• "Surviving a Police Encounter: A Guide for African Americans," by Christopher Keelty

    Surviving a Police Encounter: A Guide for Non-whites in America

    Non-white? Waiting for justice? While you wait, here are some “Dos and Don’ts” should you encounter police:“Surviving a Police Encounter: A Guide for African Americans,” by Christopher Keelty

    Google Doc Templates – Not in Apps for the Organization!?

    If you use the free, Standard Edition of Google Apps, your admin control panel will give you the illusion that you can enable the use of document templates on your domain.… Continue Reading

    Rebekah Frumkin

    Socrates and Glaucon on the Home Shopping Network

    by REBEKAH FRUMKIN, McSweeneys (19 May 2010) SOCRATES: Good evening, Glaucon. You look troubled. GLAUCON: I am, Socrates. SOCRATES: What worries you so? GLAUCON: Look at my kitchen floor. That… Continue Reading


    Stuffed Poblano Pepper Delight

    Ingredients 4 good sized peppers One tube of 3.5 oz chèvre 8 oz block of cream cheese the other things mentioned below Instructions Soften the cheeses (e.g., let them sit… Continue Reading

  • Latest

    • The Perfect Moral Storm: Philosophers Respond to the Impending Anthropogenic Apocalypse

      by Ava Kofman (Vice, May 31, 2015)

      For at least the next 200 years, weather forecasts predict shitstorms, with global temperatures now set to remain elevated for hundreds of years to come. The latest IPCC report explains that our emissions are nearing the point of no return. Even if industrialized nations switched to solar power overnight, it is now too late to fully reverse the planet’s course.

      Geologists have officially termed this new epoch, where the human species has irreparably shaped earth’s geological history, the Anthropocene. Policymakers no longer have the luxury to decide how we might “stop” global warming. Instead, we have to figure out how we’ll manage amidst climate instability.

      With a dark future ahead comes a new set of existential questions. What do present generations owe those in the future? Should we value only what affects us as humans? Is there value to nature, or a culture, in its own right? Since Western economies were responsible for the rise in temperature to date, should they bear more of the burden for stopping it in the future?

      Underlying the technical answers of scientists, economists, and politicians are some of the deepest moral dilemmas—problems that philosophers have been grappling with for centuries. “These issues of justice are brought into bold relief by climate change, but they are still traditional ethical questions,” Lawerence Torcello, a philosopher who researches the moral implications of climate denial at the Rochester Institute of Technology, explained in an interview with VICE. “How should we live? That’s as pressing now as ever. How are we going to live in the Anthropocene?”

      Unlike other paradigmatic moral problems, there is no single individual intentionally harming another in the case of climate change. As the philosopher Dale Jamieson and others have written, our moral judgments are more likely to fail in precisely these situations: where the connections between our bad behavior and the harm it causes are indirectly linked. In the case of invisibly emitting greenhouse gas, there is no single moment of pulling a trigger, nor is there a single smoking gun. The problem’s global scale, complicated causality over space and time, and long-term effects is what the philosopher Stephen Gardiner has in mind when he refers to climate change as “a perfect moral storm.”

      What is it going to mean to love a place when it is no longer there?

      Such a storm has led philosophers to call for new ethical framework around the issue—one that will ideally have political influence. “We need to start thinking in terms that we’re just not used to thinking of as a human species,” Torcello said. “We need to start thinking that things like driving cars and turning up our thermostats are harming people that haven’t even been born yet.”

      Dale Jamieson, a founding expert in the field of climate ethics and a professor of environmental studies and philosophy at NYU, was one of the first people to argue that to live well in the Anthropocene requires the adoption of new values, or what he calls ” green virtues.” He sees temperance—which he defines as living moderately with relatively low consumption—as key. Another necessary virtue, Jamieson says, is mindfulness, which is the understanding that “when you bring something into your life, you see yourself as taking cradle-to-grave responsibility for its whole lifecycle.” As in, every product you purchase will eventually have to go somewhere, if you discard it. And then, of course, there’s the desperate need for more cooperation. Jamieson recommends that cooperative political measures be taken quickly to eliminate coal and put a price on carbon.

