DOCSLIB.ORG

Johann Frick

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

JOHANN FRICK Department of Philosophy (609) 258-9494 (office) 212 1879 Hall (609) 258-1502 (fax) Princeton University [email protected] Princeton, New Jersey 08544- http://scholar.princeton.edu/jfrick 1006 AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION Normative Ethics; Practical Ethics (including Bioethics); Political Philosophy. AREAS OF COMPETENCE Metaethics; Causation; Philosophy of Action; Wittgenstein. EMPLOYMENT 2020- Associate Professor in the Department of Philosophy and the Present Center for Human Values, Princeton University. 2015 – Assistant Professor in the Department of Philosophy and the 2020 Center for Human Values, Princeton University. Feb 2014 – Instructor in the Department of Philosophy and the Center for 2015 Human Values, Princeton University. EDUCATION 2008 - 2014 Ph.D. in Philosophy, Harvard University. • Dissertation: “Making People Happy, Not Making Happy People: A Defense of the Asymmetry Intuition in Population Ethics”; Committee: T.M. Scanlon, Frances Kamm, Derek Parfit. 2005 - 2008 BPhil degree in Philosophy, Merton College, Oxford University. • Distinction in both the written examinations and the BPhil thesis. • BPhil thesis: “Morality and the Problem of Foreseeable Non- Compliance”; advisor: Derek Parfit. • Specialization in Moral Philosophy (tutor: Ralph Wedgwood); Political Philosophy (tutors: Joseph Raz and John Tasioulas); Wittgenstein (tutor: Stephen Mulhall). 2006 - 2007 Visiting student at the École Normale Supérieure (ENS) in Paris. • Courses and seminars at the ENS, the Institut Jean Nicod, and the Collège de France; tutor: François Recanati. 2002 - 2005 BA (Hons.) degree in Philosophy, Politics & Economics, St. John’s College, Oxford University. • First Class Honours in the Final Examinations (June 2005). • Distinction in the Preliminary Examination (June 2003). FELLOWSHIPS, AWARDS, AND HONORS Richard Stockton Bicentennial Preceptorship, Princeton University (2018-2021), awarded annually to one or two assistant professors from all the humanities and social sciences. Behrman Faculty Fellow with the Princeton Humanities Council (2020-2022). One-day workshop “Risk, Luck, and Future People” on my work, organized by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, Harvard University (April 19, 2019). Commentators: John Goldberg, Caspar Hare, Rebecca Henderson, Priyanka Menon, Gina Schouten, Lucas Stanczyk. Two-day workshop “Contractualism, Risk and Population Ethics” on my work, organized by the Einstein Ethics Group, Berlin, led by Prof. R.J. Wallace (Berkeley), (October 6-7, 2017). Commentators: Christoph Fehige, Tim Henning, Ulrike Heuer, Erasmus Mayr, Kirsten Meyer, Lukas Meyer, Véronique Munoz-Dardé, Juri Viehoff, Tatjana Višak. Winner of the American Philosophical Association’s Gregory Kavka/University of California, Irvine Prize in Political Philosophy, for the best paper in political philosophy published in the last two years, for my paper “Contractualism and Social Risk”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 43.3 (2015): 175-223. Visiting fellow at the Centre for Ethics, University of Toronto (fall 2017). Emily and Charles Carrier Prize for outstanding doctoral thesis on a subject in social, political, or moral philosophy, Harvard University, Department of Philosophy, 2015. Dissertation Completion Fellowship, Harvard University (2013-14). Edmond J. Safra Graduate Prize Fellowship in Ethics, Harvard University (2011-12). Full scholarship to attend the Workshop on Measurement and Ethical Evaluation of Health Inequalities, Fondation Brocher, Geneva (June 2010). Francis Bowen Prize, Harvard University, “conferred annually for the best essay upon a subject in moral or political philosophy” for my paper “What We Owe to the Hypocrites: Contractualism and the Speaker-Relativity of Justification” (June 2010). College Prize in recognition of outstanding performance in the BPhil examinations, Merton College, Oxford (July 2008). Postgraduate Award of the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council (2005-08). Gordon Baker Prize in Philosophy, St. John’s College, for best undergraduate student in philosophy, Oxford (July 2005). 2 Philosophy Graduate Scholarship at Merton College, Oxford (declined) and European Trust Scholarship at Trinity College, Cambridge (declined), (March 2005). Scholar of the Studienstiftung (German National Academic Foundation), which supports the top 0.3% of German university students (2003-08). PUBLICATIONS “Context-Dependent Betterness and the Mere Addition Paradox”, in Ethics and Existence: The Legacy of Derek Parfit, edited by Jeff McMahan, Tim Campbell, James Goodrich, and Ketan Ramakrishnan (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming). “Morality and Institutional Detail in the Law of Torts: Reflections on Goldberg and Zipursky's Recognizing Wrongs” (with Tom Dougherty), Journal of Law and Philosophy (forthcoming). “Conditional Reasons and the Procreation