Philosophers' Carnival LXXX
Welcome to the 80th Philosophers' Carnival!
The Philosophers' Carnival is a collection of what Philosophers have had to say on various topics over the last fortnight, and a presentation of a subjective pick of the best in an easy to read manner. This greatly alleviates the risk of one getting stuck in a tube on their hunt for fascinating tidbits of philosophical enlightenment. This week it has been my turn to mull over the nominated articles and I should by all means be claiming the mountains of tea bags I have gone through as expenses, but, alas, I do it out of love.
To submit a post for the carnival you can use the form here. The next carnival will be hosted Arbitrary Marks.
________________________________
Over at A Mind for Madness there is a post concerning Ethical Voting Habits. It poses a question for all those who are eligible to vote in this coming election, "are we ethically obligated to put our opinions aside and vote for the qualified side?"
________________________________
There is an interesting commentary on the state of democracy over at Moral Health titled Plato's Assessment of American Democracy. I have never been a fan of the concept of Philosopher Kings and as such have found Plato's critique of democracy troublesome and flawed. However, I do feel that Laurence makes some interesting remarks on responsibility and blameworthiness.
________________________________
Next we have a post about Civic Responsibility, Authenticity, Guilt by Sabrina Jamil at the Florida Student Philosophy Blog. Sabrina's post strikes home personally as I am an American citizen who missed the deadline to register to vote out of pure negligence, slight indifference and quite a defeatist attitude (what are the chances of Texas voting Obama anyway?). She reflects on how we suddenly care about the political every four years when it rolls around, but then promptly forget about any of our civic responsibilities till the next time we get a pamphlet shoved through our door. She further puts out a call in support of Faculty Unions and the role they play in preserving democracy within the institution of an University.
________________________________
Over at Robert Walker Online there is an interesting summary on How Values Dictate Morality. Its remarks on the difference in application of value between religion and others is worth a look at, even if the question he raises about how morality can be used to control people is never fully answered.
________________________________
In a post about Local Economy and Ethics Evelyn Brister at Knowledge and Experience asks the question "what is ethical about supporting local economies?" and whether this can be removed from our self-interest and be altruistic in nature.
________________________________
At Practical Ethics Rebecca Roache comments on Why the cheating objection to smart drugs doesn't work. Roache argues against the commonplace assumption that "those who take cognitive enhancement drugs" are simply analogous to "those who bribe their examiners [because they] are better placed to beat their peers in the competition for the best educational qualifications and jobs, and so cognitive enhancement is unfair. In this case, shouldn’t cognitive enhancement be banned in schools and colleges?"
________________________________
Now we move away from the practical and applied, and Kenny Pearce at his blog comments on the strange conclusion that Mark Johnston reaches in his paper "Constitution is not Identity." In his post Minimalist Ontology and Familiar Object Talk, Pearce relays his worries about the odd conclusion that "for the distinction to be justified, the difference between an F and its constituting matter must be a deep metaphysical difference secured by an extra ingredient of the F."
________________________________
Staying in the realm of the theoretical Richard Chappell at Philosophy etc. raises a discussion about 'Proving Grue's Temporality'. Chappell aims to show that the linguistic defence that "the temporal reference is merely an artifact of our language" is an inadequate response to the problem of the Green-speaker and the Grue-Speaker. Furthermore, in making these claims they are not only linguistic, but they carry with them a substantial amount of metaphyical weight.
________________________________
Finally, we end with David Michael's post about Free Will and deterministic predictions at Perplexicon. Michael puts forward a thought experiment which aims to show that if it were possible to give a model of the world in which we could fully understand all the laws governing it, then we would be forced to conclude that determinism were true and furthermore, we would be able to map out and see all our future 'choices' before us. Would this then eliminate the illusion of free will? He shifts the burden of proof unto the determinist, and having determinist sympathies, I am rather tempted to shift the burden back onto him.