      Photo via NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center

      Virtually all philosophers agree that developed countries should take the lead role in bearing these costs, while less developed countries should be allowed to increase or maintain emissions for the future. Yet, as Jamieson and others well know, no international mitigation and abatement efforts have been taking place on a large enough scale to freeze emissions. The source that provided the most new energy to the world economy in 2013 was, perversely, coal. Our increasing understanding of the damage caused by fossil fuels runs parallel to an increase in carbon emissions worldwide.

      Economist turned Oxford philosopher John Broome sees this failure of intense geopolitical cooperation as a classic “tragedy of the commons”: Each country will act within its own interest, which is always to emit. Broome explained to VICE that George Bush’s refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol expressed “the bald truth”: Countries are not going to do anything on behalf of others that requires them to sacrifice their own interests.

      One the largest questions about climate change concerns our responsibilities to future generations. Some economists have argued that future generations will be better off, and therefore better equipped to pay environmental costs themselves, while others, most notably Nordhaus, have argued that waiting costs not only the present generation, but also the future. Broome has worked to demonstrate that in asking humans to weigh what they value the most, these economic arguments are, at heart, ethical decisions.

      “It’s the nature of climate change to inflict damages on a large part of our society and on humans who don’t exist yet.” —Dale Jamieson

      This need to account for an unknown future population is part of what makes climate change difficult to square with traditional understandings of individual morality and global justice. One study shows that more than 60 percent of Americans believe that climate change will harm future generations, but only 38 percent believe it will harm them personally “a moderate amount.” Jamieson explains that democracy, as it now stands, is not adequately equipped to represent the interests of future generations. “Everyone likes to talk about the future but there’s a present generation narcissism that always goes on,” he added, noting that conversations around intergenerational justice point to how “badly equipped the present system is to protect interests that go beyond an electoral cycle. A well-functioning democracy ideally represents everyone who shows up. But it’s the nature of climate change to inflict damages on a large part of our society and on humans who don’t exist yet.”

      Jamieson, who started working on environmental ethics in the early 1990s, notes that as climate change transitioned from a theoretical problem to be avoided to a full-blown disaster, the questions posed by philosophers began to change. “Once that happened, you found yourself in a world where you needed to think about the fact that different places in the world have different levels of emissions. How do we adapt? Who pays for this adaptation? What does it mean to live a human life? What about animals? What about endangered species?”

      Broome says the recognition of the inevitability of crisis has led philosophers to take a more “pessimistic turn.” The titles of their books have likewise registered the dark mood, like Tim Mulgan’s Radical Hope and Ethics for A Broken World: Imagining Philosophy After Catastrophe and Jamison’s Reason in a Dark Time.

      Broome noted that his own approach to publicly discussing climate change has evolved. He’s realized that any statements he makes about “how we should live as individuals,” ended up distracting people from their governments using powers to prevent people from emitting. “I used to say you should have a zero carbon footprint that you can achieve by offsetting,” he said, “but that’s not how you’re going to solve climate change if the government doesn’t make judgments on that behavior.” The aim is not to discount what he calls private morality––refusing to fly on planes, for instance, could show the government that people care—but to ensure that public morality is mandated. But he notes that even government coercion can fail.

      So if all else fails, it’s possible that we’ll be turning to philosophy for one of its oldest promises: to teach us how to die. “We’re facing the most difficult problem that humanity has ever faced, and we’re in this post-Enlightenment period where we’ve never been less confident of our ability to make decisions for the better.” This crisis of meaning tends to get neglected: “What does it mean to live a meaningful life in a world where you and your kind have eliminated all wildness and forms of life from the planet?” Jamieson asked. “It’s a philosophy for trying to keep the world from going to hell.”

  • Widgets In Tabs

  • Think

    Mustafa Nayyem, Ukrainian Lawmaker
    Mustafa Nayyem, Ukrainian Lawmaker
  • Philosophy Feeds

    • PBites
    • Leiter
    • PN
    • PN podcasts
    • Ethics

    What sort of conclusions can we legitimately draw from the experiments that support evidence-based medicine? John Worrall questions some of the received opinion on this topic in this interview with David Edmonds for Philosophy Bites

    We take for granted the fact that we can combine concepts to give new thoughts, and understand the thoughts too. How do we do that? Joshua D. Greene discusses this question in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.