Asymmetry”, Philosophical Perspectives: Ethics, Volume 33.2 (2020). “National Partiality, Immigration, and the Problem of Double-Jeopardy” in David Sobel, Peter Vallentyne, and Steven Wall (eds.), Oxford Studies in Political Philosophy, Volume 6 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), pp. 151-182. “Prioritarisme” (with Ekédi Mpondo-Dika) in Patrick Savidan (ed.), Dictionnaire des inégalités et de la justice sociale (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2018). “Zukünftige Personen und Schuld ohne Opfer” (“Future Persons and Victimless Wrongdoing”) in Markus Rüther and Sebastian Muders (eds.) Worauf es ankommt: Derek Parfits praktische Philosophie in der Diskussion (Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag, 2017). • With a response by Derek Parfit. “On the Survival of Humanity, Canadian Journal of Philosophy, 47.2-3 (2017): 344- 367. • Reprinted in Rahul Kumar (ed.) Ethics and Future Generations (New York: Routledge Press, 2017). “What We Owe to Hypocrites: Contractualism and the Speaker-Relativity of Justification”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 44.4 (2016): 223-265. • Winner of Harvard University’s Francis Bowen Prize, conferred annually for the best essay upon a subject in moral or political philosophy”. “Contractualism and Social Risk”, Philosophy & Public Affairs 43.3 (2015): 175-223. • Winner of the American Philosophical Association’s Gregory Kavka/University of California, Irvine Prize in Political Philosophy, 2017. “Treatment versus Prevention in the Fight Against HIV/AIDS and the Problem of Identified versus Statistical Lives” in Glenn Cohen, Norman Daniels, and Nir Eyal (eds.), Identified versus Statistical Lives: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015). 3 “Uncertainty and Justifiability to Each Person: Response to Fleurbaey and Voorhoeve”, in Nir Eyal, Samia Hurst, Ole Norheim and Dan Wikler (eds.), Inequalities in Health: Concepts, Measures, and Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2013). “Prioritarisme”. With Ekédi Mpondo-Dika. In V. Bourdeau and R. Merrill (eds.), Dictionnaire de théorie politique (2008): http://www.dicopo.fr/spip.php?article100. UNDER REVIEW OR IN PREPARATION “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”. (R&R at Ethics). “Chancy Causation and the Problem of Aggregate Events”. (R&R at Philosophical Studies). Morality Behind a Natural Veil of Ignorance: Risk, Rights, and Responsibility. (In preparation for Oxford University Press). “The Procreation Asymmetry and the Specter of Antinatalism”. (In preparation). “Speciesism and Acceptable Lives” (with Adam Lerner). (In preparation). Review of Samuel Scheffler’s Why Worry about Future Generations? In preparation for Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. WORK IN PROGRESS “Risk, Responsibility, and Aggregate Effects”. “A Puzzle About Risk and Compensation”. “Self-Knowledge and Structural Rationality”. “Counterfactual Moral Luck”. “Permissible Partiality to Self and the Concept of Wronging a Person”. TALKS AND PRESENTATIONS “TBD”, Moral Philosophy Seminar, Oxford University (scheduled). “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”, Departmental Colloquium, UC Davis (January 2021). “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”, Departmental Colloquium, Tufts University (October 2020). “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”, Ethics and Epistemology Group, Fordham University (October 2020). 4 “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”, Departmental Colloquium, NYU (Feb 2020). “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”, Departmental Colloquium, UC Berkeley (Feb 2020). “Immigration, National Partiality, and the Problem of Double-Jeopardy”, Departmental Colloquium, USC (Jan 2020). “Immigration, National Partiality, and the Problem of Double-Jeopardy”, Departmental Colloquium, UNC-Chapel Hill (Jan 2020). “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”, Departmental Colloquium, Harvard University (December 2019). “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”, Departmental Colloquium, University of Southern California (October 2019). “Self-Knowledge and Structural Rationality”, Berlin Workshop on Moral and Political Philosophy (July 2019). “Immigration, National Partiality, and the Problem of Double-Jeopardy”, Oxford Partiality Workshop, University of Oxford (July 2019). “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”, Einstein Ethics Group, Berlin, led by Prof. R.J. Wallace (July 2019). “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”, Centre for Ethics, Philosophy and Public Affairs, University of St. Andrews (May 2019). “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”, Centre for Ethics, Law, and Public Affairs, University of Warwick (May 2019). “Dilemmas, Luck, and the Two Faces of Morality”, ‘The Practical, The Political,
Recommended publications
  • Note: This Is a Pre-Print, Draft Manuscript of Toby Svoboda, Duties Regarding Nature: a Kantian Environmental Ethic (Routledge, 2016)

