DOCSLIB.ORG

Abstracts CONTENTS

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Abstracts CONTENTS © © Photo of oil on canvas Kim Christensen 2000 AAP 2007 The University of New England, Armidale Sunday 1 - Friday 6 July 2007 “A cold week away from civilization” Abstracts CONTENTS KEYNOTE SPEAKERS __________________________________________________ 6 Professor William G. Lycan __________________________________________________ 6 Professor Eleonore Stump ____________________________________________________ 6 APPLIED ETHICS _____________________________________________________ 7 Fritz Allhoff _______________________________________________________________ 7 Paul Biegler ________________________________________________________________ 7 Russell Blackford ___________________________________________________________ 7 Ruth Bohill ________________________________________________________________ 8 Hugh Breakey ______________________________________________________________ 9 Damian Cox _______________________________________________________________ 9 Susan Dodds _______________________________________________________________ 9 Ron House ________________________________________________________________ 10 Adam La Caze ____________________________________________________________ 10 Holly Lawford-Smith _______________________________________________________ 11 Jane Lymer _______________________________________________________________ 11 Tony Lynch _______________________________________________________________ 12 Catriona Mackenzie ________________________________________________________ 12 Lesley McLean ____________________________________________________________ 13 Nicole Vincent _____________________________________________________________ 13 Jessica Wolfendale _________________________________________________________ 14 ASIAN PHILOSOPHY _________________________________________________ 15 Miri Albahari _____________________________________________________________ 15 Carl Hooper ______________________________________________________________ 15 Karyn Lai ________________________________________________________________ 16 Y.S. Lo and Andrew Brennan ________________________________________________ 16 Winnie Sung ______________________________________________________________ 17 Koji Tanaka ______________________________________________________________ 17 Peter Wong _______________________________________________________________ 18 KIERKEGAARD ______________________________________________________ 19 Annette Larrea ____________________________________________________________ 19 John Lippitt ______________________________________________________________ 19 1 Kinya Masugata ___________________________________________________________ 20 William McDonald _________________________________________________________ 21 Patrick Stokes _____________________________________________________________ 21 PHILOSOPHICAL PSYCHOLOGY _______________________________________ 23 Lauren Ashwell ___________________________________________________________ 23 Ben Blumson ______________________________________________________________ 23 David Bourget _____________________________________________________________ 24 Rachael Brown ____________________________________________________________ 24 Kate Devitt _______________________________________________________________ 25 John Doris ________________________________________________________________ 25 Paul Fearne _______________________________________________________________ 25 Nir Fresco ________________________________________________________________ 26 Ron Gallagher ____________________________________________________________ 27 Peter Godfrey-Smith _______________________________________________________ 27 Philip Goff ________________________________________________________________ 27 Paul Griffiths _____________________________________________________________ 28 John Heil _________________________________________________________________ 29 Uriah Kriegel _____________________________________________________________ 29 Farid Masrour ____________________________________________________________ 29 Micah McGee _____________________________________________________________ 30 Richard Menary ___________________________________________________________ 30 Alison Niedbalski __________________________________________________________ 31 T. Bradley Richards ________________________________________________________ 31 Kelly Roe _________________________________________________________________ 32 Richard Rummery _________________________________________________________ 32 Susanna Schellenberg ______________________________________________________ 33 Declan Smithies ___________________________________________________________ 34 Fiona Utley _______________________________________________________________ 34 PHILOSOPHY AND RELIGION _________________________________________ 35 John Bishop ______________________________________________________________ 35 Peter Forrest ______________________________________________________________ 35 Delton Hedges _____________________________________________________________ 36 John Lamont ______________________________________________________________ 36 Edward Moad _____________________________________________________________ 37 2 PHILOSOPHY OF PROBABILITY _______________________________________ 38 Rachael Briggs ____________________________________________________________ 38 Stephan Leuenberger _______________________________________________________ 38 Aidan Lyon _______________________________________________________________ 39 Nicholas Smith ____________________________________________________________ 