DOCSLIB.ORG

Conceptual Responsibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conceptual Responsibility Conceptual Responsibility Trystan S. Goetze A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The University of Sheffield Faculty of Arts and Humanities Department of Philosophy August 2018 ii iii Abstract This thesis concerns our moral and epistemic responsibilities regarding our concepts. I argue that certain concepts can be morally, epistemically, or socially problematic. This is particularly concerning with regard to our concepts of social kinds, which may have both descriptive and evaluative aspects. Being ignorant of certain concepts, or possessing mistaken conceptions, can be problematic for similar reasons, and contributes to various forms of epistemic injustice. I defend an expanded view of a type of epistemic injustice known as ‘hermeneutical injustice’, where widespread conceptual ignorance puts members of marginalized groups at risk of their distinctive and important experiences lacking intelligible interpretations. Together, I call the use of problematic concepts or the ignorance of appropriate concepts ‘conceptual incapacities’. I discuss the conditions under which we may be responsible for our conceptual incapacities on several major theories of responsibility, developing my own account of responsibility in the process, according to which we are responsible for something just in case it was caused by one of our reasons-responsive constitutive psychological traits. However, I argue that regardless of whether we are responsible for something, we may still be required to take responsibility for it. Whether or not we are responsible for our conceptual incapacities, we are required to reflect critically upon them in a variety of scenarios that throw our use of those concepts into question. I consider the method of conceptual engineering — the philosophical critique and revision of concepts — as one way we might take responsibility for our concepts, or at least, defer that duty to experts. But, this top-down model of conceptual revision is insufficient. Using a pragmatist model of the social epistemology of morality, I argue that conceptual inquiry is a social endeavour in which we are all required to participate, to some degree. Word Count (including notes, excluding front and end matter): 70,746 iv v Table of Contents Abstract .............................................................................................................................................................. iii Acknowledgements .................................................................................................................................... vii Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................1 1. Wrongful Concepts ................................................................................................................................ 11 1.1. Concepts ................................................................................................................................................ 14 1.1.1. A Working Account of Concepts ......................................................................................... 14 1.1.2. Three Theories of Concepts ................................................................................................. 16 1.2. Thick Concepts — Ethical and Social ....................................................................................... 23 1.3. Conceptual Wrongs .......................................................................................................................... 31 1.4. Objections ............................................................................................................................................. 40 1.4.1. Why Concepts? ........................................................................................................................... 40 1.4.2. Impossible Demands? ............................................................................................................. 41 1.4.3. Thought Police? ......................................................................................................................... 43 1.5. Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 46 2. Conceptual Ignorance and Epistemic Injustice ..................................................................... 47 2.1. Conceptual Ignorance and Conceptual Non-competence................................................ 47 2.2. Structures of Conceptual Ignorance: Hermeneutical Injustice ..................................... 51 2.2.1. Collective Resources and Dissenting Communities ................................................... 55 2.2.2. The Harms of Hermeneutical Injustice ........................................................................... 59 2.2.3. Global and Local Hermeneutical Economies ................................................................ 63 2.3. Wilful Conceptual Ignorance and Non-competence .......................................................... 73 2.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................................... 79 3. Responsibility for Conceptual Incapacities ............................................................................. 81 3.1. Three Senses of Responsibility ................................................................................................... 