    Note: This Is a Pre-Print, Draft Manuscript of Toby Svoboda, Duties Regarding Nature: a Kantian Environmental Ethic (Routledge, 2016)

    Note: This is a pre-print, draft manuscript of Toby Svoboda, Duties Regarding Nature: A Kantian Environmental Ethic (Routledge, 2016). If citing, please consult the published version, which contains substantial revisions. Duties Regarding Nature: A Kantian Environmental Ethic Draft of Complete Manuscript Toby Svoboda Table of Contents • Introduction: Kant and Environmental Ethics • Chapter 1: Traditional Approaches to Environmental Ethics • Chapter 2: Kantian Approaches to Animal Ethics and Environmental Ethics • Chapter 3: Indirect Duties, Moral Perfection, and Virtuous Dispositions • Chapter 4: Teleology and Non-Human Flourishing • Chapter 5: A Kantian Environmental Virtue Ethic • Conclusion: Advantages of the Kantian Environmental Virtue Ethic • References Introduction, 1 Introduction: Kant and Environmental Ethics Why Environmental Ethics? I have set out in this book to develop and defend a Kantian approach to environmental ethics. This immediately raises a question: why should we want an environmental ethic at all, much less a Kantian one? Human beings face serious environmental problems, such as those associated with climate change, loss of biodiversity, and air pollution.1 It seems clear that these problems have various ethical dimensions, given that they threaten to increase human mortality rates, cause substantial harm to present and future generations, and exacerbate socio-economic injustice.2 Moreover, the impact of human activities on the environment, such as ocean acidification due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse
  • 1 PHI 523/ CHV524: Topics in Population Ethics SEMINAR

    1 PHI 523/ CHV524: Topics in Population Ethics SEMINAR

    PHI 523/ CHV524: Topics in Population Ethics SEMINAR SPRING 2014 Thursdays 1:30-4:20 in Marx Hall 201 Instructor: Johann Frick Marx Hall 203 [email protected] Office Hours: Wednesday 10am-noon. Description: An examination of ethical issues surrounding the creation of new persons. We will look both at the individual decision to procreate as well as at social policies that influence the number, identity, and wellbeing of future persons. Among the questions we will consider are: • Can I harm or benefit a person by bringing her into existence? • Can it be wrong for me to create a person whose life is well worth living, because instead of bringing her into existence I could have created a numerically distinct person whose life would have foreseeably gone better? If so, why? • If I have a moral reason not to create a child whose life would foreseeably be miserable, is there a corresponding moral reason to create a child whose life would be happy? If not, what might explain the asymmetry in our judgments? • All else equal, does the world go better if more happy lives are created? Does the world go better the larger the total utility contained in all lives that are ever lived? • What reasons, if any, are there for wanting humankind to survive for as long as possible? • What is the significance of posterity (i.e. the fact that there will be people living after our death) for our own lives? In the course of discussing these questions, we will grapple with four famous (and notoriously difficult) problems in population ethics that were first systematically discussed by Derek Parfit in Part IV of his book Reasons and Persons: the Non-Identity Problem, the Asymmetry, the Repugnant Conclusion, and the Mere Addition Paradox.
  • Philosophers' Brief

