DOCSLIB.ORG

Defending Options Author(S): Shelly Kagan Source: Ethics, Vol. 104, No. 2 (Jan., 1994), Pp

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Defending Options Author(S): Shelly Kagan Source: Ethics, Vol. 104, No. 2 (Jan., 1994), Pp Defending Options Author(s): Shelly Kagan Source: Ethics, Vol. 104, No. 2 (Jan., 1994), pp. 333-351 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2381581 Accessed: 13-08-2014 16:42 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethics. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 130.132.173.11 on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:42:57 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Defending Options ShellyKagan Suppose some act would best promote the overall good, objectively speaking. Are we morallyrequired to do it? Not necessarily,says ordi- nary,commonsense morality: after all, the act in question mightviolate someone's rightsor run afoul of some otheragent-centered constraint. Well, then, are we at least morallyrequired to performthe act with the best resultsof those acts that are not otherwiseforbidden? Here, too, ordinarymorality says no: thereis no such general moral require- ment to promote the good (not even within the confines of moral constraints).Rather, ordinary morality claims that in a certainbroad, but not unlimited,range of cases, agents have moraloptions: although they are morallypermitted to performthe act with the best conse- quences overall,they are not morallyrequired to do so; on the contrary, they are also morallypermitted to performinstead acts that are less than optimal, such as pursuing theirown interests. The existence of such options seems quite plausible, intuitively speaking. But theyare, in fact,surprisingly difficult to defend.Indeed, I believe thatoptions cannot be adequately defendedand have argued this point at length in TheLimits of Morality.' I believe, in other words, in the existenceof a general moral requirementto promotethe good. My view is, of course, a minorityposition-at odds withthe deliv- erances of our ordinary moral intuitions.But the fact remains that findinga plausible defense of options is a difficultand elusive matter. This is particularlyso for anyone who wants to defend options as part of a general defense of commonsense morality.For any given argumenton behalf of options thatmight seem reasonable when con- sidered in isolation mighthave unacceptable implicationselsewhere: the options generated mightbe unacceptablybroad, or the arguments mightlead to conclusionsthat are incompatiblewith some of the things we intuitivelywant to say about constraints,or what have you. The question, then, is whetheroptions can be defendedin a way that seems plausible and attractiveeven in the lightof the rest of our 1. Shelly Kagan, The Limitsof Morality (Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress, 1989). Ethics 104 (January 1994): 333-351 C 1994 by The Universityof Chicago. All rightsreserved. 0014-1704/94/0402-0012$01.00 333 This content downloaded from 130.132.173.11 on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:42:57 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 334 Ethics January1994 considered moral views. Both JeremyWaldron and Michael Bratman believe that thiscan, in fact,be done. I want to examine theirpropos- als here.2 Now a helpful way to approach the defense of options is to ask, in general terms,What has to be the case, withregard to a given act, for there to be a moral requirementto performthat act? By listingthe various conditionsthat must be met before a genuine moral require- ment can be generated, we will demarcate the space of possible ways of resistinga general requirementto promotethe good: foreach condi- tion, there will be a correspondingstrategy in whicha requirementto promotethe good is rejectedon the groundsthat the relevantcondition on moral requirementshas not been met. What then mustbe the case fora given act to be morallyrequired? Presumably,at the very least, there must be some morallyrelevant reason for performingthe act. No reason, no requirement!But what do we need beyond this? Given that there is some morallyrelevant reason to do an act, what else do we need for there to be a moral requirementto performthe act in question? One extremelyplausible suggestion is that it must be the case that the balance of morally relevantreasons supports doing the act: if the original reason is out- weighed (from the moral point of view), it simplycannot ground a moral requirement. It is less clear whetherthere are any furtherconditions that must be met, beyond these two relativelyuncontroversial ones, but this is certainlya possibility.Thus, one might argue that there is also a motivationalcondition: perhaps the reasons for performingthe act must be such that they are capable of motivatingthe agent to do it. Or there mightbe an enforcementcondition, to the effectthat (roughly) it must be appropriate to sanction the agent should she fail to do the required act. There are various other conditionsthat might be suggested as well, but these four are the