Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Why not hybrid embryos?

Yesterday, MP's voted to allow the creation of hybrid embryos for medical research. These embryos would be 99.9% "human" but 0.1% "cow" or "rabbit" --- the animal element is simply the use of animal eggs, from which animal DNA is extracted, human DNA implanted, the "hybrid" embryo is then given an electric shock, and then stem cells harvested for use in research. All matter must be destroyed within 14 days. (Q&A on hybrid embryos can be found here.)

This move has been highly controversial for several reasons. Some of these reasons include the following:

1. It is morally wrong to mix human and animal DNA in this way.

This first reason is perhaps the primary reason behind opposition to this legislation. There are several problems with this argument.

First, what do we mean by "morally wrong"? It is easy to claim a position is "morally wrong"; it is difficult to prove a position is morally wrong in a compelling way. That is, deontologists and consequentialists can agree on many ethical issues, but they will not agree on all ethical issues. Who then decides? We would have to see the best arguments on both sides in order to see which view should prevail. It is no use to say that x is "morally wrong" without a full account of morality, not least as there are many different camps and what is wrong (and right) is not self evident.

Secondly, that a view is morally wrong may be insufficient to demonstrate that the view should not be adopted politically. Politics is not reducible to morality, even if we may be tempted to believe that politics should aspire to embodying certain moral norms. Thus, again, some argue that politics and morality should be strongly interconnected and that one view of a religious tradition should be the source of this morality. This religious view will take a stand on what is morally wrong and, yet, many may reasonably object as they may hold different religious views (or no religious views) with reasonable views on moral wrongness nevertheless. That a view contrasts sharply with common understandings of justice may be an important reason to disapprove politically of a practice, but it is one reason amongst many others.

2. This move justifies a controversial position that has little proven benefit.

Opponents claim that proponents are reaching to the stars too hastily and that the latter talk often and loudly about the many dramatic scientific advances that will become possible without demonstrating that these advances are likely. In response, we might say simply that there does not seem compelling reasons to think that greater research on stem cells would not lead to benefits. Perhaps the benefits will come in small steps over a longer than anticipated time. But why think no benefits will come at all?

Conclusion

In the end, I am broadly supportive of this legislation. I do not see any problems morally and believe it may well be an excellent decision politically, not least as it offers a genuine endorsement of the work by medical scientists at the country's universities to carry on pioneering work at Newcastle's medical school and others. It will now be interesting to see what advances do come about . . .

Needless to say, I would be very interested to learn what readers think.

More tales of the obvious regarding UK education in schools

. . . found here.

BOOKtalk with Bhikhu Parekh

An absolutely fantastic must see interview with, in my view, one of the very best political philosophers today. Details here.

JOBS: Macquarie (2)

Two professorial level positions in Philosophy at Macquarie University

Details of the positions are provided below and can also be obtained from the University website (http://www.mq.edu.au).

1. Professor or Associate Professor (position number: 21368). Philosophy of Mind and Moral Psychology or Ethics (full-time continuing)

The Department of Philosophy at Macquarie University is a pluralist research and teaching department. The Department has three main areas of research concentration: Ethics, Applied Ethics and Social Philosophy; Mind, Metaphysics and Language; European Philosophy. The appointee will provide research leadership in the Philosophy of Mind and will enhance the Department's reputation for research at the intersection of Philosophy of Mind, Moral Psychology and Ethics. The appointee will also strengthen collaborative research initiatives between the Philosophy Department and the Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science.
Essential Selection Criteria: PhD in Philosophy; International reputation for research; evidence of research leadership; excellent record of scholarly publishing in Philosophy of Mind and Moral Psychology or Ethics; demonstrated capacity and enthusiasm for cross-disciplinary collaboration; successful record of attracting external research funding; strong record of attracting postgraduate students and successful supervision of PhD students; demonstrated ability to deliver high impact teaching of undergraduate and postgraduate courses, and a willingness to develop course curricula and actively participate in teaching at all levels; demonstrated ability to communicate and interact effectively with students and staff.
Enquiries: A/Prof Catriona Mackenzie on 61+2+ 9850 8865 or email cmackenzie@scmp.mq.edu.au

The position is available on a full-time (continuing) basis and may be subject to probationary conditions. Selection criteria must be addressed in the application.