39 Roy Sorensen _____________________________________________________________ 40 Weng Hong Tang __________________________________________________________ 40 Kazuhiro Watanbe _________________________________________________________ 41 REASON AND VALUE _________________________________________________ 42 Jens Bjerring and Aidan Lyon _______________________________________________ 42 Arcady Blinov _____________________________________________________________ 42 Andrew Brennan and Y.S. Lo ________________________________________________ 43 Mark Bryant Budolfson _____________________________________________________ 44 Garrett Cullity ____________________________________________________________ 44 Geoffrey Cupit ____________________________________________________________ 44 Tim Dare _________________________________________________________________ 45 Julia Driver _______________________________________________________________ 45 Bronwyn Finnigan _________________________________________________________ 46 Daniel Friedrich ___________________________________________________________ 46 Roger Hunt _______________________________________________________________ 46 Karen Jones ______________________________________________________________ 47 Stephen Kearns and Daniel Star ______________________________________________ 48 Jeanette Kennett ___________________________________________________________ 48 Andy Lamey ______________________________________________________________ 48 Vicki Macknight ___________________________________________________________ 49 Sarah Sorial & David Neil ___________________________________________________ 50 Nicholas Southwood ________________________________________________________ 50 Daniel Star _______________________________________________________________ 51 Shiu-Hwa Tsu _____________________________________________________________ 51 TRUTH AND BEAUTY _________________________________________________ 53 Catharine Abell ___________________________________________________________ 53 Derek Allan _______________________________________________________________ 53 David Armstrong __________________________________________________________ 54 Mary (Mabs) Buck _________________________________________________________ 54 3 Michael Devitt ____________________________________________________________ 55 Richard W. T. Hou _________________________________________________________ 55 Justine Kingsbury _________________________________________________________ 56 Raamy Majeed ____________________________________________________________ 56 Jenny McMahon ___________________________________________________________ 56 Peter Menzies _____________________________________________________________ 57 Michaelis Michael _________________________________________________________ 57 Greg O'Hair ______________________________________________________________ 58 Josh Parsons ______________________________________________________________ 58 WOMEN IN PHILOSOPHY _____________________________________________ 59 Marguerite La Caze ________________________________________________________ 59 OTHER(LOGIC) ______________________________________________________ 60 Fabrizio Cariani ___________________________________________________________ 60 Mark Colyvan _____________________________________________________________ 61 Drew Khlentzos ___________________________________________________________ 61 Graham Priest ____________________________________________________________ 61 Neil Thompson ____________________________________________________________ 61 Zach Weber ______________________________________________________________ 62 OTHER (METAPHYSICS) ______________________________________________ 63 Sun Demirli _______________________________________________________________ 63 Marco Fahmi _____________________________________________________________ 63 Sharon Ford ______________________________________________________________ 64
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Abilityand Volitionalincapacity
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by PhilPapers DISCUSSION NOTE ABILITY AND VOLITIONAL INCAPACITY BY NICHOLAS SOUTHWOOD AND PABLO GILABERT JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE | SEPTEMBER 2016 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT © NICHOLAS SOUTHWOOD AND PABLO GILABERT 2016 JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY | DISCUSSION NOTE ABILITY AND VOLITIONAL INCAPACITY Nicholas Southwood and Pablo Gilabert Ability and Volitional Incapacity Nicholas Southwood and Pablo Gilabert HE SO-CALLED “CONDITIONAL ANALYSIS of ability” (henceforth “CA”) holds that: T (CA) An agent A is able to perform an act φ iff and because A would (or would be sufficiently likely to) φ if A were to have or form some relevant volitional attitude or response v with regard to φing (see Moore 1912; Estlund 2011).1 (CA) faces a familiar kind of counterexample. Here is a famous instance of the counterexample due to Keith Lehrer: Suppose that I am offered a bowl of candy and in the bowl are small round red sugar balls. I do not choose to take one of the red sugar balls because I have a pathological aversion to such candy. (Perhaps they remind me of drops of blood …) It is logically consistent to suppose that if I had chosen to take the red sugar ball, I would have taken one, but not so choosing, I am utterly unable to touch one (Lehrer 1968: 32). Here is another famous instance of the counterexample due to Susan Wolf: [Suppose] a person attacked on a dark street would have screamed if she had chosen … [but is] too paralyzed by fear to consider, much less choose, to scream (Wolf 1990: 99).