only ones that will concern us here. Even this short list is enough to establisha fairlyobvious point. The claim that a given act best promotes the overall good certainly does not entail-as a matterof logic-that thatact is morallyrequired. There is nothingthe least bit incoherentabout assertingthe genuine- ness of one or more of these four conditions,and claimingthat some- times this condition is not met with regard to the act that leads to the best consequences overall. Thus when I deny the existence of 2. Earlier versions of their articles,and this reply, were presented as part of a symposiumon The Limitsof Morality, at the PacificDivision meetingsof the American Philosophical Association, March 26, 1992. I am gratefulto Bratman and Waldron for their thoughtfulcriticisms, both in their articles and in the general discussion at that session. This content downloaded from 130.132.173.11 on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:42:57 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Kagan DefendingOptions 335 options-when I assert that we are morallyrequired to performthe act with the best consequences (at least, within the limits of con- straints)-this is certainlynot because I believe that "best conse- quences" somehow entails "required." Rather, I offerthe general re- quirementto promotethe good as a substantivetruth about morality. I am claiming,in effect,that there are no genuine conditionson moral requirementsthat are not in fact met by a requirementto promote the good. That is why there are no options. (It's not that I thinkthe notion of an option is somehow incoherent; it'sjust that there are none, as a matterof substantivemoral truth.) Conceivably, Jeremy Waldron has misunderstoodme on this score. At one point he writes(in his n. 1 1) thathis aim is only to "cast doubt on the automaticinference" from the claim that an act has the best consequences to the conclusion that that act is morallyrequired. If this means simplythat this inferenceis not a matterof logic, then I certainlyagree and never meant to suggestotherwise. There are all sorts of absurd and repugnant-but logicallyconsistent-positions that would yield the result that there could be no genuine moral requirement to promote the good. The only interestingquestion is whetherthere are any plausibleconditions on moral requirementthat block a general requirementto promote the good-conditions that we willcontinue to accept even afterreflection. I assume thatWaldron means to be addressing this more substantivequestion; and I take it that,along with Michael Bratman, he believes the answer is yes. Waldron himselfis particularlyanxious to endorse a version of what I have called the enforcementcondition; Bratman, by contrast, proposes to defendoptions throughappeal to the motivationalcondi- tion. We will consider both of these in turn. But first,I want to say somethingabout the other two conditionsI mentioned above. Since an act can be morallyrequired only if thereis some morally relevantreason to performthat act, one possible strategyfor rejecting a general requirementto promote the good consistsin holding that typicallythere simplyis no morallyrelevant reason to performthe act that leads to the best consequences overall. Now such a position is perfectlycoherent, provided that one is prepared to abandon a num- ber of judgments that are made by ordinarymorality. For ordinary moralitybelieves (or is committedto the belief) that the fact that an act would lead to the best consequences overall always provides one with at least somemorally relevant reason to performthat act. (This claim could, of course, be challenged, but since neitherWaldron nor Bratman did so, I won't try to defend it here.) Thus anyone who hoped to defend options by denyingthat there was any reason at all to promotethe greatergood would be assuming a position more akin to egoism than to anythinglike ordinarymorality. However unpalata- ble, this position deserves a certain amount of careful scrutiny.But This content downloaded from 130.132.173.11 on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:42:57 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 336 Ethics January1994 since neitherWaldron nor Bratman is temptedby it,I willnot explore this firststrategy any further. What about the second condition,which holds that an act can be morallyrequired only if the balance of morallyrelevant reasons sup- ports it? Is there a possible strategyfor defendingoptions that turns on this condition? Suppose we grant-if only for the sake of argu- ment-that there is some morallyrelevant reason to performthe act thatleads to the greatestgood overall. Could one admit thata certain act would have the best results and yet still go on to claim that the balance condition isn't met? As far as I can see, this is indeed stilla logical possibility.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2014-PDF-Of-Philosophy-News
    UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO DEPARTMENT OF PHILOSO PHY FALL 2014 IAN HACKI NG WSEI E NPAGS E 3BALZAN PRIZ E! PRACT ICAL ETH ICS – SHEL LY KAG AN ON SPECIESISM By Ellen Roseman Shelly Kagan, the Clark Professor of Philosophy at Yale University, drew a capacity crowd to the Roseman Lecture in Practical Ethics last fall. He is an engaging, funny and whip- smart speaker. And he chose an intriguing topic, one that is not usually explored in mainstream philosophy courses. The title: What’s wrong with speciesism? In a bestselling 1975 book, Animal Liberation , Australian philosopher Peter Singer claimed that most of us Shelly Kagan with Ellen Roseman are “speciesists” in our attitude toward, and treatment of, animals. Singer, now a bioethics professor than persuasive. “People have rights. Animals don’t,” he tells Speciesism is supposed to be a kind at Princeton University, created me after the lecture. “There’s a of morally unjustified prejudice, akin a splash when he called for an huge crowd of people working to racism or sexism, Kagan said in animal rights movement. Kagan on this issue. I thought a lot of his notes for the lecture. “Although read the book while in graduate the arguments were weak.” I found that charge compelling for school. He became a vegetarian. years, I now find that I have my But in a second reading of the Kagan thinks the crucial concept doubts,” he explained. “It now seems book in 2011, while preparing is to define the meaning of a to me that most people are not actu - to give an animal ethics seminar “person.” Going back to British ally speciesists at all, but something to Yale students, Kagan found philosopher John Locke’s work rather different.” some of Singer’s arguments less ...continued on Page 2 We wish to thank the generous donors to the Department of Philosophy, without whom Philosophy News would not be possible.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaethics and the Autonomy of Morality
    Philosophers’ volume8,no.6 july2008 Imprint 1. Introduction SincethepublicationofG.E.Moore’sPrincipia Ethicaithasbecome commonplace for philosophers to distinguish between questions in metaethics and those in normative ethics.1 A sympathetic character- Metaethics izationofthecenturyofself-consciouslymetaethicalresearchthatfol- lowedwouldemphasizetheextraordinarydevelopmentbothinour understandingofthecentralmetaethicalproblemsandinthesophis- ticationofthetheorieselaboratedtomeetthem.However,someare & notsosympathetic.Inthispaper,Iexamineonesourceofdistrustin metaethicalresearch:itsapparenttensionwiththenotionthatmoral- ityisautonomous. Tobegin,IbrieflysketchhowIamthinkingofmetaethics,ofthe the Autonomy of autonomyofmorality,andofthetensionthatcanappeartoexistbe- tweenthem.Onetraditionalconceptionofmetaethicstakesittocon- cern only the analysis of moral language.2 However, contemporary philosophers typically use the term more expansively.3 Here, I use Morality the term to pick out elements common to these contemporary dis- cussions.Thiscommoncoreencompassesmoralontologyandmoral psychologyaswellasmoralsemantics.Bycontrast,normativeethics (sometimesalsocalled‘substantiveethics’)concernsthestructureand contentofthecorrectmoralevaluationofagents,statesofaffairs,and actions.Normativeethicaltheoriestypicallyofferaccountsofmoral valueandmoralreasons,ofvirtuouscharactertraits,ofrightness,and Tristram McPherson oftherelationshipsbetweenthese. 1. The word ‘metaethics’ came into regular philosophical usage much later. University of Minnesota Duluth
    [Show full text]
  • Ethics and the Future -- Assigned Readings
    Ethics and the Future -- Assigned Readings Note: This is a list of the readings that I assigned (or recommended) to the students (a mix of undergraduates and graduate students) for my seminar, “Ethics and the Future,” taught at Yale in Spring 2021. As the reading list was prepared only for the students in the course, I’m afraid I didn’t include links for any papers that I was including in the course pack, though I believe all of these readings can be easily found online, with the exception, of course, of Ord’s The Precipice, and Parfit’s Reasons and Persons. I am making the reading list publicly available at the request of Pablo Stafforini. In choosing suitable readings I was aided tremendously by the list of readings selected by William MacAskill and Christian Tarsney for their own seminar taught at Oxford in 2019, and especially by the potential syllabus that Joshua Monrad wrote up for my benefit. (Since it was Joshua who rightly insisted to me that this would make an interesting and important topic for a seminar, I am doubly in his debt.) The readings are organized by topic. We spent a week on each. --Shelly Kagan Background on Existential Risks: 1. Toby Ord, The Precipice, Chapters 3-6 and Appendices C and D (about 124 pages) The Basic Case for Longtermism: 1. Perhaps start with this very brief overview: Todd, “Future Generations and Their Moral Significance” (about 7 pages), which can be found online at: https://80000hours.org/articles/future-generations/ 2. Then look at the somewhat longer (but still breezy) exposition in Ord, The Precipice, Intro and Chapters 1-2, and Appendix E (65 pgs.) 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Hedonism (For International Encyclopedia of Ethics)
