By In Favorite Papers, Normative Ethics Comments (4)

Favorite papers on: Kantian Ethics

Hoping folks will share with the group their favorite papers on the topic of Kantian ethics. Perhaps people might add what level they think the paper is most appropriate for (grad seminar, undergrad intro, etc.). A short explanation of what the paper says or what makes it great might be useful as well.

Read more

By In Ethics Discussions at PEA Soup, Normative Ethics Comments (4)

Ethics Discussion at PEA Soup: Cheshire Calhoun’s “On Being Content with Imperfection,” with a critical précis by Glen Pettigrove

Welcome to what we expect will be a very interesting and productive discussion of Cheshire Calhoun’s “On Being Content with Imperfection.” The article was published in the most recent issue of Ethics and is available through open access here. Glen Pettigrove has kindly agreed to contribute a critical précis, and it appears immediately below. Please join in the discussion!

Chike Jeffers (more…)

Read more

By In Normative Ethics, Uncategorized Comments (15)

Favorite readings on: Consequentialism

We ask folks to share with the group their favorite papers on the topic of consequentialism. Perhaps people might add what level they think the paper is most appropriate for (grad seminar, undergrad intro, etc.). A short explanation of what the paper says or what makes it great might be useful as well.

Read more

By In Ethics Discussions at PEA Soup, Uncategorized Comments (0)

Upcoming Ethics Discussion, Feb. 12-14: Cheshire Calhoun’s “On Being Content with Imperfection,” with a critical précis by Glen Pettigrove

We are pleased to announce our next Ethics discussion, which will be on Cheshire Calhoun‘s article, “On Being Content with Imperfection.” The article is available here. A critical précis will be provided by Glen Pettigrove. Join us February 12-14!

Read more

By In Featured Authors, Ideas, Moral Responsibility, Philosophy of Law Comments (10)

Featured Authors: Victor Tadros’s Wrongs and Crimes (Post by Victor Tadros)

[Editor’s Note: As part of our series featuring authors of new and forthcoming books, today we are featuring Victor Tadros’s new book Wrongs and Crimes (OUP). Below, Victor discusses one argument from the book, on whether punishment can be justified in light of worries about free will. All are welcome and encouraged to join in on the discussion.]

 

Wrongs and Crimes is about the relationship between wrongs and crimes! It is about the nature and sources of wrongdoing, why wrongdoing can make a person liable to punishment. In the light of that it is about the scope of the criminal law. The book covers far too many issues – everything from the nature of wrongdoing, to debates about free will, to the nature of harm and the harm principle, to consent, inchoate wrongdoing, and firearms possession. As taster, I focus only on one issue that I address in chapter 5: can punishment be justified in the face of challenges from free-will sceptics?

(more…)

Read more

By In Ideas, Moral Responsibility Comments (8)

Moral Responsibility and Wrong Kind of Reasons

This post is a question for those who know more about the debates about moral responsibility. The question is: why is the wrong kind of reasons problem discussed so extensively in the buck-passing/value theory literature but relatively little in the moral responsibility literature? The only discussions I have been able to find are in a couple of Stephen Darwall’s papers where he discusses what we can learn from Strawson. Maybe the issue has been discussed more extensively in which case I would be very thankful for advice… (more…)

Read more

By In Ideas, Moral Psychology Comments (3)

Both Humeans and Kantians about Motivation are Wrong

Both Hume and Kant advocated extreme and implausible views of motivation; the same is also true of many of their contemporary followers. The truth about motivation lies in between these two extremes.
(more…)

Read more