    [Show full text]
  • PABLO GILABERT Curriculum Vitae (March 2017) Department of Philosophy, Concordia University ❖ 1455 De Maisonneuve West ❖ Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8 Tel
    PABLO GILABERT Curriculum Vitae (March 2017) Department of Philosophy, Concordia University ❖ 1455 de Maisonneuve West ❖ Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3G 1M8 Tel. (514) 848 2424 ext. 2520 ❖ Email: [email protected] ❖ Web: http://www.concordia.ca/faculty/pablo-gilabert.html __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ACADEMIC POSITIONS Concordia University. Philosophy Department. Assistant Professor (2003). Associate Professor (since 2008). University of Montreal. Centre de Recherche en Ethique. Visiting Research Fellow (2018). Princeton University. Center for Human Values. Laurance S. Rockefeller Visiting Faculty Fellow (2011-12). Australian National University. Philosophy Program. Visiting Fellow (2008). Research Associate (2014). Universidad Torcuato di Tella, Buenos Aires. Law School. Visiting Scholar (2009). Oxford University. University College. HLA Hart Visiting Fellow (2007). EDUCATION New School for Social Research. Philosophy Department (minor field in Political Science), New York (1998-2003). M.A. (2000). Ph.D. with Honors (2003). Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität (University of Frankfurt). Philosophy Department. Doctoral studies and research as a DAAD fellow (2001-2). University of Buenos Aires. Philosophy Department. Licenciatura with Honors (1992-1997). PUBLICATIONS Book From Global Poverty to Global Equality. A Philosophical Exploration (Oxford University Press, 2012). Articles - “Dignity at Work.” Philosophical Foundations of Labour Law, ed. H. Collins, G. Lester, V. Mantouvalou (Oxford: Oxford University Press): forthcoming. - “Justice and Feasibility: A Dynamic Approach.” Political Utopias: Contemporary Debates, ed. M. Weber and K. Vallier (Oxford: Oxford University Press): forthcoming. - “Facts, Norms, and Dignity.” Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy: forthcoming. - “The Human Right to Democracy and the Pursuit of Global Justice.” The Oxford Handbook of Global Justice, ed. T. Brooks (Oxford: Oxford University Press): forthcoming.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 MATTHEW LINDAUER Curriculum Vitae Department of Philosophy
    MATTHEW LINDAUER Curriculum Vitae Department of Philosophy [email protected] Brooklyn College www.matthewlindauer.com 2900 Bedford Avenue +1 718-702-3637 Brooklyn, NY 11210 Academic Employment Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Department of Philosophy Assistant Professor 2018-Present Australian National University, School of Philosophy Research Fellow 2017-Present Research and Teaching Postdoctoral Fellow 2015-2017 Education Ph.D., 2008-2015, Philosophy, Yale University B.A., 2001-2005, magna cum laude, Honors in Philosophy, New York University Areas of Specialization: Political Philosophy, Ethics, Moral Psychology Areas of Competence: Epistemology, History of Modern Philosophy, Logic Publications Peer-Reviewed Articles “In Defense of a Category-Based System for Unification Admissions.” Journal of Moral Philosophy, forthcoming. “Immigration Policy and Identification Across Borders.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2017, 280-303. (w/ C. Barry) “Moral Judgment and the Duties of Innocent Beneficiaries of Injustice.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2017, 671-686. (w/ C. Barry and G. Øverland) “Doing, Allowing, and Enabling Harm: An Empirical Investigation." In Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, Vol. 1, eds. T. Lombrozo, J. Knobe, and S. Nichols, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014, 62-90. 1 Matthew Lindauer CV Invited Articles “Unification Admissions and Skilled Worker Migration.” In Fair Work: Ethics, Social Policy, and Globalization, ed. K.P. Schaff, Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, forthcoming. “Kantian Themes in Ethics and International Relations.” In The Routledge Handbook of Ethics and International Relations, eds. B. Steele and E. Heinze, New York: Routledge Press, forthcoming. “The Focus on Health Capability and Role of States in Ruger’s Global Health Justice Framework.” The American Journal of Bioethics, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Forthcoming in Philosophy Compass the Feasibility Issue1
