Top News, Articles, and Interviews in Philosophy

CFP: Studies in Philosophy of Sport

[Cross posted from: https://sportsethicist.com/2021/07/01/cfp-studies-in-philosophy-of-sport-2/]This is an active and ongoing call for proposals for the Studies in Philosophy of Sport series from Lexington Books.This series encourages scholars from all disciplines to inquire into the nature, importance, and qualities of sport and related activities. The series aims to encourage new voices and methods for the philosophic study of sport while also inspiring established scholars to consider new questions and approaches.The series encourages scholars new to the philosophy of sport to bring their expertise to this growing field. These new voices bring innovative methods and different questions to the standard issues in the philosophy of sport. Well-trodden topics in the literature will be reexamined with fresh takes and new questions and issues will be explored to advance the field beyond traditional positions.A few possible topic ideas:A deep analysis of one of the central concepts or theories in philosophy of sport. Internalism, conventionalism, mutualism, etc.Fouls and rulesTechnology and its philosophical implicationsCompetitionSportsmanshipEpistemological issues in sport: can sport teach us anything about how and what we know?Metaphysical issues in sport: mind/body, personal identity, time, etc.Application of contemporary approaches to philosophy to sport.Look at a specific sport (rugby, tennis, gymnastics, etc.) and examine what philosophy can tell us about that sport [More]

The Border & Mercenaries?

When it is not lying about the 2020 election, creating laws to solve problems that do not exist, or doing other dishonest and awful things, the Republican party is focused on the border. Trump obsessed about his wall—but it is a “absentia monumentum, to make up a phrase. Now that Joe Biden is President, some [More]

91 - Rights for Robots, Animals and Nature?

Should robots have rights? How about chimpanzees? Or rivers? Many people ask these questions individually, but few people have asked them all together at the same time. In this episode, I talk to a man who has. Josh Gellers is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Public Administration at the University of North Florida, a Fulbright Scholar to Sri Lanka, a Research Fellow of the Earth System Governance Project, and Core Team Member of the Global Network for Human Rights and the Environment. His research focuses on environmental politics, rights, and technology. He is the author of The Global Emergence of Constitutional Environmental Rights (Routledge 2017) and Rights for Robots: Artificial Intelligence, Animal and Environmental Law (Routledge 2020). We talk about the arguments and ideas in the latter book. You can download the episode here or listen below. You can also subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Spotify and other podcasting services (the RSS feed is here).Show notesTopics covered include:Should we even be talking about robot rights?What is a right? What's the difference between a legal and moral right?How do we justify the ascription of rights?What is personhood? Who counts as a person?Properties versus relations - what matters more when it comes to moral status?What can we learn from the animal rights case law?What can we learn from the Rights of Nature debate?Can we imagine a future in which robots have [More]

Self-Defense

[New Entry by Helen Frowe and Jonathan Parry on June 29, 2021.] Killing and harming others are paradigmatic wrongs. And yet there is at least one intuitive exception to this prohibition - namely, killing or harming in self-defense, or in defense of others. Consider: Murder: Attacker is culpably trying to kill Victim because he is jealous of Victim's success. Victim can save his own life only by lethally throwing a grenade at Attacker. With the exception of strict pacifists, there is broad consensus in morality and law that defensive harm can be permissible in cases like this. However, as we shall see, it is surprisingly difficult to explain the grounds and limits of this [More]