________________________________
That brings us to the end of this edition of the Philosophers' Carnival. For information about how to submit and who'll be hosting next, just check the top of this post again
The Philosophers' Carnival is a collection of what Philosophers have had to say on various topics over the last fortnight, and a presentation of a subjective pick of the best in an easy to read manner. This greatly alleviates the risk of one getting stuck in a tube on their hunt for fascinating tidbits of philosophical enlightenment. This week it has been my turn to mull over the nominated articles and I should by all means be claiming the mountains of tea bags I have gone through as expenses, but, alas, I do it out of love.
To submit a post for the carnival you can use the form here. The next carnival will be hosted Arbitrary Marks.
Over at A Mind for Madness there is a post concerning Ethical Voting Habits. It poses a question for all those who are eligible to vote in this coming election, "are we ethically obligated to put our opinions aside and vote for the qualified side?"
There is an interesting commentary on the state of democracy over at Moral Health titled Plato's Assessment of American Democracy. I have never been a fan of the concept of Philosopher Kings and as such have found Plato's critique of democracy troublesome and flawed. However, I do feel that Laurence makes some interesting remarks on responsibility and blameworthiness.
Next we have a post about Civic Responsibility, Authenticity, Guilt by Sabrina Jamil at the Florida Student Philosophy Blog. Sabrina's post strikes home personally as I am an American citizen who missed the deadline to register to vote out of pure negligence, slight indifference and quite a defeatist attitude (what are the chances of Texas voting Obama anyway?). She reflects on how we suddenly care about the political every four years when it rolls around, but then promptly forget about any of our civic responsibilities till the next time we get a pamphlet shoved through our door. She further puts out a call in support of Faculty Unions and the role they play in preserving democracy within the institution of an University.
Over at Robert Walker Online there is an interesting summary on How Values Dictate Morality. Its remarks on the difference in application of value between religion and others is worth a look at, even if the question he raises about how morality can be used to control people is never fully answered.
In a post about Local Economy and Ethics Evelyn Brister at Knowledge and Experience asks the question "what is ethical about supporting local economies?" and whether this can be removed from our self-interest and be altruistic in nature.
At Practical Ethics Rebecca Roache comments on Why the cheating objection to smart drugs doesn't work. Roache argues against the commonplace assumption that "those who take cognitive enhancement drugs" are simply analogous to "those who bribe their examiners [because they] are better placed to beat their peers in the competition for the best educational qualifications and jobs, and so cognitive enhancement is unfair. In this case, shouldn’t cognitive enhancement be banned in schools and colleges?"
Now we move away from the practical and applied, and Kenny Pearce at his blog comments on the strange conclusion that Mark Johnston reaches in his paper "Constitution is not Identity." In his post Minimalist Ontology and Familiar Object Talk, Pearce relays his worries about the odd conclusion that "for the distinction to be justified, the difference between an F and its constituting matter must be a deep metaphysical difference secured by an extra ingredient of the F."
Staying in the realm of the theoretical Richard Chappell at Philosophy etc. raises a discussion about 'Proving Grue's Temporality'. Chappell aims to show that the linguistic defence that "the temporal reference is merely an artifact of our language" is an inadequate response to the problem of the Green-speaker and the Grue-Speaker. Furthermore, in making these claims they are not only linguistic, but they carry with them a substantial amount of metaphyical weight.
Finally, we end with David Michael's post about Free Will and deterministic predictions at Perplexicon. Michael puts forward a thought experiment which aims to show that if it were possible to give a model of the world in which we could fully understand all the laws governing it, then we would be forced to conclude that determinism were true and furthermore, we would be able to map out and see all our future 'choices' before us. Would this then eliminate the illusion of free will? He shifts the burden of proof unto the determinist, and having determinist sympathies, I am rather tempted to shift the burden back onto him.
That brings us to the end of this edition of the Philosophers' Carnival. For information about how to submit and who'll be hosting next, just check the top of this post again
Comments