    Hedonism Word Count: 4,488 Hedonism is among the oldest, simplest, and most widely discussed theories of value – theories that tell us what makes the world better or what makes a person’s life go better. Hedonism, in a word, is the view that “pleasure is the good.” In its most comprehensive form, hedonism about value holds that the only thing that ultimately ever makes the world, or a life, better is its containing more pleasure or less pain. The term ‘hedonism’ is also sometimes used to refer to doctrines about other topics. ‘Universal hedonism’ sometimes stands for the view that we ought to bring the greatest balance of pleasure over pain into the world that we can (see UTILITARIANISM), and ‘psychological hedonism’ the view that all human behavior is motivated ultimately by desires to obtain pleasure or avoid pain. Our topic here is hedonism about value. 1. What is hedonism about value? a. What is hedonism a theory of? An important distinction among kinds of value is the distinction between something’s being good for some person (or other subject), and something’s simply being a good thing (see GOOD AND GOOD FOR). The former kind of value – called ‘welfare’ or ‘well-being’ – makes our lives better, or makes things go better for us (see WELL-BEING), while the latter kind of value makes the world better. Typically, whenever a person receives some benefit, or has his life made better, this also makes the world better. But it is at least conceivable that the two come apart, as when an undeserving person receives some benefit, making things go better for him 1 without perhaps making the world better.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy 1 Philosophy
    Philosophy 1 Philosophy Connecticut Hall, 203.432.1665 http://philosophy.yale.edu M.A., M.Phil., Ph.D. Acting Chair Kenneth Winkler Director of Graduate Studies Stephen Darwall ([email protected]) Professors David Charles, Stephen Darwall, Michael Della Rocca, Keith DeRose, Paul Franks, Tamar Gendler, John Hare, Verity Harte, Brad Inwood, Shelly Kagan, Joshua Knobe, Laurie Paul, Thomas Pogge, Scott Shapiro, Sun-Joo Shin, Steven Smith, Jason Stanley, Zoltán Szabó, Kenneth Winkler, Gideon Yaffe Associate Professors Daniel Greco, John Pittard Assistant Professors Robin Dembroff, Manon Garcia Fields of Study The department offers a wide range of courses in various traditions of philosophy, with strengths and a well-established reputation in the history of philosophy, ethics, philosophy of law, epistemology, philosophy of language, and philosophy of religion as well as other central topics. Special Requirements for the Ph.D. Degree 1. In the first two years all students must complete a total of twelve term courses. Graduate courses are grouped: (1) metaphysics, theory of knowledge, philosophy of mind, philosophy of language, philosophy of science; (2) ethics, aesthetics, philosophy of religion, political philosophy, philosophy of law, and theory of value; (3) history of philosophy. No more than six of the twelve and no fewer than two courses may be taken in each group. At least one of the twelve courses taken must be logic (unless the logic requirement is satisfied in some other way), and this course does not count toward the required minimum of two within any of the three categories. 2. Two qualifying papers must be submitted, one in the history of philosophy, the other in another distribution area.
    [Show full text]
  • The Good Life: a Defense of Attitudinal Hedonism
    from Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (2002): 604-628 first presented at the Chisholm Memorial Conference Brown University, November 10, 2000 The Good Life: A Defense of Attitudinal Hedonism Fred Feldman University of Massachusetts, Amherst 1. The Good Life The students and colleagues of Roderick Chisholm admired and respected Chisholm. Many were filled not only with admiration, but with affection and gratitude for Chisholm throughout the time we knew him. Even now that he is dead, we continue to wish him well. Under the circumstances, many of us probably think that that wish amounts to no more than this: we hope that things went well for him when he lived; we hope that he had a good life. But reflection on this hope may lead some of us to ask a question: precisely what feature must Chisholm’s life have had in order for that life to have been a good one? What would have made his life one well worth living? On this question there is much puzzlement and many suggested answers. Nowadays one of the most popular answers is that a person’s life goes well if he gets what he wants.1 (Or perhaps that he gets what he really would have wanted if he had thought about it carefully.) According to a currently somewhat less popular answer, what makes a person’s life go well is that he enjoys what he gets. On this view, it does not matter essentially whether the person had any desire for the things he enjoyed prior to his receipt of them, nor does it matter whether he even would have had a desire for them if he had reflected on them.