    What is the nature of the self? What is reality? How should we live? These are fundamental philosophical questions. Graham Priest discusses how such questions have been discussed in the Buddhist tradition for this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.

    To what degree is reality something created by us? Jesse Prinz explores this fascinating question in conversation with Nigel Warburton

    How can you tell science from non-science? Karl Popper argued that the falsifiability of a hypothesis is the mark of science. Massimo Pigliucci is not so sure about that. 



    What is a duty and what sort of obligation does it put us on? David Owens explores the nature of duty in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast. If you enjoy Philosophy Bites, please consider supporting us via Patreon.

    We are a highly social species: we need human contact. But do we have a right to it? In this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast Kimberley Brownlee suggests that this is an ingredient in a minimally decent human life...

    The philosopher Peter Singer is famous for his attack on speciesism, the alleged prejudice that many exhibit in favour of human interests when compared with the interests of other animals. Here Shelly Kagan outlines Singer's position and takes issue with it. In the process he makes some interesting points about prejudices in general.

    ...with a "fuckin' sale." Fuck, yeah, I would actually go shopping at a place like this.

    ...from Robert Paul Wolff (thinking about Trump and nativist fascism).

    Several of these are quite interesting.

    The "fascist" label is apt for the reasons noted, but he will not be the Republican nominee or the next President. He is a gift to the Democrats, however, guaranteeing that women, racial, ethnic and religious minorities, as well as...

    Pretty damning editorial; I'm surprised they weighed in, but the NYT does tend to take a strong interest in Ivy League matters, given the class structure it represents. (I was a residential adviser in "Wilson College" [always known simply as...

    If you're up in the middle of the night, read it!

    From a new paper by psychologist Nick Haslam (Melbourne): [M]any concepts that refer to the negative aspects of human experience and behavior have expanded their meanings. These concepts increasingly extend outward to capture qualitatively new phenomena (‘horizontal’ expansion) and downward...

    by David Boersema

    Cressida Cowell wins Philosophy Now Award • Study claims religious children “less altruistic” • Can Ought Not Imply Can? — News reports by Anja Steinbauer

    Anja Steinbauer on who can make fun of what, when and how.

    Alan Soble encounters problems in thinking about comedy.

    Mordechai Gordon takes ideas about not taking ourselves too seriously seriously.

    Isadora Mosch considers why we laugh at things that aren’t funny.

    John Marmysz looks on the funny side of absolute nothingness.

    Alistair MacFarlane thinks through the life of a godfather of logic.

    Grant Bartley from Philosophy Now (and author of The Metarevolution) is joined by members of London philosophy groups Philosophy For All and the Philosophical Society of England to debate an argument advanced by PFA member Kieran Quill that according to quantum mechanics the universe is mental in nature. Join us to hear the fallout. First broadcast on 29 June 2014 on Resonance FM.

    Ludwig Wittgenstein worked out how language has meaning, twice. He also thought that some of the most important things we can know we can’t express at all. Grant Bartley from Philosophy Now finds out the meaning and limits of language from guest Daniel Hutto from the University of Wollongong, NSW. First broadcast on 22 June 2014 on Resonance FM.

    Might Nietzsche be right, claiming that lying is “a condition of life?” – Or Kant, arguing that lying means annihilating human dignity? Is it ever acceptable for governments to lie to the public or for individuals to lie to the government? Anja Steinbauer is joined by politician and philosopher Shahrar Ali and moral philosopher Piers Benn to discuss whether lying can be a good thing. First broadcast on 15 June 2014 on Resonance FM.

    What is meta-ethics? How does meta-ethics differ from ethics, and what does it tell us about ethics? Why is it important for how we should live our lives? Join Grant Bartley from Philosophy Now and his guests Edward Harcourt from Keble College, Oxford, and Richard Rowland from the University of Warwick, to find the answers to these questions and more. First broadcast on 8 June 2014 on Resonance FM.