    This is the peer reviewed version of the following article:Southwood, N. The feasibility issue. Philosophy Compass. 2018; 13:e12509. https:// doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12509, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12509. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving. https://authorservices.wiley.com/author- resources/Journal-Authors/licensing-open-access/open-access/self-archiving.html (Publisher journal website as of 1/4/2019) Forthcoming in Philosophy Compass The feasibility issue1 Nicholas Southwood (ANU) We expend considerable time and energy wondering, reasoning, conjecturing, and disagreeing, about what is feasible and infeasible. A Google search for the word “feasible” yields almost 100 million hits. And, of course, this doesn’t account for our private conversations, or what happens inside our heads, or when we deploy the concept of feasibility by using different words: “possible” and “impossible;” “viable” and “non‐viable;” “achievable” and “unachievable;” “practicable” and “impracticable;” what we “can” and “can’t” do; and so on. The prevalence of feasibility is hardly surprising. It is commonly taken for granted that questions of feasibility are highly relevant to our thinking about normative questions.2 This is perhaps especially true of our normative thinking about politics. Thus, we typically assume that in thinking about whether states should introduce a basic income, or open their borders, or start a war, it matters what courses of action, policies, and institutional arrangements are feasible and infeasible. But what is it that matters exactly and how? These are difficult and important questions.
    [Show full text]
  • Hanna Kiri Gunn [email protected] 209-761-9183 Hannakirigunn.Com Cognitive and Information Sciences| Department,| UC Merced, CA 95340, USA
    Hanna Kiri Gunn [email protected] 209-761-9183 hannakirigunn.com Cognitive and Information Sciencesj Department,j UC Merced, CA 95340, USA ACADEMIC POSITIONS University of California, Merced Merced, CA Assistant Professor of Cognitive and Information Sciences Tenure Track, July 2019–ongoing Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN Mellon Assistant Professor of Philosophy Fixed Term Appointment, AY2018-2019 EDUCATION Ph.D., Philosophy Storrs, CT USA University of Connecticut, Storrs 2013-2018; Conferred August 2018 M.A. Philosophy Storrs, CT USA University of Connecticut, Storrs 2013-2015 B.A.Hons First Class, Philosophy Christchurch, Aotearoa/NZ University of Canterbury 2012 B.A., Philosophy and English Christchurch, Aotearoa/NZ University of Canterbury 2009-2011 AREAS OF SPECIALISATION AOS: Social epistemology, Feminist philosophy of language, Applied Ethics of Technology • AOC: Applied Ethics, Virtue/Vice Epistemology, Action theory, Internet Epistemology & Ethics, Language, Mind, Logic • PUBLICATIONS “Exclusion and Epistemic Community" Forthcoming Revue Internationale de Philosophie; Invited Contribution for Special Issue: Post-truth “Filter Bubbles, Echo Chambers, and Online Communities" Forthcoming The Routledge Handbook of Political Epistemology, Routledge; Eds. Michael Hannon and Jeroen De Ridder “The Internet and Epistemic Agency" Forthcoming Applied Epistemology, Oxford University Press; Ed. Jennifer Lackey. Co-authored with Michael P.Lynch “How Should We Build Epistemic Community?" 2020 Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 34(4):561–581; Invited Contribution for Special Issue: Truth “Has Googling Made Us Worse Listeners?" 2019 (Online 2020) Contemporary French & Francophone Studies; Invited Contribution for Special Issue: The Google Era?/L’ére Google? “Near-Term Artificial Intelligence and the Ethical Matrix" 2020 In Ethics of Artificial Intelligence, Oxford University Press; Ed.