2. Professor or Associate Professor (position number: 21398). Clinical Medical Ethics (full-time continuing)

The Department of Philosophy at Macquarie University is a pluralist research and teaching department. The Department has three main areas of research concentration: Ethics, Applied Ethics and Social Philosophy; Mind, Metaphysics and Language; European Philosophy. The appointee will provide research leadership in the area of Clinical Medical Ethics and in the development of a postgraduate program, involving the Department of Philosophy and the Australian School of Advanced Medicine.

Essential Selection Criteria: PhD in Philosophy or Bioethics; International reputation for research; capacity to inspire research teams and evidence of research leadership; excellent record of scholarly publishing in bioethics and clinical medical ethics; demonstrated capacity and enthusiasm for cross-disciplinary collaboration; experience in collaborating with hospital-based researchers and medical practitioners; successful record of attracting external research funding; strong record of attracting postgraduate students and successful supervision of PhD students; demonstrated ability to deliver high impact teaching of undergraduate and postgraduate courses, and a willingness to develop course curricula and actively participate in teaching at all levels; demonstrated ability to communicate and interact effectively with students, staff and the community.

Desirable Selection Criteria: Experience in practical clinical ethics (eg. in a hospital context) would be an advantage. Research interests might include: the ethics of relationships between medical practice and industry; surgical ethics; the ethics of clinical training; ethical issues arising from the introduction of new technologies into surgical practice; ethical issues arising from neurosurgery and neuroscience.

Enquiries: A/Prof Catriona Mackenzie on 61+2+ 9850 8865 or email cmackenzie@scmp.mq.edu.au

Beware the online petitions that you sign

. . . as they may be spoofs set up to embarrass, as the recently elected Mayor of London Boris Johnson (Tory) has just demonstrated. Details here.

Money Made Clear

For UK readers, I highly recommend that you visit the FSA's Money Made Clear website. The site has terrific information on everything from starting a job to retirement, from buying a home to insurance and beyond. A truly invaluable resource.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Journal of Moral Philosophy 5(1) (2008)

The latest issue of the Journal of Moral Philosophy is now available. Please note that we have moved to Brill and our new website can be found here. (Our previously site with SAGE Publications is here.) All issues of the JMP can be downloaded from IngentaConnect here.

The contents are as follows:

JOURNAL OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY:
An International Journal of Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy

(ISSN 1740-4681)

Volume 5, Number 1 (2008)

ARTICLES

Henry S. Richardson, 'Our Call: The Constitutive Importance of the People's Judgment', pp. 3-29.

Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, 'Publicity and Egalitarian Justice', pp. 30-49.

Timothy Hall, 'Doing Harm, Allowing Harm, and Denying Resources', pp. 50-76.

Candace L. Upton, 'Virtue Ethics, Character, and Normative Receptivity', pp. 77-95.

Peter Dietsch, 'Distributive Lessons from Division of Labour', pp. 96-117.

Reginald Williams, 'Morality and Privilege', pp. 118-35.

REVIEW ARTICLE

Yoon Choi, 'Revisiting Kant's Ethics: Two Challenges to the Status Quo', pp. 137-49.

BOOK REVIEWS

Alasdair MacIntyre on Value and Context: The Nature of Moral and Political Knowledge, pp.
151-4.

Asger Sorensen on GE Moore's Ethcs: Good as Intrinsic Value, pp. 155-8.

Daniel Elstein on Value, Reality, and Desire, pp. 159-61.

Philip Cook on Moral Skepticisms, pp. 162-5.