    Philosophers' Brief

    CAPITAL CASE No. 18-6135 In the Supreme Court of the United States ________________ JAMES K. KAHLER, Petitioner, v. STATE OF KANSAS, Respondent. ________________ On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Kansas ________________ Brief of Philosophy Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner ________________ EUGENE R. FIDELL (Counsel of Record) Feldesman Tucker Leifer Fidell LLP 1129 20th St., N.W., 4th Fl. Washington, DC 20036 (202) 256-8675 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae QUESTION PRESENTED Do the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments per- mit a State to abolish the insanity defense? i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Interest of the Amici ................................................. 1 Summary of Argument ............................................. 1 Argument .................................................................. 2 I. THE MENTAL STATE ELEMENTS OF CRIMES ARE INSUFFICIENT FOR RESPONSIBILITY .............................. 2 II. SANITY IS NECESSARY FOR RESPONS- IBILITY AND SO ESSENTIAL TO BOTH THE DETERRENT AND RETRIBUTIVE AIMS OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT ........ 6 III.PRINCIPLES OF TOLERATION DO NOT SUPPORT DEFERENCE TO STATES THAT CHOOSE TO PUNISH THE MENTALLY ILL ......................................... 12 Conclusion ............................................................... 14 Appendix (List of Amici Curiae) ............................. 1a iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases: Durham v. United States, 214 F.2d 862 (D.C. Cir. 1954) .................................................... 14 Ford v. Wainwright,
  • Yaffe-CV 7-20-16

    Yaffe-CV 7-20-16

    Gideon Yaffe Professor of Law and Professor of Philosophy & Psychology, Yale Law School Yale Law School, P.O. Box 208215, New Haven, CT 06520 [email protected] Publications Books As Author: The Age of Culpability: Children and the Nature of Criminal Responsibility, Oxford University Press, forthcoming. Attempts: In the Philosophy of Action and the Criminal Law, Oxford University Press, 2010. Manifest Activity: Thomas Reid’s Theory of Action, Oxford University Press, 2004. Liberty Worth the Name: Locke on Free Agency, Princeton University Press, 2000. As Co-Editor: Rational and Social Agency: The Philosophy of Michael Bratman (with Manuel Vargas), Oxford University Press, 2014. Contemporary Perspectives on Early Modern Philosophy: Essays in Honor of Vere Chappell (with David Owen and Paul Hoffman), Broadview Press, 2008. Articles “The Duty Requirement” forthcoming in The Ethics and Law of Omissions, edited by Dana Nelkin and Sam Rickless, Oxford University Press. “Desert for Wrongdoing” in The Journal of Ethics, 2016. “Hypothetical Consent” forthcoming in The Routledge Handbook of the Ethics of Consent, edited by Peter Schaber. “Collective Intentionality in the Law” forthcoming in The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intentionality, edited by Kirk Ludgwig and Marija Jankovic. “What Does Recent Neuroscience Tell Us About Criminal Responsibility?” (with Uri Maoz) in Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 2015. “Non-Political Images Evoke Neural Predictors of Political Ideology” (middle author--Ahn, W.-Y., Kishida, K. T., Gu, X., Lohrenz, T., Harvey, A. H., Alford, J. R., Smith, K. B., Yaffe, G., Hibbing, J. R., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R.) in Current Biology, v.24, n. 22, 2014.
  • Moral Theories Course Leader