82 3.2. Voluntarism ......................................................................................................................................... 89 3.3. The Deep Self View ........................................................................................................................... 95 3.4. The Rational Relations View ........................................................................................................ 98 3.5. Psychologism ................................................................................................................................... 104 3.6. A Hybrid View: Reasonable Psychologism .......................................................................... 114 3.7. Responsibility for Conceptual Incapacities ........................................................................ 123 3.8. Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 130 4. Conceptual Answerability .............................................................................................................. 131 4.1. Taking Responsibility and Being Responsible .................................................................. 132 4.2. Bad Luck and Penumbral Agency ........................................................................................... 137 4.3. Moral and Epistemic Answerability ....................................................................................... 148 vi 4.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 157 5. Taking Responsibility for Our Concepts ................................................................................. 159 5.1. Occasions to Reflect ....................................................................................................................... 160 5.2. Philosophical Reflection .............................................................................................................. 171 5.3. Conceptual Inquiry ........................................................................................................................ 183 5.4. Summary ............................................................................................................................................ 197 Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................................... 199 Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................ 205 vii Acknowledgements I entered this degree without a clear idea of what I wanted to achieve. However, re- reading my initial proposal, there remains a consistent theme: the ethics of the ways we interpret our experiences. I am grateful to the admissions committees at Sheffield for having faith that my confused thoughts at that early stage might end up producing something worthwhile. I hope I have lived up to that expectation. I want first of all to say thank you to everyone in the philosophy department at Sheffield. I cannot think of a more supportive environment for writing a philosophy thesis. The two people here who have had the greatest impact on my work are, of course, my supervisors, Miranda Fricker and Paul Faulkner. I thank Miranda for her always encouraging remarks that helped me to build up the main ideas of the project. I thank Paul for applying his critical eye to press me to be more clear and precise on a great many points. For their feedback on my work in both written and spoken forms at Sheffield, I also want to specifically thank Ashley Pennington, Charlie Crerar, Simon Barker, Graham Bex-Priestley, Lewis Brooks, Alexandre Duval, Andreas Bunge, James Lewis, Matt
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Political Sociology and Anthropology of Evil: Tricksterology
    “Because evil is a term fraught with religious overtones, it tends to be under- theorized in our largely secular contemporary culture. Yet something like evil continues to exist, arguably more forcefully today than ever, so the authors of this timely and important book assert. They argue boldly that understanding the continued presence of evil in the modern world requires reconceiving evil through the mythical figure of the trickster, a cross-cultural symbol that repre- sents the perennial temptation to ignore the inherent limits of human thought and action. A wide ranging study that draws on multiple disciplinary sources, Horvath and Szakolczai illustrate forcefully how contemporary efforts to maximize productivity across all sectors of our social order violates the ethos of limits, and only liberates further the forces of destruction. In an age of increasingly mindless (and therefore runaway) processes, we would do well to heed the message of this significant study.” – Gilbert Germain, Professor of Political Thought at the University of Prince Edward Island, Canada “A complex and timely meditation on the nature of evil in human societies, reaching back into the distant past – while not all will agree with its methods or conclusions, this book offers provocative ideas for consideration by anthro- pologists, philosophers, and culture historians.” – David Wengrow, Professor of Comparative Archaeology, University College London, UK “This book offers an original and thought-provoking engagement with a problem for which we still lack adequate perspectives: the disastrous experience of advanced modernity with what we can provisionally call demonic power.” – Johann Arnason, Emeritus Professor of Sociology, La Trobe University, Australia “Horvath and Szakolczai provide a remarkable service in bringing the neglec- ted figure of the trickster into the spotlight.
