Please note that the PhilPapers forums will be closed in March 2017 and replaced by a newer, more modern feature shortly thereafter. To minimize disruption, we have now disabled the creation of new threads. We encourage forum participants to wrap up discussions before March.

Social and Political Philosophy


 1 - 20 / 45 
2016-08-08
After the publication of this paper, I enjoyed personal communication with Aloysius Martinich and discovered that I misused if and only if in several places of this paper. The corrections are below:

The formula indicates the following:
1. A is relatively identical to the value, but A is not absolutely identical to the value.
2. B is relatively identical to the value, but B is not absolutely identical to the value.
3. The value of A is absolutely identical to the value of B.
4. A is not identical to B.
(page 135)

1. The expression 1 + 3 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 1 + 3 is not absolutely identical to 4.

2. The expression 2 + 2 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 2 + 2 is not absolutely identical to 4.
3. The value of 1 + 3 is absolutely identical to the value of 2 + 2.
4. The expression 1 + 3 is not identical to the expression 2 + 2.
(page 135)

1. The triumvir was relatively identical to Lepidus, but the triumvir was not absolutely identical to Lepidus.
2. The pontifex maximus ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/18954 Reply

2016-07-20
It seems to me that this work is very much unavailable to students and professionals. Have not found it online in any form, save for a few hardcover editions for more than $500. Crazy.
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/18146 Reply

2016-07-04
Not out of umbrage so much as a deep concern over ideological censorship in philosophy, I want to publicly note and respond to the negative referee reports this paper has received (when graced with a report at all----it was desk rejected multiple times without comment). I believe the comments I quote below, compared with a reading of the paper itself, will reveal that it was rejected for ideological reasons, and that the paper warrants publication and indeed engagement.  
Background: I co-authored this paper with a student, Michael Prideaux, a queer activist who is now studying non-profit management. I disagree with my coauthor on many matters, but we agree on the importance of principles, consistency, and reasoning in ethical debate. Unfortunately, our referee(s) believe in gate-keeping and stifling views they find "troubling." I waited to post a public reply until he was in grad school so as to shield him from controversy.

Below I will quote the only two referee reports I received. I wi ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/17358 Reply

2016-04-12
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!

2016-04-12
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!

2016-04-12
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/14842 Reply

2016-03-29
My alarm bells went off seeing mention of Al Qaeda and 9/11 in an abstract from 1999. Turns out the DOI and abstract here are not for Keeley's 1999 paper, but for an SSRN working paper by Sunstein and Vermeule from 2008 (which doesn't seem to have a separate philpapers entry). I can delete the abstract from this entry, but I can't find a way to edit the DOI.

What's the best thing for a user like me to do? I could create another entry with the correct DOI (which is 10.2307/2564659)&copy over the information from this one, then edit this one to describe the Sunstein and Vermeule paper, but I feel like there's got to be a better way--especially since that would distort the download stats for the two papers.
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/14402 Reply

2015-12-11
In Mark Cherry’s article “Non-consensual Treatment is (nearly always) Morally Adherent” he takes a Socratic approach to the issue of involuntary hospitalization and forced treatment of psychiatric patients. Cherry believes that non-consensual treatment does not reserve the patient’s best interest, fails to respect autonomy, and uses the idea of the mentally ill being a threat to others to violate their human rights. I will challenge these ideas by exploring the “thank you theory” as it is related to a wide range of mental illnesses and respect to patient best interest, pondering how the informed consent process can ever be seen as valid with a patient having no true sense of reality, and how never considering someone a threat until they already show violent behavior can result in tragedies occurring that could have been easily prevented.

Though it is true that non-consensual treatment of the mentally ill usually does not result in a “thank you” from the patients, addicts seem to be the ... (read more)


2015-09-04
What kind of academic inquiry can best help humanity make progress towards as good a world as possible?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in this question?  Is it because most believe the kind of academic inquiry we have today, devoted primarily to the pursuit of knoweldge and technological know-how, is the best that we can have, judged from the perspective of helping humanity make progress towards a better world?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in arguments which seem to show decisively that inquiry restricted to the pursuit of knowledge is both profoundly irrational, and a menace?  The successful pursuit of knowledge and technological know-how, dissociated from a more fundamental concern to help humanity resolve conflicts and problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational ways, is almost bound to lead to trouble.  Scientific knowledge and technological know-how enormously increase our power to act - for some of us at ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/10477 Reply

2015-04-18
If you come across this paper while researching philosophy of love, you should watch this: https://youtu.be/ykxNI137sPk
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/9876 Reply

2015-02-19
If you have any questions or comments on "The Zygote Argument is Invalid", I would enjoy discussing them on this thread!