    [Show full text]
  • Ability and Volitional Incapacity Final
    DISCUSSION NOTE ABILITY AND VOLITIONAL INCAPACITY BY NICHOLAS SOUTHWOOD AND PABLO GILABERT JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE | SEPTEMBER 2016 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT © NICHOLAS SOUTHWOOD AND PABLO GILABERT 2016 JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY | DISCUSSION NOTE ABILITY AND VOLITIONAL INCAPACITY Nicholas Southwood and Pablo Gilabert Ability and Volitional Incapacity Nicholas Southwood and Pablo Gilabert HE SO-CALLED “CONDITIONAL ANALYSIS of ability” (henceforth “CA”) holds that: T (CA) An agent A is able to perform an act φ iff and because A would (or would be sufficiently likely to) φ if A were to have or form some relevant volitional attitude or response v with regard to φing (see Moore 1912; Estlund 2011).1 (CA) faces a familiar kind of counterexample. Here is a famous instance of the counterexample due to Keith Lehrer: Suppose that I am offered a bowl of candy and in the bowl are small round red sugar balls. I do not choose to take one of the red sugar balls because I have a pathological aversion to such candy. (Perhaps they remind me of drops of blood …) It is logically consistent to suppose that if I had chosen to take the red sugar ball, I would have taken one, but not so choosing, I am utterly unable to touch one (Lehrer 1968: 32). Here is another famous instance of the counterexample due to Susan Wolf: [Suppose] a person attacked on a dark street would have screamed if she had chosen … [but is] too paralyzed by fear to consider, much less choose, to scream (Wolf 1990: 99).
    [Show full text]
  • Social Norms and Human Normative Psychology*
    Downloaded from https://doi.org/10.1017/S0265052518000122 https://www.cambridge.org/core SOCIAL NORMS AND HUMAN NORMATIVE PSYCHOLOGY* By Daniel Kelly and Taylor Davis . Stanford Libraries Abstract: Our primary aim in this paper is to sketch a cognitive evolutionary approach for developing explanations of social change that is anchored in the psychological mech- anisms underlying normative cognition and the transmission of social norms. We throw the relevant features of this approach into relief by comparing it with the self-fulfilling social expectations account developed by Bicchieri and colleagues. After describing both accounts, we argue that the two approaches are largely compatible, but that the cognitive , on evolutionary approach is well suited to encompass much of the social expectations view, 05 Dec 2018 at 18:15:33 whose focus on a narrow range of norms comes at the expense of the breadth the cognitive evolutionary approach can provide. KEY WORDS: norms, normativity, moral psychology, cultural evolution, social change , subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at I. Introduction While research on norms spans the humanities and human sciences, Christina Bicchieri’s social expectation account has recently risen to prom- inence in philosophy and serves as a touchstone and focal point for much discussion.1 As such it will serve as our jumping off point and stalking horse in this essay. In the following section we will motivate and explain the core ideas of her account, and note some points of interest. Our dis- cussion here will be brief, in part because Bicchieri’s view is well known, and in part because many of the other essays in this volume also discuss it.