    [Show full text]
  • The Practical Origins of Ideas
    OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi The Practical Origins of Ideas Genealogy as Conceptual Reverse-Engineering MATTHIEU QUELOZ 1 OUP CORRECTED AUTOPAGE PROOFS – FINAL, 19/1/2021, SPi 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Matthieu Queloz 2021 The moral rights of the author have been asserted First Edition published in 2021 Impression: 1 Some rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, for commercial purposes, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. This is an open access publication, available online and distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial – No Derivatives 4.0 International licence (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), a copy of which is available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. The pre-press of this publication was supported by the Swiss National Science Foundation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of this licence should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press 198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Control Number: 2020951579 ISBN 978–0–19–886870–5 DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198868705.001.0001 Printed and bound in the UK by TJ Books Limited Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
    [Show full text]
  • ! ! ! Alienistmagazine5.Indd
    1 2 3 4 5 Michael Rowland, from the series SPACE COW (2019) 6 7 8 Political power comes into being through the “grant,” by an absolutist authority, of “individual agency” – of socalled freedom of will – which requires a certain theatre, a performance on the part of the subject acknowledging that such a freedom is indeed within the grant of power in the fi rst place. This performance takes the form of an exchange in which a capital authority over life & death is abrogated into political subjectivity. By such dialectical sleight of hand, power indeed asserts its claim over, & obtains at a discount, the feudal rights to the freedom of the individual, & to the idea of freedom as such. Whatever thus presents itself as exempted or excluded from the domain of the political, is so solely upon this foundation. For this reason we must seek the alienation of the subject not in some social imposition from which it may one day be freed by a political act, but in its very ontology. The individual subject is itself nothing other than the signifi er of a constitutive alienation & the embodiment of an insidious contract from which there is no release. This is the true meaning of subjectivity, compromised at birth, weaned upon the most Oedipal of bad faiths. It bears the sign of the asymmetry of power inscribed upon its brow & dreams constantly of becoming its opposite. And from this stems every impulse & logic of resistance. 9 10 THE ALIENIST TENDENCY A breach has been made with the past, bringing into perspective new aspects of alienation: the morphology of a dead technical civilisation in the fi ctional process of resurrection! And we are returning again to the “honesty of thought & feeling”? This holographic world is being shaken out of its torpor by a four-billion- year-old technology.
    [Show full text]
  • Remembering and Forgetting in Ancient Greek Literature Thesis
    Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs Tracing the Establishment of Political Society: Remembering and Forgetting in Ancient Greek Literature Thesis How to cite: Raudnitz, Sophie (2018). Tracing the Establishment of Political Society: Remembering and Forgetting in Ancient Greek Literature. PhD thesis The Open University. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 2017 The Author https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Version: Version of Record Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21954/ou.ro.0000d19a Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk Sophie Elizabeth Raudnitz Tracing the establishment of political society: remembering and forgetting in ancient Greek literature A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Classical Studies, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences The Open University October 2017 Abstract This thesis explores the connection between memory and the formation of political society in ancient Greek literature. It is grounded in the notion that memory is a political process: its narratives are shaped by the social and political groups to which we belong. In turn, what and how we remember plays a role in shaping and reshaping those same groups. The thesis examines three ‘memory texts’: the Odyssey, which contains a moment in which forgetting is tied explicitly to political progress; the Trojan Women, a play driven by the urge to remember and memorialise as a way of trying to retain political identity; and the Theaetetus, which not only contains the first known attempt to create a model of memory but also ‘remembers’ the Apology.
    [Show full text]
  • Lists of the Virtues
    Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, XVII, 2015, 2, pp. 74-93 Lists of the Virtues Sophie-Grace Chappell The Open University Philosophy sophie-grace.chappell ABSTRACT Virtuous action is action according to the virtues. But which are the virtues? What might be our basis for a list of virtues? In this paper I consider some of the possible answers that have been offered, reviewing material from Plato and Aristotle and the New Testament, also from Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Linda Zagzebski. KEYWORDS Virtue, Plato, Aristotle, naturalism, eudaimonism, exemplarism, Philippa Foot, Rosalind Hursthouse, Alasdair MacIntyre, Linda Zagzebski. I Virtue ethics tells us to act “in accordance with virtue, by which I mean contrary to no virtue.”1But which are the virtues? Broadly, we might agree with Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics 1106b36that nothing can be a moral virtue unless it is “a disposition of choice”, a character-trait that works to transmit our values into our actions; but consensus looks harder to come by when we try to get beyond this rather simple and obvious necessary condition. Or perhaps we will not even get this far: Hume notoriously defines a virtue as any trait the disinterested contemplation of which produces in us “the pleasing sentiment of approbation”.2As is well-known, this seems to capture a much wider class of traits than Aristotle’s necessary condition does. Beyond these points, one obvious problem for virtue ethics is the relativist worry wherethe virtue ethicist gets her list of virtues from: “what historical enquiry discloses is the situatedness of all enquiry, the extent to which what are taken to be the standards of truth and of rational justification in the contexts of 1 P.