    [Show full text]
  • The Additive Fallacy Author(S): Shelly Kagan Source: Ethics, Vol. 99, No. 1 (Oct., 1988), Pp
    The Additive Fallacy Author(s): Shelly Kagan Source: Ethics, Vol. 99, No. 1 (Oct., 1988), pp. 5-31 Published by: The University of Chicago Press Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2380927 Accessed: 13-08-2014 16:16 UTC Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Ethics. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 130.132.173.11 on Wed, 13 Aug 2014 16:16:18 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions The Additive Fallacy Shelly Kagan I. CONTRAST ARGUMENTS Much moral philosophy is concerned with defending or attacking the moral relevance of various distinctions. Thus consequentialists disagree with deontologists, and deontologists disagree among themselves, over whether any moral weight should be given to such distinctions as that between what one does and what one merely allows, or to the distinction between what one intends as a means, and what one merely foresees as a side-effect, and so on. Similarly, there is disagreement over the moral relevance of such factors as the motive of the agent, the consequences of a given act, or the guilt of those who may be harmed.
    [Show full text]
  • Normative Ethics
    Philosophy 34: Normative Ethics Matthew Silverstein Spring 2008 Contact Information Office: 204 Cooper House Office Hours: Tuesday, 2:00–5:00 pm, and by appointment Email: [email protected] Phone: (413) 542-8310 Course Description Is anything to be said in a principled way about right and wrong, or good and bad? We will examine a number of positive and negative answers to this question. Our primary focus will be on three of the central traditions of Western ethical philosophy, typified by Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. We will also study one of modern morality’s harshest critics: Friedrich Nietzsche. Along the way, we will look at contemporary discussions of the relation between the demands of morality and those personal obligations that spring from friendships, as well as recent views about the nature of well-being. Course Requirements There will be one short expository paper (2–3 pages) and two longer critical papers (6–8 pages). Preparation and active participation also count towards your grade. Your final grade will be determined as follows: 20% Short Paper 35% Long Paper 1 35% Long Paper 2 5% Preparation 5% Participation Your preparation grade will be a function of unannounced, in-class ten-minute essay assignments. There will be several such assignments over the course of the semester. Their purpose is to ensure that everyone has studied the assigned reading and to encourage thoughtful discussion in class. Though they will not be graded, I will collect them at the end of class. These essays cannot be made up, and unsatisfactory work will receive no credit.
    [Show full text]
  • A Consequentialist Response to the Demandingness Objection
    1 A CONSEQUENTIALIST RESPONSE TO THE DEMANDINGNESS OBJECTION Nicholas R. Baker, Lee University INTRODUCTION We usually believe that morality has limits; that is, that there is some limit to what morality may reasonably demand of moral agents. We suppose that there are supererog­ atory actions that are just that, supererogatory. We often think that while morality may require some positive and negative obligations, there are at least some actions that are simply permissible.1 This is what the demandingness objection to consequentialism is about; it draws upon our intuitions on these issues in order to show how counter-intuitive the implications of some versions of normative ethics can be. In this paper I will outline and defend the demandingness objection as it applies to act-consequentialism (hereafter AC), then I will argue that rule-consequentialism (hereafter RC), as conceived of by Brad Hooker, is also susceptible to this objection; finally, I will attempt to amend RC so that it may escape the demandingness objection. THE DEMANDS OF ACT CONSEQUENTIALISM Shelly Kagan states in the early parts of his text, The Limits of Morality, that, “[T]here are [. .] what we might think of as limits imposed on morality – for it is typically believed that there are limits to what morality can demand of us.”2 He goes on to further suggest that, “[I]t is generally held that although morality does sometimes require us to make sacrifices, we are not morally required to make our greatest possible contributions to the overall good. There is a limit to moral requirement.”3 While Kagan himself argues for a withholding of judgement as to whether or not these limits do exist, I will be arguing that these limits do, in fact, exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Original Print