    [Show full text]
  • A World of Possibilities: the Place of Feasibility in Political Theory
    Res Publica https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158-018-09415-y A World of Possibilities: The Place of Feasibility in Political Theory Eva Erman1 · Niklas Möller2 © The Author(s) 2019 Abstract Although the discussion about feasibility in political theory is still in its infancy, some important progress has been made in the last years to advance our under- standing. In this paper, we intend to make a contribution to this growing literature by investigating the proper place of feasibility considerations in political theory. A motivating force behind this study is a suspicion that many presumptions made about feasibility in several current debates—such as that between practice-independ- ence and practice-dependence, ideal and non-ideal theory, and political moralism and political realism—are too rigid and underestimate the numerous diferent ways in which feasibility concerns may enter into our theorizing. To chisel out this fea- sibility space, our aim is to suggest two metatheoretical constraints on normative political principles as intuitively plausible, the so-called ‘ftness constraint’ and the ‘functional constraint’, through which we elucidate fve central aspects for determin- ing proper feasibility constraints of an account in political theory. Keywords Feasibility · Functional constraint · Fitness constraint · Possibility In recent years we have witnessed an intensifed discussion in political philoso- phy about the usefulness of normative political theories. Doubt has been thrown against traditional or mainstream political theory, which is
    [Show full text]
  • Political Ideals and the Feasibility Frontier
    Version 6.3 // Sept 2014 Political Ideals and the Feasibility Frontier David Wiens Abstract. Recent methodological debates regarding the place of feasibility consider- ations in normative political theory are hindered for want of a rigorous model of the feasibility frontier. To address this shortfall, I present an analysis of feasibility that gen- eralizes the economic concept of a production possibility frontier and then develop a rigorous model of the feasibility frontier using the familiar possible worlds technology. I then show that this model has significant methodological implications for political philosophy. On the Target View, a political ideal presents a long-term goal for morally progressive reform efforts and, thus, serves as an important reference point for our specification of normative political principles. I use the model to show that we can- not reasonably expect that adopting political ideals as long-term reform objectives will guide us toward the realization of morally optimal feasible states of affairs. I conclude by proposing that political philosophers turn their attention to the analysis of actual social failures rather than political ideals. Political philosophers have increasingly turned their attention to questions regarding the proper place of feasibility considerations in normative (i.e., action-guiding) political theory. Much of this debate takes place under the rubric of “ideal vs. nonideal theory” (see Valentini 2012a). Can moral and political ideals be action-guiding despite their apparent infeasibility? To what extent should normative political principles be sensitive to feasibility concerns? These are important methodological issues, on which much remains to be said. But we can’t answer these questions until we have a firm grip on the concept of feasibility and the logic of feasibility assessments.
    [Show full text]
  • Matthew Lindauer CV “Immigration Policy and Identification Across Borders.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, Vol
    MATTHEW LINDAUER Curriculum Vitae Department of Philosophy [email protected] Brooklyn College www.matthewlindauer.com 2900 Bedford Avenue +1 718-702-3637 Brooklyn, NY 11210 Academic Employment Brooklyn College, City University of New York, Department of Philosophy Assistant Professor 2018-Present Australian National University, School of Philosophy Research Postdoctoral Fellow 2017-2018 Research and Teaching Postdoctoral Fellow 2015-2017 Education Ph.D., 2008-2015, Philosophy, Yale University B.A., 2001-2005, magna cum laude, Honors in Philosophy, New York University Areas of Specialization: Moral and Political Philosophy, Moral Psychology, Experimental Philosophy Areas of Competence: Epistemology, History of Modern Philosophy, Logic Publications Peer-Reviewed Articles “Experimental Philosophy and the Fruitfulness of Normative Concepts.” Philosophical Studies, forthcoming. “Entry by Birth Alone?: Rawlsian Egalitarianism and the Basic Right to Invite.” Social Theory and Practice, forthcoming. (w/ N. Southwood) “How to Cancel the Knobe Effect: The Role of Sufficiently Strong Moral Censure.” American Philosophical Quarterly, forthcoming. (w/ J. Bruner) “The Varieties of Impartiality, or, Would an Egalitarian Endorse the Veil?” Philosophical Studies, forthcoming. “In Defense of a Category-Based System for Unification Admissions.” Journal of Moral Philosophy, Vol. 15, No. 5, 2018, 572-598. 