Daniel Watts on Kierkegaard's Concept of Despair, pp. 166-8.

David B. Resnik on Stakes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts are Morally Imperative, pp. 169-70.

BOOKS RECEIVED (pp. 171-5).

All issues of the Journal of Moral Philosophy are available on IngentaConnect here. Subscription information can be found on our Brill website here.


Please direct all enquiries regarding article or discussion submissions to the Editor, Thom Brooks (Newcastle).

Please direct all enquiries regarding review articles and books for review to the Reviews Editor, Fabian Freyenhagen (Essex).

New tough guidelines to deal with cheating universities in next year's National Student Survey

Details here. Yet another reason why league tables harm the industry.

"Doomsday" is the worst movie ever made


. . . and I've made the mistake of seeing The Golden Compass, so this says quite a lot!


Doomsday stars Rhona Mitra, Bob Hoskins, Alexander Siddig, and Sean Pertwee, and it is set in 2033. The plot line is that a horrible virus takes hold in Glasgow, a virus that lacks a cure. The UK then builds a wall containing all of Scotland (!) to contain the virus, effectively sentencing everyone north of the border to death. However, by the year 2033 (or so), some people are seen walking around . . . and an outbreak of the virus just happens in London at this time, too. So a team is sent into Glasgow from London to find out why some locals survived, in hopes of finding a cure.


As such, the plot is not entirely original or gripping, but not quite worst movie ever status yet. Here are some reasons why this is the worst movie ever made:


(1) The virus spreads around Glasgow. If an area is to be sealed off by a wall, then why include all of Scotland?


(2) Why think that a well secure border with Scotland will stop infected persons going anywhere else? Why think they won't end up in Northern Ireland, Norway, or elsewhere? It is just assumed a border will keep everyone in the same spot.


(3) The border erected separating Scotland and England . . . had Newcastle upon Tyne in Scotland! I found this particularly shocking, not least as I watched the movie in Newcastle. The theatre had a collective *gasp* when that appeared on the screen. Yes, for a brief time, Newcastle has been part of Scotland, but it has been part of England for much longer. Indeed, Hadrian's Wall run salong the outside of the city (to its north), the Roman division between Scotland and England. If the movie's wall was to follow an ancient wall --- as the movie alleges --- then, surely, it would follow this famous wall . . . and Newcastle would be on the border. In England.


(4) When the last troops leave Glasgow for safety in England, a movie wants to hand over her child --- just shot in the head --- to the soldiers to be taken to safety with them. (4a) The soldiers claim not all can fit on the helicopter with a very young child and so one must get off --- this is implausible. (4b) One soldier decides to give up his seat (so that the injured child could sit on another solder's lap --- again refuting 4a) and is mauled immediately by his own choice by infected locals. Implausible again. Note: the soldiers were all running to safety from certain death.


(5) Scotland becomes a lawless anarchic place, yet there is running water, sewage treatment, and powerplants. Implausible. Oh, and lager in tins. Implausible.


(6) Within just thrity years, a group of Scots possess a castle . . . and reinstate feudalism complete with knights in shining armour, gladiator contests, and the like. Highly implausible.


I could keep going, but I think it is clear that the movie is pretty poor. As expected, there are decent graphics, but (as expected) the movie script is horrific with some of the worst, pseudo-macho dialogue I have ever heard. Please do not waste your money: watch anything else, even Iron Man, just please give this a miss!

Happy birthday, Fichte


Johnann Gottlieb Fichte was born today in 1762.

One gig I will definitely miss

You knew it had to happen: the New Kids on the Block have reunited ahead of a new tour. Sorry details here.

In case you don't have a pound coin on you . . .