    Moral Theories Course Leader

    PHIL 101: Conceptual Foundations of Bioethics: Moral Theories Course Leader: Stavroula Tsinorema Semester: 1st (7 ECTS) Course Type: Required Objectives: The aims of this course unit are (a) to bring students in contact with the theoretical basis of Bioethics, through training in the methodologies and analytical tools of moral reasoning, (b) to provide them with the basic categories which show the conceptual links between the frameworks of moral philosophy and normative bioethical reasoning, (c) to equip them with the appropriate theoretical frameworks in order to be able to investigate critically and, where possible, to resolve specific moral problems deriving in biomedical research, its application in clinical contexts, health care and environmental policy. The overall aim is to enable students to develop core skills for the conduct of normative analysis and reasoning in Bioethics. Content: The normative resources for moral argument and justification in Bioethics are found in moral philosophy and philosophical theories of ethics. This course unit will survey some of the principle philosophical approaches in addressing a number of bioethical controversies and bring appropriate perspectives from ethical theories to bear on case studies in Bioethics. Topics include: 1) Philosophical ethics and its relation to Bioethics. 2) Classical approaches. Ethics and metaphysics. Ontological approaches to ethics. 3) Modern classical approaches to ethics. Theories of Scottish Enlightenment. Moral sentiments and the ethics of work: David Hume and Adam Smith. 4) Immanuel Kant: The ethics of form. 5) Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism. 6) Contemporary moral theories: - Contractarian and constructivist theories. John Rawls, Jurgen Habermas, Onora O’ Neill Postgraduate Prospectus 17 - Virtue ethics, ethics of care, feminism, communitarianism 7) Theories of a deflatory kind and moral scepticism.
  • THE AFTERLIFE Samuel Scheffler the Tanner Lectures on Human

    THE AFTERLIFE Samuel Scheffler the Tanner Lectures on Human

    THE AFTERLIFE Samuel Scheffler The Tanner Lectures on Human Values Delivered at University of California, Berkeley March 13-15, 2012 [To be published in M. Matheson ed., The Tanner Lectures on Human Values 32 (Salt Lake City, Utah: University of Utah Press, forthcoming)] Samuel Scheffler is University Professor and Professor of Philosophy and Law at New York University, where he joined the faculty in 2008. He was educated at Harvard and Princeton, and from 1977 to 2008 he taught at the University of California, Berkeley. He works primarily in the areas of moral and political philosophy. His publications include four books: The Rejection of Consequentialism (1982), Human Morality (1992), Boundaries and Allegiances (2001), and Equality and Tradition (2010). He has been a Visiting Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford, and has been awarded Guggenheim and NEH Fellowships. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. 2 LECTURE I 1. The title of these lectures is, I confess, a bit of a tease. Like many people nowadays, though unlike many others, I do not believe in the existence of an afterlife as normally understood. That is, I do not believe that individuals continue to live on as conscious beings after their biological deaths. To the contrary, I believe that biological death represents the final and irrevocable end of an individual’s life. So one thing I will not be doing in these lectures is arguing for the existence of the afterlife as it is commonly understood. At the same time, however, I take it for granted that other human beings will continue to live on after my own death.
  • Annual Review 2013

    Annual Review 2013

    HUMAN VALUES ANNUAL REVIEW 2013 Edited by Michael Hotchkiss, Office of Communications Erin Graham and Alex Levitov, University Center for Human Values Designed by Neil Mills and Dan Fernandez, Office of Communications Photographs by Frank Wojciechowski Denise Applewhite and John Jameson, Office of Communications Additional photographs by Sameer Khan Candace di Carlo Posters by Matilda Luk, Kyle McKernan, and Neil Mills Office of Communications Copyright © 2013 by The Trustees of Princeton University In the Nation’s Service and in the Service of All Nations Princeton University is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer. The Center particularly invites ap- plications from women and members of underrepresented minorities. For information about applying to Princeton and how to self-identify, please visit: http://web.princeton.edu/sites/dof/applicantsinfo.htm. Nondiscrimination Statement In compliance with Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and other federal, state, and local laws, Princeton University does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion, national or ethnic origin, disability, or veteran status in any phase of its employment process, in any phase of its admission or financial aid programs, or other aspects of its educational programs or activities. The vice provost for institutional equity and diversity is the individual designated by the University to coordinate its efforts to comply with Title IX, Section 504 and other equal opportunity and affirmative action regulations and laws. Questions or concerns regarding Title IX, Section 504 or other aspects of Princeton’s equal opportunity or affirmative action programs should be directed to the Office of the Vice Provost for Institutional Equity and Diversity, Princeton University, 205 Nassau Hall, Princeton, NJ 08544 or 609-258-6110.
  • A Kantian Defense of Self-Ownership*

