1 December 2016 for a maximum of nine months.  Deadline for the applications is 15 September 2016. Please find the job offer attached. We also welcome researcher outside of Germany to apply. 

(2) The Philipp Schwartz Initiative by the Humboldt Foundation provides universities and research institutions in Germany with the means to host threatened foreign researchers for a period of 24 months on a fully funded research fellowship. (https://www.humboldt-foundation.de/web/philipp-schwartz-initiative-en.html) Applications are collected and jointly organized by the Welcome Center. If you have any researcher in mind, please inform the Welcome Center (Johannes DinglerJohannes.Dingler@uni-konstanz.de) by 19 September 2016 so the application can be dealt with within the university before it is passed on to the Humboldt foundation. Deadline for applications is 14 October 2016. Please note: candidates can not apply individually but only through the host organization, i.e. the University of Konstanz.

In both cases you can also contact the Back Office. 

Best,

Daniela

-- 
Dr. Daniela Kromrey
Programme Director for Internationalization
Zukunftskolleg
P.O. Box 216
Office Y 320
Universität Konstanz
78457 Konstanz

Tel. ++ 49 7531 88 5686
Fax. ++ 49 7531 88 4829
Daniela.Kromrey@uni-konstanz.de
http://www.uni-konstanz.de/zukunftskolleg

What does the experimental evidence actually say about the stability of moral intuitions?

Suppose you are sitting at your desk, reflecting on a moral question. Now suppose that as you are reflecting on this question, you happen to be looking around at a somewhat disgusting scene. Perhaps there is a half-eaten apple on the desk, or a bad smell in the room, or maybe you just didn't have an opportunity to wash your hands. 

I sometimes encounter the claim that experimental studies have shown that people's moral intuitions can be pushed around in surprising ways by subtle situational factors like these. It is then sometimes suggested that philosophers need to think more about the deeper philosophical implications of this kind of 'instability' in our moral intuitions.

 

This claim strikes me as a serious misrepresentation of the present state of the empirical literature. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that existing studies provide evidence that these factors do not influence people's moral intuitions. At the very least, it would be hard to deny that a whole bunch of recent studies suggest that people's moral intuitions are surprisingly stable.