. . . you can always use rupee (or, more like it, a 5 rupee coin). Many readers will know that in the United Kingdom lockers, supermarket carts, etc. are normally accessible if you use a pound coin (which is return to you once you return the key, cart, etc.). The coins are inserted into a slot and there are normally no coin dispensers for the unfortunate few who lack pound coins in their pockets. This was my sorry state just yesterday before I rummaged through my coin collection and found an Indian 5 rupee coin. I am pleased to report it worked like magic. So try it. If you have one . . .

Friday, May 16, 2008

Publishing advice can come in handy

. . . as noted by a recent commentator on my post regarding the worst ever publishing advice I have seen. Do let me know if readers have additional stories about vanity publishers.

It's (almost) the end of the world as we know it

Today we learn that over the past thirty years the number of wildlife has fallen dramatically. The BBC reports:

"Between a quarter and a third of the world's wildlife has been lost since 1970, according to data compiled by the Zoological Society of London. Populations of land-based species fell by 25%, marine by 28% and freshwater by 29%, it says. Humans are wiping out about 1% of all other species every year, and one of the "great extinction episodes" in the Earth's history is under way, it says. Pollution, farming and urban expansion, over-fishing and hunting are blamed." (Full story is here.)

When we read the more mainstream literature on environmental justice, one is almost shocked to find that virtually all discussion is anthropocentric. In other words, we divide the world into "ecological footprints" passed upon resources and human beings, but not wildlife; we consider views of "environmental citizenship" which concern human beings alone and their use of resources without anything for wildlife to do in order to become decent environmental citizens; and we also speak of sinks and "polluter pays principles" where our focus, again, is on human beings alone and their use of resources.

There are good reasons to focus on human beings. One real problem with climate change is its effect on human beings: coastal communities are increasingly under threat, drought and famine are more likely in new places, and tropical diseases are also spreading beyond their normal terrain. Moreover, in political terms, people seem more likely to support policy changes when human beings are the object of concern and not non-human animals or plants, however unfortunate.

And, yet, there seems more reason than ever to bring wildlife back in within our conceptions of justice. (I do not say this only because I am a Green Party supporter.) If the planet's wildlife is actually being eliminated on the scale reported, then we have a major global problem at hand today in need of immediate action.

I am not certain how we might best get our politicians and fellow citizens to support this cause to the appropriate degree. However, one first step we as philosophers might take is to begin by convincing each other: we should attempt to move beyond not simply anthropocentric views of justice --- especially when considering questions of global justice and environmental justice --- but we must include wildlife into our spheres of justice (as noted by Martha Nussbaum in her outstanding Frontiers of Justice, as have others, too).

Let us first include nature in our theories of environmental justice and convince each other for the need of including nature. We can then be best placed to provide more convincing arguments to our politicians and fellow citizens once we have hammered out such an account.

California lifts gay marriage ban

Details here.

Welcome to the blogosphere: Beyond Borders

Beyond Borders is a new blog by Megan Kime (Ph.D. candidate in Philosophy, Sheffield) working on global justice. Please take a look!

Thursday, May 15, 2008

New links

I would like to alert readers that I have added a variety of new links under resources on the right sidebar. If anyone has suggestions for what else I should add, then please let me know!

Data Protection and Parents: A Newish Frontier?

It is a commonplace that understandably concerned parents try to contact the lecturers of their children on several occasions. With the passing of the Data Protections Act in the UK, lecturers are now forbidden from discussing 'data' about students to others non-members of staff, including parents --- as reported today here by the BBC. All in all, I believe that the Act is a very good thing. Students should learn to take greater responsibility for themselves in the supportive realm of the university in preparation for life post-graduation. If the rumours are correct, then lecturers may expect to receive more emails and phone calls from concerned parents with students paying higher fees, further challenging strict adherence to the Act. It will be interesting to know how this situation may change if fees across the UK rise once more in the near future . . .

Leif Wenar on the Resource Curse

. . . as noted previously here, Wenar's piece is now being discussed over at Crooked Timber.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Want to improve the taste of wine?

. . . then change the music you listen to while drinking it. Curious news here.