    Winter 2001 Published by the American Academy of Religion Vol. 16, No.1 Annual Meeting AAR awarded $1.2 million Denver 2001 Details on page 2 Grant from Pew Charitable Trusts Page 3 Media referral center and scholars database INSIDE to be established THIS ISSUE Annual Meeting News New affiliation Call for Papers Update . .2 with Departments and Programs Page 3 New Program Units Approved . .23 AAR to offer a formal affiliation and expanded New Annual services to departments, programs, and schools Meeting policy . .2 Public intellectual in the schools . .23 New Vice President elected Page 3 Employment Information Robert Orsi joins presidential line Services Center Report . .23 Around the Quadrangle . .8 In Memoriam . .10 Annual Meeting Chairs Workshop a success Page 4 Assessing and Advancing the Religion Department In the Field Regional Meetings . .12 draws chairs to Nashville Grants/Awards . .27 Calendar . .28 Census of Religion and Theology Programs Page 4 Has your program been counted? Features The FBI at the Department Meeting . .16 AAR Annual Meeting in Nashville Page 5 A conversation with Sharon Coggan, University of Colorado, Denver Sensitizing law enforcement officials to religious Beyond the Annual Meeting . .18 Rebecca Alpert discusses the work of the issues. A report on a crisis simulation Committee on the Status of Women in the Profession Teaching beyond the borders Page 7 The Electronic Classroom . .17 Email and students in the religion classroon A report from the Lilly-Luce Teaching Workshop Member-at-Large . .19 Tina Pippin on receiving the Excellence in Teaching Award Research grants awarded Page 13 The Public Interest .
    [Show full text]
  • Professor Shelly Kagan
    Death: Lecture 4 Transcript Chapter 1. Introduction to Plato's Phaedo [00:00:00] Professor Shelly Kagan: We've been talking about the question, "What arguments might be offered for the existence of a soul?" And the family of arguments that we're considering initially are arguments that get known as inference or inferences to the best explanation. The thought is that there's something about us that needs explaining. We can't explain it in terms of… in purely physical terms. And so we need to appeal to, we need to posit, the existence of, a soul. Now, I'll come back to that sort of argument in just a minute, but let me bracket that for a moment and say something about Plato. Starting next week, we're going to be looking at Plato's dialogue, the Phaedo. And so although I'll be saying a great deal about the Phaedo once we turn to it, I want to just take a minute or two and say a couple of introductory remarks. I don't know how many of you have not read any Plato before, but for those of you who haven't, I actually think you're in for a treat. Plato is not only one of the greatest philosophers in history, he wrote his philosophy in the form of dialogues. That is to say, plays, in which various characters sit around or stand around and argue about philosophical positions. The particular dialogue that we're going to be reading, the Phaedo, is set at the death scene of Socrates.
    [Show full text]
  • An Interview with Shelly Kagan
    Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics, Volume 11, Issue 2, Autumn 2018, pp. 245-283. https://doi.org/10.23941/ejpe.v11i2.379 Thinking by Drawing: An Interview With Shelly Kagan SHELLY KAGAN (Chicago, 1954) is Clark Professor of Philosophy at Yale University, where he has taught since 1995. Before coming to Yale, he taught at the University of Pittsburgh and the University of Illinois at Chicago. Kagan received a BA in Philosophy and Religion from Wesleyan University in 1976 and a PhD from Princeton University in 1981. His PhD thesis, on the limits of what morality can demand, was supervised by Professor Thomas Nagel. Kagan’s research is in normative ethics. He is the author of The Limits of Morality (1989), Normative Ethics (1998a), Death (2012a), The Geometry of Desert (2012b), and How to Count Animals, more or less (forthcoming). His work has appeared in various journals, including Ethics, Philosophy & Public Affairs, and Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society. Videos of Kagan’s course on death have been very popular online. Kagan is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a member of the advisory board of the Philosophical Gourmet Report. The Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics (EJPE) interviewed Kagan about his formative years (section I); his work on death (section II), the moral status of animals (section III), and desert (section IV); his views on convergence in philosophy (section V); and his advice for graduate students in moral philosophy (section VI). I. Formative years EJPE: Professor Kagan, what first drew you to philosophy? SHELLY KAGAN: I was interested in Jewish religious thought from an early age.
    [Show full text]