    Join Grant Bartley from Philosophy Now and guests John Callanan from King’s College, London, and Andrew Ward from the University of York to talk about the most important idea you’ve never heard of, and some other persuasive arguments from revolutionary but unfortunately unknown-to-the-world philosopher Immanuel Kant. First broadcast on 1 June 2014 on Resonance FM.

    Join Grant Bartley from Philosophy Now and guests Philip Goff from the University of Liverpool and Tom McClelland from the University of Manchester as they try to work out how all that electricity between your nerve cells relates to and produces all your experiences and thoughts. First broadcast on 25 May 2014 on Resonance FM.

    What has Buddhism to offer the 21st Century? Join Anja Steinbauer and her guests, Martin Muchall and Rick Lewis, for a critical discussion of ideas in and about Buddhism. First broadcast on 18 May 2014 on Resonance FM.

    Isaiah Berlin said of David Hume, “No man has influenced the history of philosophy to a deeper or more disturbing degree.” Join Grant Bartley from Philosophy Now plus guests Jane O’Grady, Peter Kail and James Arnold to find out why. First broadcast on 11 May 2014 on Resonance FM.

    Dr Jonathan Pugh’s St Cross Special Ethics Seminar on 12 November 2015 is now available at http://media.philosophy.ox.ac.uk/uehiro/MT15_STX_Pugh.mp3 Speaker: Dr Jonathan Pugh Although a central tenet of medical ethics holds that it is permissible to perform a medical intervention on a competent individual only if that individual has given informed consent to that intervention, there are […]

    Dominic Wilkinson, University of Oxford @Neonatalethics Medical science continues to push at the boundaries of life and death with new drugs and technologies that can extend life or improve health. But these advances come at a cost. And that inevitably raises difficult questions about whether public health systems should pay for such treatments – and, […]

    Lecture 3 Audio [MP3] | YouTube link [MP4]  Grove Auditorium, Magdalen College, Longwall Street, Oxford 5 November 2015, 6-8pm i. The emerging scientific picture of psychiatric illness and treatment is gaining in truth value (within the nexus of scientific understandings). ii. Explanations of distress and psychopathology based on introspection and phenomenological observations of others generally lacks […]

    Lecture 2 Audio [MP3] | YouTube link [MP4] Grove Auditorium, Magdalen College, Longwall Street, Oxford 4 November 2015, 6-8pm i. A half-century of stasis in psychiatric therapeutics reflects the enormous scientific hurdles posed by psychiatric disorders. ii. However, it also reveals the need for new ways of thinking and a more honest response to evidence. iii. […]

    The 2015 Loebel Lectures in Psychiatry and Philosophy were delivered by Professor Steven E. Hyman, director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard as well as Harvard University Distinguished Service Professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology. Both the lecture series and the one-day workshop proved popular […]

    A stunning report from a WADA Commission, led by former head of WADA Dick Pound has made a series of allegations against Russian athletes and authorities, including that 1400 samples were deliberately destroyed ahead of a visit by WADA. It recommends the suspension of all Russian athletes over the period including the Rio Olympics, and […]

    Graduate and undergraduate students currently enrolled at the University of Oxford in any subject are invited to enter the Oxford Uehiro Prize in Practical Ethics by submitting an essay of up to 2000 words on any topic relevant to practical ethics.  Eligibility includes visiting students who are registered as recognized students, and paying fees, but […]

    By Charles Foster Marriage is not well served by its defenders. The loudest and best reported of them are often fundamentalist bigots. It’s a shame, for marriage has a lot going for it. Even if you think that marriage is an anachronistic/bourgeois/theologically contaminated institution, you’ll probably agree that the breakdown of marriages is best avoided. […]

  • Poem

    • Telephone cords and daffodils

      Telephone cords and daffodils

      Telephone cords and daffodils, Pelican beaks and ink spills, Wet kisses and electric bills, Laughing, gasping, sweating, chills. Fri, 05/16/2008
  • Random Band Names

    • Lens of Craft

      Lens of Craft

      Plato argues, in The Republic, that engaging the world through the lens of a craft intimates – even instantiates – Good.
    • Four Names

      Four Names

      Heavy Levitas Whispy Gravitas And from classy sources: The Original Position (Rawls); Cognitive Dissonance

Leave a Reply