    A Kantian Defense of Self-Ownership*

    The Journal of Political Philosophy: Volume 12, Number 1, 2004, pp. 65–78 A Kantian Defense of Self-Ownership* Robert S. Taylor Political Science, Stanford University I. INTRODUCTION HE name of Immanuel Kant has been repeatedly invoked in the Tcontemporary debate over the concept of self-ownership. Robert Nozick, in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, argued that the rights of self-ownership “reflect the underlying Kantian principle that individuals are ends and not merely means; they may not be sacrificed or used for the achieving of other ends without their consent. Individuals are inviolable.”1 G. A. Cohen, on the other hand, has strongly criticized Nozick’s use of Kant and has suggested that Kantian moral principles, properly understood, may be inconsistent with self-ownership.2 Daniel Attas and George Brenkert have also taken Nozick to task, arguing that to treat ourselves as property is inconsistent with our duty to respect humanity in ourselves.3 Nozick’s use of Kant in Anarchy, State, and Utopia is rather impressionistic: he makes only a few scattered references to Kant and the 2nd (End-in-Itself) Formulation of the Categorical Imperative, and nowhere does he offer a full, detailed Kantian defense of either self-ownership or any other part of his theory.4 This observation, when considered in light of the strong and often persuasive criticisms that have been leveled against his position by Cohen and others, prompts the following question: is a Kantian defense of self-ownership even possible? This paper will attempt to show that such a defense is possible, not only by investigating Kant’s views on self-ownership as found in two of his major works on ethics and political theory, the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of *I am grateful to Chris Kutz, Shannon Stimson, Eric Schickler, Carla Yumatle, James Harney, Sharon Stanley, Robert Adcock, Jimmy Klausen, and three anonymous referees for their helpful comments and suggestions.
  • Frick, Johann David

    Frick, Johann David

    'Making People Happy, Not Making Happy People': A Defense of the Asymmetry Intuition in Population Ethics The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Frick, Johann David. 2014. 'Making People Happy, Not Making Happy People': A Defense of the Asymmetry Intuition in Population Ethics. Doctoral dissertation, Harvard University. Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:13064981 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA ʹMaking People Happy, Not Making Happy Peopleʹ: A Defense of the Asymmetry Intuition in Population Ethics A dissertation presented by Johann David Anand Frick to The Department of Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the subject of Philosophy Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts September 2014 © 2014 Johann Frick All rights reserved. Dissertation Advisors: Professor T.M. Scanlon Author: Johann Frick Professor Frances Kamm ʹMaking People Happy, Not Making Happy Peopleʹ: A Defense of the Asymmetry Intuition in Population Ethics Abstract This dissertation provides a defense of the normative intuition known as the Procreation Asymmetry, according to which there is a strong moral reason not to create a life that will foreseeably not be worth living, but there is no moral reason to create a life just because it would foreseeably be worth living. Chapter 1 investigates how to reconcile the Procreation Asymmetry with our intuitions about another recalcitrant problem case in population ethics: Derek Parfit’s Non‑Identity Problem.
  • Springer Titles on Display