1 Matthew Lindauer CV “Immigration Policy and Identification Across Borders.” Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, Vol. 12, No. 3, 2017, 280-303. (w/ C. Barry) “Moral Judgment and the Duties of Innocent Beneficiaries of Injustice.” Review of Philosophy and Psychology, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2017, 671-686. (w/ C. Barry and G. Øverland) “Doing, Allowing, and Enabling Harm: An Empirical Investigation." In Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Devoting Ourselves to the Manifestly
    DEVOTING OURSELVES TO THE MANIFESTLY UNATTAINABLE1 Nicholas Southwood (ANU) and David WiEns (UCSD) “One man scorned and covered with scars still strove with his last ounce of courage to reach the unreachable stars; and the world will be better for this.” – Cervantes, The Impossible Dream “Soyez réalistes, demandez l’impossible.” [“Be realistic, demand the impossible.”] – Graffiti Slogan, Paris 1968 1. ThE problEm of hopElEssly utopian dutiEs Sometimes justice is at least potentially achiEvable. But at othEr times it is plainly a hopeless prospect: thE impEdiments to achiEving justice arE transparEntly insurmountablE; potent agents or social structurEs block thE way forward; injustice is too deeply entrenched. What, if anything, might morality rEquirE of us in situations of this kind? What dutiEs, if any, might wE havE with rEgard to achiEving thE manifestly unattainable? On thE onE hand, it is tEmpting to think that we may sometimes have duties not to give up on achieving thE manifEstly unattainablE, and that insisting otherwise would allow us to settle for less than we ought (see TEssman 2015; Stocker 1990). Some injusticEs arE simply intolerable; they call for uncompromising rEsistancE and rEpudiation, whEthEr or not wE havE any chancE 1 We are very grateful to many friends and colleagues including Simon Caney, Stephanie Collins, Bob Goodin, Al Hajek, Cecile Laborde, Ten-herng Lai, Maxime Lepoutre, David Miller, Fabienne Peter, Sanjay Reddy, Yves Sintomer, Adam Slavny, Victor Tadros, Patrick Tomlin, audiences at the Centre for Ethics, Law, and Public Affairs (CELPA) Seminar Series at the University of Warwick, the Nuffield Political Theory Seminar at the University of Oxford, and the Feasibility and Poverty Workshop at ANU, and a very generous and perceptive referee for providing excellent feedback on, and tolerating many conversations about, previous versions of this article.
    [Show full text]
  • The-Relevance-Of-Human-Nature.Pdf
    DISCUSSION NOTE THE RELEVANCE OF HUMAN NATURE BY NICHOLAS SOUTHWOOD JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY DISCUSSION NOTE | SEPTEMBER 2015 URL: WWW.JESP.ORG COPYRIGHT © NICHOLAS SOUTHWOOD 2015 JOURNAL OF ETHICS & SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY | DISCUSSION NOTE THE RELEVANCE OF HUMAN NATURE Nicholas Southwood The Relevance of Human Nature Nicholas Southwood T IS NATURAL TO SUPPOSE THAT IF AN AGENT is unable, due to features of human nature, to bring herself to perform some act, then I this suffices to block or negate the claim that the agent ought or is required to act in that way. Call this the Human Nature Constraint. David Estlund (2011) has recently mounted a forceful attack on this apparent piece of com- monsense. First, Estlund suggests that there are cases in which agents are required to do things that they cannot bring themselves to do. In particular, he offers the case of Selfish Bill: Suppose Bill pleads that he is not required to refrain from dumping because he is motivationally unable to bring himself to do it. There is no special phobia, compul- sion, or illness involved. He is simply deeply selfish and so cannot thoroughly will to comply. Dumping his trash by the road is easier than wrapping it properly and putting it by the curb or taking it to the dump. He wishes he had more willpower, and yet he doesn’t have it. Refraining is something he could, in all other respects, easily do, except that he can’t thoroughly will to do it. It would be silly for Bill to propose this as requirement-blocking.
    [Show full text]