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

A new face in the run for US President...?

Bob Barr (former Republican Congressman from Georgia) looks set to run as the Libertarian candidate. Details here.

James Ladyman on cuts to the UK's Arts & Humanities Research Council funding

Details here.

Monday, May 12, 2008

The Philosophers' Carnival

. . . is here.

The Electric Company is coming back. . .

. . . although it seems that "Easy Reader" will not be part of the team. (Details here.)

More reason to be wary with Facebook

Details here.

Wednesday, May 07, 2008

Broadview Editions Series: Calling all potential editors!

Broadview Press is seeking proposals to expand its list of philosophy titles in its acclaimed Broadview Editions series.

Each Broadview Edition is newly-edited, annotated, and includes an introduction, chronology, and bibliography. The series includes both works long acknowledged to be central to the Western philosophical tradition and works whose importance has been too frequently overlooked. A distinguishing feature of the series is the inclusion with each volume of primary source documents contemporaneous with the work. These materials help demonstrate the context out of which the work emerged. Broadview Editions are newly typeset, and each volume is produced on high-quality paper in trade format. Our aim is to produce the finest editions for the student and the general reader; they are often highly valued by scholars as well.

Current philosophy titles in the series include:

Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, edited by A.P. Martinich
Mary Astell, A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, edited by Patricia Springborg

Catherine Trotter Cockburn, Philosophical Writings, edited by Patricia Sheridan
Immanuel Kant, Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, edited by Lara Denis
John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, edited by Edward Alexander
Mary Wollstonecraft, The Vindications: The Rights of Men and The Rights of Woman, edited by D.L. Macdonald & Kathleen Scherf
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto, edited by L.M. Findlay

Titles scheduled for future publication include the following:
Robert Boyle, The Excellencies, edited by J.J. MacIntosh (June 2008)
John Locke, Two Treatises, edited by James Tully
Rene Descartes, Meditations, edited by Justin James Scurry
William James, Pragmatism, edited by Andrew Bailey

Proposals should include the following:
description of and rationale for the proposed whole, including a Table of Contents
discussion of the ways in which the project speaks to current teaching practices and scholarly interests
discussion of the project’s potential market
discussion of relevant textual and translation issues
overview of competing or complementary books
proposed date of completion
estimated total length of the manuscript (approximate word count, if possible)
list of non-textual items (charts, graphs, illustrations)
proposer’s CV

Complete guidelines are available at:

http://www.broadviewpress.com/pages.php?pageid=9

We encourage potential authors to be in touch with our Philosophy Editor, Alex Sager, to see if a particular book idea might make a good fit with our series. Alex can be reached at sager@broadviewpress.com

Friday, May 02, 2008

The Prime Minister is "disappointed" with yesterday's election results

. . . and rightly he should be, as Labour have their worst showing in 40 years. (Details here.)

UPDATE: So how bad an election is it really? Well, for the first time ever the Conservatives have just taken control of my local council, North Tyneside Council. (Details here.) This council has been a Labour stronghold for a generation, not unlike much of the Northeast. The problem with the current Government is that its party is failing not only to keep more recent councils, but it is losing and losing big in its traditional heartland.

If Boris Johnson is crowned the new (Conservative) mayor of London later today as widely predicted, then expect the Government to react. Will we see a Cabinet re-shuffle? Will we see defections? Thus far, change has not come from the Prime Minister, but from his backbenches. Expect a reaction, but perhaps to fend off more brazen challenges to the Government from its own party members. . . .

Why are papers in ethics longer than papers in other areas of philosophy?

Saul Smilansky has a terrific post on this topic here, at Ethics-Etc.

Thursday, May 01, 2008

The BBC exposes another real problem with Facebook

Details here.

The Brooks Blog Poll: Who should be the Democrat's nominee for US President?