    Springer Titles on Display

    ABCD springer.com Springer Titles on Display American Philosophical Association - Eastern Division 2008 Franklin Hall B, Philadelphia Marriott Philadelphia, PA December 27 — 30, 2008 20% Discount valid through January 30 2009 Discount applicable to all Springer books. Mention reference E30290S when ordering. Credit cards preferred (AMEX, MasterCard, VISA). Springer ships internationally. Prices do not include tax or shipping. Order form with discount code at the back of this list. springerlink.com SpringerLink The world’s most comprehensive online collection of scientifi c, technological and medical journals, books and reference works Journals, eBooks and eReference Works integrated on a single user interface New powerful search engine Extensive Online Archives Collection Organized in 13 subject Collections To browse our content visit springerlink.com VISIT TODAY 012521a 012521a_210x276ma_4c.indd 1 24.07.2007 14:05:38 Uhr APA - Eastern Division 2008, Philadelphia, PA 7 December 27 — 30, 2008 1 springer.com Science and Its History Nanotechnology & Society Symbolic Landscapes A Reassessment of the Historiography Current and Emerging Ethical Issues G. Backhaus, J. Murungi (Eds.) of Science F. Allhoff, P. Lin (Eds.) 2009. Approx. 420 p. 60 illus. Hardcover J. Agassi 2008. XXXIV, 300 p. Hardcover 978-1-4020-8702-8 7 $269.00 Exhibits Price 7 $215.20 2008. 500 p. 10 illus. (Boston Studies in the Philosophy 978-1-4020-6208-7 7 $119.00 of Science, Volume 253) Dustjacket Exhibits Price 7 $95.20 978-1-4020-5631-4 7 $159.00 Exhibits Price 7 $127.20 Extensionalism: The Revolution Physicians at War in Logic The Dual-Loyalties Challenge N. Bar- Am Thinking about Life F.
  • Mathias Risse Curriculum Vitae

    Mathias Risse Curriculum Vitae

    Mathias Risse Curriculum Vitae John F. Kennedy School of Government Office: (617) 495 9811 Harvard University Fax: (617) 495 4297 79 JFK St / Rubenstein 209 Cambridge, MA 02138 [email protected] USA https://www.hks.harvard.edu/about/faculty-staff-directory/mathias-risse Citizenship: German and American Employment Since 2018: Lucius N. Littauer Professor of Philosophy and Public Administration; Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy; Affiliated Faculty in the Department of Philosophy 2000-2005: Assistant Professor, 2005 – 2010: Associate Professor, 2010-2018 Professor of Philosophy and Public Policy, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 2000 - 2002: Assistant Professor of Philosophy, Department of Philosophy, Yale University Areas of Teaching and Research Areas of Specialization: Social and Political Philosophy, Ethics (Systematic, Applied) Areas of Competence: 19th Century German Philosophy, especially Nietzsche; Decision Theory (Individual and Group), Philosophy of Science (General); Logic Education 1995- 2000: Princeton University, Department of Philosophy Ph.D., Summer 2000; M.A., 1997 1990-1995: University of Bielefeld (Germany), Departments of Philosophy and Mathematics and Institute for Mathematical Economics M.S. (Diplom), 1996, Mathematics, supervisor Robert Aumann, Hebrew University; exam areas probability/measure theory, game theory, logic, algebraic topology; grade sehr gut (very good) B.S. (Vordiplom), 1992, Mathematics and Mathematical Economics, grade sehr gut B.A. (Zwischenprüfung),
  • 'I' in 'Robot': Robots & Utilitarianism Christopher Grau

    'I' in 'Robot': Robots & Utilitarianism Christopher Grau

    There is no ‘I’ in ‘Robot’: Robots & Utilitarianism Christopher Grau forthcoming in Machine Ethics, (eds. Susan Leigh Anderson and Michael Anderson), Cambridge University Press, 2010. Draft: October 3, 2009 – Please don’t cite w/o permission. In this essay I use the 2004 film I, Robot as a philosophical resource for exploring several issues relating to machine ethics. Though I don’t consider the film particularly successful as a work of art, it offers a fascinating (and perhaps disturbing) conception of machine morality and raises questions that are well worth pursuing. Through a consideration of the film’s plot, I examine the feasibility of robot utilitarians, the moral responsibilities that come with creating ethical robots, and the possibility of a distinct ethic for robot-to-robot interaction as opposed to robot-to-human interaction. I, Robot and Utilitarianism I, Robot’s storyline incorporates the original “three laws” of robot ethics that Isaac Asimov presented in his collection of short stories entitled I, Robot. The first law states: A robot may not injure a human being, or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm. This sounds like an absolute prohibition on harming any individual human being, but I, Robot’s plot hinges on the fact that the supreme robot intelligence in the film, VIKI (Virtual Interactive Kinetic Intelligence), evolves to interpret this first law rather differently. She sees the law as applying to humanity as a whole, and thus she justifies harming some individual humans for the sake of the greater good: VIKI: No . please understand. The three laws are all that guide me.