The Oxford Institute For Ethics, Law, and Armed Conflicts is hosting a Round Table Discussion with Jeff McMahan, and a Killing in War Workshop.

Proportionality and Noncombatant Immunity: Round Table Discussion
Thursday, 8 October, 3.00-5.00pm
Oxford University
Manor Road Building, Seminar Room D

Professor Jeff McMahan (Rutgers University)
Dr. Helen Frowe (University of Sheffield)
Dr. Seth Lazar (ELAC)

Conference: War and Self-Defence – Final Call for Papers
August 25th – 27th, 2010
University of Sheffield, UK

Keynote Speakers:

Frances Kamm (Harvard)
Jeff McMahan (Rutgers)
David Rodin (Oxford)
Noam Zohar (Bar Ilan)

*Submission deadline: Dec 1st 2009*

Surveying Loose Talk
By Antti Kauppinen

This is the first in a series of posts about recent work in experimental philosophy. I will be examining some persistent general issues with the different experimental approaches by way of looking at particular papers in some detail. I’ll begin with ‘Two Conceptions of Subjective Experience’ by Justin Sytsma and Edouard Machery. The problem that the study highlights is that everyday language is often vague, ambiguous, or just spoken loosely, so that we can’t draw conclusions about people’s concepts just by looking at what they say in response to prompts. We first need to tease out just what people mean, and this can’t be done in a survey that doesn’t allow for a back-and-forth between the researcher and the subject. This would be a problem even if experimentalists solved all the other problems raised by myself and others.

Thinking About Reasons
By Antti Kauppinen

Expressivist accounts of normative judgment typically (always?) begin with all-things-considered verdicts: Hurrah (helping old ladies cross the road)! Boo (getting your little brother to murder)! But of course, many normative thoughts are not all-things-considered. I think there is some reason for me to go to bed early, and some reason for me not to do so. When I deliberate, I try to figure out which of these is stronger, and so arrive at an all-things-considered judgment.

Here is a partial list of things that an account of thoughts about reasons should explain:

‘The Human Right to Political Participation’
First colloquium of the AHRC Research Network on ‘Institutionalising values: Beyond Human Rights?’

September 7th and 8th, 2009
Rooms 2X4 and 2X6, Cottrell Building
University of Stirling

Kristina Bentley (University of the Western Cape)
Rowan Cruft (University of Stirling)
Costas Douzinas (Birkbeck College, London)
Martina Düttmann (Consultant for Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe)
Cécile Fabre (University of Edinburgh)
Alon Harel (Hebrew University)
Jonathan Heawood (Director, English PEN [promoting literature and human rights])
S. Matthew Liao (University of Oxford)
Sandra Marshall (University of Stirling)
Bill Paterson (University of Strathclyde)
Fabienne Peter (University of Warwick)
Massimo Renzo (University of Stirling)
Scott Veitch (University of Glasgow)
Leif Wenar (King’s College, London)

This work is licensed under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0.