    [Show full text]
  • New Natural Law Theory and Anti-Theoretical Ethics
    On not saying more than we know: New Natural Law Theory and anti-theoretical ethics Sobre no afirmar más de lo que sabemos: la Nueva Escuela del Derecho Natural desde una perspectiva ética anti-teórica Sophie-Grace CHAPPELL Profesora de Filosofía del Derecho. The Open University [email protected] RECIBIDO: 05/10/2020 / ACEPTADO: 13/12/2020 Abstract: I say something about the relationship of Finn- Resumen: Este trabajo, que constituye una reflexión per- is’s work in ethics to my own, then summarise and crit- sonal sobre de la aportación de Finnis en el campo de la icise Finnis’s new natural law theory. My own view is an ética, presenta un resumen acerca de, y una crítica hacia, anti-theoretical view: there is no reason to expect any la nueva escuela de la ley natural del autor. Desde mi pro- neatly systematic ethical theory to be true just because it pia perspectiva antiteorética, no hay razón para esperar is neatly systematic. The doubts that naturally arise about que una teoría ética exquisitamente sistemática sea ver- new natural law theory are mostly of this nature: they are dadera por el sólo hecho de que exhiba una pulcra orde- based on suspicion of schematisms. I close with some nación sistemática. Las dudas que naturalmente surgen positive suggestions about resources for ethics, in particu- alrededor la nueva teoría del derecho natural son, en su lar «the common understanding of humanity». mayoría, de esta naturaleza: se sospechosa de incurre en esquematismos. Concluyo con algunas sugerencias positi- vas sobre los recursos para la ética, con mención particular para el «entendimiento común de la humanidad».
    [Show full text]
  • Immortality and the Philosophy of Death (1St Edition)
    Immortality and the Philosophy of Death Immortality and the Philosophy of Death Edited by Michael Cholbi London • New York Published by Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd Unit A, Whitacre Mews, 26-34 Stannary Street, London SE11 4AB www.rowmaninternational.com Rowman & Littlefield International Ltd. is an affiliate of Rowman & Littlefield 4501 Forbes Boulevard, Suite 200, Lanham, Maryland 20706, USA With additional offices in Boulder, New York, Toronto (Canada), and Plymouth (UK) www.rowman.com Selection and editorial matter © Michael Cholbi 2016 Copyright in individual chapters is held by the respective chapter authors. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without written permission from the publisher, except by a reviewer who may quote passages in a review. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN: HB 978-1-78348-383-9 PB 978-1-78348-384-6 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Immortality and the philosophy of death / edited by Michael Cholbi. pages cm Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-1-78348-383-9 (cloth : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-78348-384-6 (pbk. : alk. paper) — ISBN 978-1-78348-385-3 (electronic) 1. Death. 2. Immortality. I. Cholbi, Michael, editor. BD444.I46 2015 128’.5—dc23 2015032338 ∞ ™ The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard
    [Show full text]
  • Gilbert Ryle and the Ethical Impetus for Know-How
    JOURNAL FOR THE HISTORY OF ANALYTICAL PHILOSOPHY GILBERT RYLE AND THE ETHICAL IMPETUS FOR KNOW-HOW VOLUME 8, NUMBER 1 MATT DouGHERTY EDITOR IN CHIEF MARCUS ROSSBERG, UnIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT This paper aims to shed light on an underexplored aspect of EDITORIAL BOARD Gilbert Ryle’s interest in the notion of “knowing-how”. It is ar- ANNALISA COLIVA, UC IRVINE gued that in addition to his motive of discounting a certain theory HENRY JACKMAN, YORK UnIVERSITY of mind, his interest in the notion also stemmed (and perhaps FREDERIQUE JANSSEN-LaURet, UnIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER stemmed more deeply) from two ethical interests: one concern- KEVIN C. KLEMENt, UnIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS ing his own life as a philosopher and whether the philosopher CONSUELO PRETI, THE COLLEGE OF NEW JERSEY has any meaningful task, and one concerning the ancient issue of ANTHONY SKELTON, WESTERN UnIVERSITY whether virtue is a kind of knowledge. It is argued that Ryle saw MARK TEXTOR, KING’S COLLEGE LonDON know-how as crucial in both respects and, also, that he continued AUDREY