Given the damaging campaign thus far between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, rumours are beginning to fly of new efforts to recruit Al Gore to run for US President. This month's Brooks Blog Poll is simple: who should the Democrats choose? The choices are:

Hillary Clinton
Al Gore
Barack Obama
Nancy Pelosi
Someone else

Results will be announced on 30th May.

How clean is your keyboard?

Worrying details here on bacteria levels found on office keyboards. Cleaning mine up now just in case. . . .

The Brooks Blog is split on whether to support a boycott of China

. . . with the latest Brooks Blog Poll results having support of a boycott narrowly edging past rejection of a boycott. The final results are:

In support of a boycott --- 15 votes (51%)
Not sure --- 3 votes (10%)
Against a boycott --- 12 votes (41%)

It will be interesting to see which states attend the opening ceremonies. . .

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Is Barack Obama's dream over?

See meditations71.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Nussbaum on "Liberty of Conscience" . . . with Bill Moyers

A terrific interview of Martha Nussbaum by Bill Moyers on her latest book, Liberty of Conscience.

Leif Wenar on "Property Rights and the Resource Curse"

. . . is in the current issue of Philosophy & Public Affairs and found here (subscription required). It is easily one of the most interesting articles I have read in a very long time.

Conference: Brave New World 2008

Brave New World 2008 - Postgraduate Conference in Political Theory
July 1st-2nd
University of Manchester

CALL FOR PAPERS - Deadline for submission of abstract: Wednesday April 30th 2008

Brave New World 2008, the Twelfth Annual Postgraduate Conference organised under the auspices of the Manchester Centre for Political Theory (MANCEPT), will take place on Tuesday 1st and Wednesday 2nd July 2008 at the University of Manchester.

Our guest speakers this year are Professor Jerry Gaus (University of Arizona) and Professor Cecile Fabre (University of Edinburgh).

The Brave New World conference series is now established as a leading international forum exclusively dedicated to the discussion of postgraduate research in political theory. The conference offers a great opportunity for postgraduates from many different countries and universities to share experiences, concerns and research interests, to exchange stimulating ideas and to make new friends - all in a financially accessible and informal setting. Participants will also have the chance to meet and talk about their work with eminent academics, including members of faculty from the University of Manchester as well as our guest speakers, who will deliver keynote addresses at the event. Guest speakers in previous years have included G.A. Cohen, Quentin Skinner, Onora O'Neill, Carole Pateman, Christopher Norris, Anne Philips, Bhikhu Parekh, Adam Swift, David Miller, Catriona McKinnon, John O'Neill, Brian Barry, Thomas Pogge, Jonathan Wolff, Ian Carter, Philippe Van Parijs, Andrew Williams, Michael Otsuka, Susan Mendus, Henry Shue, Peter Jones and Simon Caney.

Papers focusing on any area of political theory or political philosophy are welcome. If you would like to present a paper, please send a 300-word, anonymised abstract, including the title of the paper, to Brave.New.World@manchester.ac.uk, no later than 30th April 2008. Please also include in your email your name and institutional affiliation.

Please note that the conference is only partially subsidised - participants will be largely responsible for their own funding. For further details please contact Richard Child directly at Brave.New.World@manchester.ac.uk or check the Mancept Phd Blog at http://manceptphd.blogspot.com/ which we aim to update regularly with relevant information.

JOB: Birmingham

ONE-YEAR TEMPORARY LECTURESHIP IN PHILOSOPHY (Sept 2008-Aug 2009) UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM Closing date: 23 May

Applications are invited for the above position. The successful candidate will be expected to be able to teach at least two of: introductory history of modern philosophy; introductory epistemology; philosophy of mind; philosophy of psychology. They will have experience of teaching and assessment in philosophy at undergraduate level, and be expected to contribute to the administrative load and research culture of the Department.

For more details, please go to http://www.blogger.com/www.vacancies.bham.ac.uk/vacancies and enter the job reference C14632Q08.