2015-01-28
I am trying to start a discussion for teaching INSEPARABILITY OF LOGIC AND ETHICS. A COLLEAGUE WROTE: I'm going to be teaching your "Inseparability of Logic and Ethics" in a couple weeks. I was wondering if you had any tips on doing so or thoughts about points to emphasize. I've always loved the paper and found your pedagogical techniques quite helpful.
POST YOUR ADVICE AND I WILL FORWARD IT .
MY ADVICE TO MY COLLEAGUE: First, before assigning the paper to be read, ask the students to look up “ethics” and “logic” in a dictionary or other reference work and then to write a paragraph on what the two have to do with each other. Second, after the students were supposed to have read the paper, ask them what they got out of it. Just let them talk and prompt them where necessary. No contentiousness. Third, read the first page aloud to them and see what happens. As you go read chunks aloud and ask questions—just like I did teaching you Tarski’s truth-definition paper. Fourth, go around the clas ... (read more)

2014-12-19

► JOHN CORCORAN AND WILLIAM FRANK, Cosmic Justice Hypotheses.

  This applied-logic lecture builds on [1] arguing that character traits fostered by logic serve clarity and understanding in ethics, confirming hopeful views of Alfred Tarski [2, Preface, and personal communication].

  Hypotheses in one strict usage are propositions not known to be true and not known to be false or—more loosely—propositions so considered for discussion purposes [1, p. 38].

   Logic studies hypotheses by determining their implications (propositions they imply) and their implicants (propositions that imply them). Logic also studies hypotheses by seeing how variations affect implications and implicants. People versed in logical methods are more inclined to enjoy working with hypotheses and less inclined to dismiss them or to accept them without sufficient evidence.

  Cosmic Justice Hypotheses (CJHs), such as “in the fullness of time every act will be rewarded or punished in exact proportion to its goodness or badness ... (read more)


2014-12-16

The writing describes a new sort of individual, “a delude”. People like Hitler would well fit the description. He was mentally healthy, however overwhelmed by grossly deluded opinions.

Here is the description from the text: 

"Even when a person is born possessing a healthy mental state, the familial and environmental assault during childhood with deluded opinions and behavior can be the basis for an individual to develop into a delude, an individual in a deluded mental state. In this writing, the label fool, or imbecile, is sometimes interchangeable with the underlying primary conditions of the delude. A fool is predisposed to accept deluded opinions as true; however, he or she can have an overall good awareness of social norms and laws that he or she learned to comply with. A fool is not, because of his mental condition alone, a villain. In contrast, the delude typically develops overwhelming extreme views. These views can be held as more important than any social or legal consideration ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/9450 Reply

2014-10-19
I want to draw a distinction between a "nation" (or other group) in terms of the individuals that make it up  and that "nation" (or other group) as a unified body. The former is entirely made up of reductive qualities; it has properties just in case the individuals have the property.  So the British nation loves tea, the Korean nation loves Kimchee and the German nation loves sausages etc.  The "unified body" has emergent qualities; sovereignty, a foreign policy, institutions, a seat at the United Nations etc.
It seems to me that the first "nation" can have some properties, in virtue of it's members having those properties that conflict with similar emergent properties of the second "nation".  For example Germany's actions in World War 1 were, at least thought to be, in the interest of Germany.  But that would appear to be "Germany" in the second sense of "nation". It doesn't seem to have advanced or even be aimed at advancing the individuals that made up the nation. 

That's two paragraphs ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/9175 Reply

2014-06-26
Any disagreement, agreement, argument or any evaluation would do. Need a help from you all to write a critical review for this article.
Latest replies:
  • Cl. CleB, 2015-10-01 : Ethics is a big word, especially when it comes to join the corporate world. While it is quite admettable it is advanced... (read more)
Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/8279 Reply

2014-05-18
(1) That sentient life will one day come to an end is no solace for those sentients existing and suffering today.

(2) Whether it is better to have been or not to have been is a Cartesian koan I can ponder concrerning myself, but not one I have a right to decide concerning another sentient that is or has been; all the less right have I to create or support the creation of another sentient, out of nothing.

(3) Pain and pleasure are incommensurable; only pain is pertinent to moral musings like these: No number of orgasms (for me) compensates for one fallen sparrow; and, again, the sparrow’s pains or solaces are not for me to weigh -- for the sparrow.

(4) Christianity is particularly self-righteous and presumptuous on such questions, always ready to sanction temporal risk and suffering for the bodies of others for the salvation of their immaterial, immortal souls, sub specie aeternitatis.


Latest replies: Permanent link: https://philpapers.org/post/8166 Reply

 1 - 20 / 45