YAP, UnIVERSITY OF VICTORIA to be interested in these ethical issues throughout his career. RICHARD ZACH, UnIVERSITY OF CALGARY EDITOR FOR SPECIAL ISSUES SANDRA LaPOINte, MCMASTER UnIVERSITY REVIEW EDITORS SEAN MORRIS, METROPOLITAN STATE UnIVERSITY OF DenVER SANFORD SHIEH, WESLEYAN UnIVERSITY DESIGN AND LAYOUT DaNIEL HARRIS, HUNTER COLLEGE KEVIN C. KLEMENt, UnIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS ISSN: 2159-0303 JHAPONLINE.ORG © 2020 MATT DouGHERTY GILBERT RYLE AND THE ETHICAL IMPETUS FOR we are clear about what knowing how to do things consists in— KNOW-HOW for instance, what knowing how to ride a bicycle or knowing how to care for a garden consists in—we will see that a person’s MATT DouGHERTY intelligence is “as directly exhibited in some of his doings as it is in some of his thinking” (ibid., 5).
    [Show full text]
  • Natural Law Ethics Edited by Tom Angier Frontmatter More Information
    Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-42263-5 — The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Ethics Edited by Tom Angier Frontmatter More Information THE CAMBRIDGE COMPANION TO NATURAL LAW ETHICS Natural law ethics centres on the idea that ethical norms derive from human nature. The field has seen a remarkable revival since the millennium, with new work in Aristotelian metaphysics complementing innovative applied work in bioethics, economics and political theory. Starting with three chapters on the history of natural law ethics, this volume moves on to various twentieth-century theoretical innovations in the tradition, and then to natural law as embedded in the three Abrahamic faiths. It closes with sections on applied natural law ethics and the challenges and prospects for natural law ethics in the twenty-first century. Uniquely interdisciplinary and written without technical jargon, the book will be of great interest to students and researchers in philosophy, theology, political theory and economics. They will find this the go-to resource for cutting-edge thinking in natural law ethics. tom angier is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at the University of Cape Town. In addition to many journal papers, his recent publications include two edited volumes: Virtue Ethics and The History of Evil, both published in 2018. He is the author of Natural Law Theory in Cambridge’s Elements in Ethics series (forthcoming). © in this web service Cambridge University Press www.cambridge.org Cambridge University Press 978-1-108-42263-5 — The Cambridge Companion to Natural Law Ethics Edited by Tom Angier Frontmatter More Information other volumes in the series of cambridge companions ABELARD Edited by jeffrey e.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cognitive Gain from Reading Literary Fiction As Literature
    Open Research Online The Open University’s repository of research publications and other research outputs Reading Between The Lines: An Account Of The Cognitive Gain From Literary Fiction Thesis How to cite: Phelan, Jonathan (2018). Reading Between The Lines: An Account Of The Cognitive Gain From Literary Fiction. PhD thesis The Open University. For guidance on citations see FAQs. c 2017 The Author https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Version: Version of Record Link(s) to article on publisher’s website: http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.21954/ou.ro.0000d07c Copyright and Moral Rights for the articles on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. For more information on Open Research Online’s data policy on reuse of materials please consult the policies page. oro.open.ac.uk Reading Between the Lines: an account of the cognitive gain from literary fiction. ‘It is only fair, then, that poetry should return, if she can make her defence in lyric or other metre.’ Plato Republic 607d Jon Phelan PhD thesis Philosophy The Open University September 2017 [1] Abstract My thesis defends the cognitive value of a close reading of literary fiction which I believe has been overlooked in the philosophical literature. I first outline an account of literary fiction in terms of the standard features of both literature and fiction. The diverse philosophical positions which hold that reading literary fiction ‘improves the mind’ attribute some significance to literariness but do not say how the literary features of literary fiction help to develop cognitive gain.