For informal enquiries, please contact Helen Beebee on h.beebee@bham.ac.uk

JOB: Aberdeen

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer/Reader
Philosophy Department
University of Aberdeen
http://www.jobs.ac.uk/jobs/SK914/

Conference: Global Catastrophic Risks

Global Catastrophic Risks Conference, Oxford, 17-20 July 2008
Hosted by the Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford

The conference will bring together leading experts working in a number of different disciplines, but who all study possible catastrophes that would inflict serious damage to human well-being on a global scale. The conference will provide delegates with an overview of the key risks and the state of current thinking on each of them. It will also be a forum to bring together scholars from different disciplines to discuss the common problems and methodologies which affect the study of global catastrophic risks.

Topics treated will include:

Nuclear terrorism
Cosmic threats such as supernova, comets and asteroids
The long term fate of the universe
Pandemics
Nanotechnology
Ecological disasters which drastically reduce biodiversity
Climate change
Biotechnology and biosecurity
The cognitive biases associated with making judgements in the context of global catastrophic risk
Social collapse
The role of the insurance industry in mitigating and quantifying risk.

Visit http://www.global-catastrophic-risks.com for more detailed information about our speakers and their lectures and to register for the conference. The deadline for registration is Monday, 26 May, 2008.

The conference programme will be added to the website at the beginning of May. Any other enquiries should be directed to Victoria Bristow, the Conference Coordinator, at risks@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.

Best wishes,

Dr Nick Bostrom, Director, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford
Dr Rafaela Hillerbrand, Research Fellow, Future of Humanity Institute, University of Oxford

-------------------------------------------
The Future of Humanity Institute
The Future of Humanity Institute is a multidisciplinary Research Institute at the University of Oxford and is part of the Philosophy Faculty and the James Martin 21st Century School. FHI's mission is to bring excellent scholarship to bear on big picture questions for humanity. One of our research areas is global catastrophic risk.

-------------------------------------------
All enquiries regarding the conference should be directed to the Conference Coordinator, at risks@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.

Sven-Goran Eriksson to be sacked as Manchester City Manager

Details here. Eriksson will remain only until the end of the season. I am no fan of Eriksson, but this decision seems very ill judged.

Monday, April 28, 2008

Conference: Thick Concepts

THICK CONCEPTS
University of Kent, Canterbury, UK
3rd-5th July, 2009


Invited Speakers:
Jonathan Dancy (Reading; Texas, Austin)
Daniel Elstein (Leeds)
Allan Gibbard (Michigan, Ann Arbor)
Chris Hookway (Sheffield)
Tom Hurka (Toronto)
Simon Kirchin (Kent)
Jerry Levinson (Maryland)
Adrian Moore (Oxford)
Michael Smith (Princeton)
Alan Thomas (Kent)
Pekka Vayrynen (Leeds)
Nick Zangwill (Durham)

Supported by The Mind Association, and The University of Kent.

Many philosophers are familiar with the distinction between thin and thick concepts. Canonical examples of thin concepts include goodness and badness, rightness and wrongness. There are supposedly many examples of thick concepts, including cruelty, kindness, beauty, elegance, and curiosity. A number of issues arise in relation to thin and thick concepts. Many might be familiar with a key debate, namely how one should construe the relationship between thick concepts' supposed descriptive aspects and their supposed evaluative aspects. Do we have here two separable elements, or are they best characterized as essentially inseparable, resulting in a form of evaluation that is more specific than that found in thin concepts? There might also be some familiarity with other issues raised, for example the question of whether either sort of concept allows one to think and judge in ways that make evaluative knowledge (or something like it) a possibility and stable. But there are other issues that tend not to be as well known. For example, is there a difference in kind between thin and thick concepts or is there only a difference of degree? If the former, how might it be made out? Furthermore, although writers will often use thick ethical concepts as their main examples, it is commonly acknowledged that thick concepts crop up in many areas of everyday thought. Are there any key differences between, say, ethical and aesthetic thick concepts, differences in how they behave as thick concepts? Thick ethical concepts might have some degree of normativity, but how is this aspect related to the evaluative aspect and is it present in typical aesthetic concepts? And, in all of this, is there any difference of note between thick language, thick concepts, and (supposed) thick features?

There are many other relevant issues. What is notable about most of the questions concerning thick concepts is that there is relatively little written on them, despite the familiarity of the distinction between the thin and the thick. There are some articles here, and some discussions in books there. However, a few writers are beginning to investigate and study thin and thick concepts systematically, including some of the invited speakers. The principal aim of this conference is to bring together a number of philosophers of international repute who are interested in thick concepts so that they can both pursue some of the familiar debates, and raise and discuss new questions and ideas. It is envisaged that the discussions will be of interest to moral philosophers, aestheticians, epistemologists, metaphysicians, and philosophers of language amongst others.

Call for Papers:
There will be open sessions in which some non-invited speakers can present their work. Papers dealing with any aspect of thick concepts are encouraged. Submissions should be emailed to the conference organiser, Simon Kirchin, at:

thickconcepts@kent.ac.uk

by Monday 2nd February 2009. Submissions should be prepared for blind review, be a maximum of 2,000 words long, have an additional 200 word abstract at the start, and contain lines of thought presentable in 20 minutes. The author's name, affiliation, and email address should be sent in a separate file. Word or PDF files are preferred. Decisions will be
made by 30th April 2009. Postgraduates in particular are encouraged to apply, with a prize of 50 pounds available for the best postgraduate talk. (Speakers in the open sessions will not be reimbursed for any costs incurred.)

A conference website, with details about bookings, etc., will appear early in 2009.

Philosophers Anonymous on students trying to negotiate grades

A revealing snapshot here.

The Philosophers' Carnival

. . . is found here.

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Who needs males?


. . . or so it seems this is true for the Amazon Molly (pictured). The BBC reports here:


"A fish species, which is all female, has survived for 70,000 years without reproducing sexually, experts believe.

Scientists from the University of Edinburgh think the Amazon Molly may be employing special genetic survival "tricks" to avoid becoming extinct.

The species, found in Texas and Mexico, interacts with males of other species to trigger its reproduction process.


The offspring are clones of their mother and do not inherit any of the male's DNA [. . .]."

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

What is political leadership?

Well, there is Hillary Clinton's version for starters. The BBC News reports today:

"Hillary Clinton has issued a stark warning to Iran, as Democrats in Pennsylvania vote to choose between her and Barack Obama to run for president. She said the US would attack, and could "obliterate" Iran, if it launched a nuclear strike on Israel. Mrs Clinton has been playing up foreign affairs and leadership as she tries to make up ground in the Democratic race [. . .]." (Full story here.)

How then do we trumpet our "leadership" skills for Clinton? We claim we would "obliterate" a state for something it cannot do.

Iran does not yet have nuclear weapons according to anybody, however close or far they may be today. While Iran's leaders are certainly hostile, such hostile talk has been said before --- and it is completely inexcusable --- and there no genuine reason to believe that Iran plans to attach Israel or anyone else anytime soon. Thus, when Clinton claims that she would erase Iran from the map if it launched a nuclear attach on Israel, she is saying that --- as a "leader" --- she would do x in a fictional scenario that is not true.

Such a move is convenient on many levels. For one thing, we will never know what she would actually do because she will never be in a position to "obliterate" Iran if it launched such an attack anyway, even if she became President (and this looks increasingly unlikely). It is like my saying that I would give my life for our planet if the Martians invaded: I can sound "tough" with my rhetoric without any fear of having to be put to the test, as there are no Martians and, thus, no Martians planning an attack of Earth.

Of course, I warmly support the state of Israel and I find much of the talk coming from Iran about Israel deeply troubling. I do think talk about