    [Show full text]
  • Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics
    Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics XVII, 2015, 2 www.units.it/etica ISSN 1825- 5167 Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics XVII, 2015, 2 MONOGRAPHICA I Current Issues in Virtue Ethics Alessio Vaccari Guest Editor’s Preface p. 7 Michael Slote Saucers of Mud: Why Sympathy and Altruism p. 12 Require Empathy Julia Driver Virtue and Moral Deference p. 27 Gopal Sreenivasan A plea for moral deference p. 41 Lorraine Besser-Jones Two Objections to Virtue Ethics p. 60 Sophie-Grace Chappell Lists of the virtues p. 74 Julia Annas Virtue, Skill and Vice p. 94 Caterina Botti Feminine Virtues or Feminist Virtues? The p. 107 Debate on Care Ethics Revisited MONOGRAFICA II The Legacy of Bernard William’s Shame and Necessity Alessandra Fussi Guest Editor’s Preface p. 153 Alessandra Fussi Williams’s Defense of Shame as a Moral Emo- p. 163 tion Alba Montes Sánchez Shame and the Internalized Other p. 180 David Roochnik Courage and Shame: Aristotle’s Nicomachean p. 200 Ethics III.6-9 2 Laura Candiotto Aporetic State and Extended Emotions: the p. 219 Shameful Recognition of Contradictions in the Socratic Elenchus VARIA Walter Block The Trolley: a Libertarian Analysis p. 237 Irene Dal Poz The Concept of Ethos: Aristotle and the Contem- p. 252 porary Ethical Debate Pierpaolo Marrone Condividere relazioni: riflessioni leibniziane a p. 283 artire dall’esperienza dei social Information on the Journal/ p. 293 Informazioni sulla rivista 3 4 MONOGRAPHICA I Current Issues in Virtue Ethics 5 6 Etica & Politica / Ethics & Politics, XVII, 2015, 2, pp. 7-11 Guest Editor’s Preface Alessio Vaccari Sapienza Università di Roma Dipartimento di Filosofia [email protected] Virtue ethics was originally presented by its proponents as a rather special normative conception that was radically different from that of what was known as the ethics of duty.1 There were at least two important thematic lines behind this claim.
    [Show full text]
  • Sophie Grace Chappell: Curriculum Vitae January 2015
    Sophie Grace Chappell: Curriculum Vitae January 2015 1. Personal Details Full name: Christian Sophia Grace Chappell Publishing name: Sophie Grace Chappell1 Gender: Female Date of birth: 30.11.1964 Present Position: Professor of Philosophy, The Open University (since May 2006) Director, The Open University Ethics Centre 2. Higher Education 1984-1988 Magdalen College, Oxford. Anne Shaw Classical Scholarship I, Honour Moderations in Latin and Greek (March 1986) II.1, Final Honour School in Literae Humaniores (June 1988) June 1992 Ph.D., Edinburgh University: “Aristotle and Augustine on the Voluntary”. Supervisors: Professor James Mackey (Divinity), Dr Dory Scaltsas (Philosophy). 3. Other posts held 1991-94 Junior Research Fellow, Wolfson College, Oxford 1992-94 Lecturer in Philosophy, Merton College, Oxford 1994-96 Lecturer in Philosophy, University of East Anglia 1996-98 Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Manchester 1998-2002 Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Dundee 2001-02 AHRB Fellow and Visiting Scholar in the School of Latin and Greek, University of St Andrews 2002-2005 Senior Lecturer in Philosophy, University of Dundee 2003 (Jan.-Apr.) Visiting Professor in Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada Since 2006 Honorary Life Member of the Scots Philosophical Association 2005-2006 Reader in Philosophy, University of Dundee 2005-6 Director, the AHRC Scottish Ethics Network 2005 (Sept.-Dec.) AHRC Fellow and Faculty Fellow, Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities, University of Edinburgh 2006 (Jan.-May)
    [Show full text]