Nov
10
Thu
Philosophy Colloquium Book panel: Anat Matar “The Poverty of Ethics” @ Wolff Conference Room/D1103
Nov 10 @ 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm

Book panel:  Anat Matar, The Poverty of Ethics  (Verso books 2022)

Participants:

Anat Matar (Senior Lecturer of Philosophy at Tel Aviv University)

Simon Critchley (Hans Jonas Professor of Philosophy at NSSR)

Raef Zreik (Visiting Fellow at Yale Law School, and Associate Professor of Jurisprudence at Ono Academic College)

 

Abstract:

It is a common assumption that ethics must serve as the cornerstone of politics. Yet abstract moral arguments have always been used for justifying all kinds of atrocities; ethical sensitivity and compassion have been expressed towards particular kinds of victims, while totally ignoring others.

The liberal West, in particular, continually manifests such blindness. It is horrified by non-Western oppressive methods, but turns a blind eye to their Western equivalents.

The gratification of holding the moral high ground consistently serves as a political instrument in the hands of those seeking to shore up the existing order.

In The Poverty of Ethics, philosopher and activist Anat Matar argues for the conceptual primacy of political discourse over ethics and claims that only the political force which stands for equality, justice and democracy – the Left – can provide the coordinates for an ethical life under conditions of global injustice.

Appealing to philosophical ideas on the essence of language, Matar shows how the ethos of the Left, as it has evolved over years, underlies and gradually forms the basis for ethics.

Struggles against slavery, racism, colonization and militarization, protests against exploitation and the capitalist order, the feminist movement, global demands for climate action – all these are primarily motivated by a deep understanding of Left heritage rather than by abstract ethical requirements or by airy sensitivities. They, in turn, shape and reshape our notion of moralit

Nov
17
Thu
Rachana Kamtekar: What makes right acts right? A Stoic answer to Ross’s question @ Wolff Conference Room/D1103
Nov 17 @ 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm

What makes right acts right? A Stoic answer to Ross’s question.

When W.D. Ross poses the question, “what makes right acts right?” (The Right and the Good ch. 2), he is asking a question that is prior to the deliberative question, “how do I determine the right thing to do?” The Stoics recognize this: in De Officiis 1.7, Cicero says that every inquiry about duty has two parts: (1) a theoretical part concerned with the end of goods and evils, which addresses such matters as whether all duties are perfect, whether some are more important than others, and what are the kinds of duties, and (2) a practical part which sets out rules (praecepta) by which our conduct can be made to conform with the end.  This paper focuses on (1) and in particular asks Ross’s question about Stoic right actions (kathêkonta).

 

The endpoint of Stoic deliberation is determining what token action is the right action.  The paper begins with the Stoic distinction between a thing’s choiceworthiness, its intrinsic disposition to elicit a choice response in a suitable subject, and its possession being to-be-chosen. The determination of what is to-be-done is made by weighing against each other all the values of the relevant action types specified by their content (the so-called ‘intermediate actions’) that are in accordance with nature, as Stoic value theory says that according with nature is an objective reason to do an action.  What constitutes the rightness of the token right action, and is given in its reasonable defense, is the same as what constitutes the rightness of a perfect (katorthôma) action.   The Stoic distinction between right and perfect action depends on the action’s moral goodness—not rightness—which is due to its causal origin.

Presented by Professor Rachana Kamtekar (Cornell University)

Feb
6
Mon
Cynthia Bennett – Disability Accessibility and Fairness in Artificial Intelligence @ Presbyterian Hospital Building (Room PH20-200)
Feb 6 @ 1:00 pm – 2:00 pm

Artificial intelligence (AI) promises to automate and scale solutions to perennial accessibility challenges (e.g., generating image descriptions for blind users). However, research shows that AI-bias disproportionately impacts people already marginalized based on their race, gender, or disabilities, raising questions about potential impacts in addition to AI’s promise. In this talk, Cynthia Bennett will overview broad concerns at the intersection of AI, disability, and accessibility. She will then share details about one project in this research space that led to guidance on human and AI-generated image descriptions that account for subjective and potentially sensitive descriptors around race, gender, and disability of people in images.

Feb
15
Wed
Cultivating the Mind: Reason and the Pursuit of Ethical Transformation @ New York Academy of Medicine
Feb 15 @ 7:00 pm – 8:30 pm

Rationality, long considered a distinctive characteristic of the human mind, provides us with the capacity for understanding and discernment, as well as the ability to introduce order into our thoughts by allowing us to form higher-order volitions, adopt values, establish priorities, and achieve a level of consistency in our actions across time. The ancient Socratic ideal of the “examined life” in pursuit of truth and justice relied on a definition of human nature that was to be cultivated in a systematic way. If the key to fully realizing our humanity lies in the cultivation of our minds, what ethical principles and practices in modern life can help our minds to flourish? How can reason be blended with emotion to nurture a more ethical life? In this regard, experimental psychology and neuroscientific research may have much to teach us, as might the age-old wisdom traditions.

Psychologist and neurobiologist Richard Davidson, classics scholar Edith Hall, and psychologist Dacher Keltner analyze how reason and the mind can facilitate ethical development.

Reception to follow.

Mar
31
Fri
Wittgenstein and Care Ethics. Sandra Laugier (Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne) @ New School D1001
Mar 31 @ 4:00 pm – 6:00 pm

The NYC Wittgenstein Workshop presents:

March 31st — Sandra Laugier (Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne) will be presenting on Wittgenstein and Care Ethics

April 14th — Camila Lobo (PhD candidate in Philosophy at Nova University of Lisbon and visiting scholar) will be presenting on Wittgenstein and hermeneutical justice in connection with the so-called “problem of the new.”

April 21st — Harmut von Sass (Humboldt University Berlin and a visiting scholar) will be presenting on gratitude.

April 28th — Janna van Grunsven (Delft University of Technology) will be presenting on How Social Media Platforms Disrupt the Field of Social Affordances and Threaten Human Flourishing.

With the exception of our last talk (which will take place over Zoom), workshops will be in person from 4 to 6 pm EST, followed by a reception. As always, snacks and drinks will be provided.

Look out for an email closer to each event with more details regarding the location and materials the speaker would like to circulate.

 

Oct
12
Thu
GSCOPE 2023: Higher Education, Democracy, and Controversy @ CUNY Grad Center
Oct 12 – Oct 14 all-day

Keynote: Harry Brighouse (University of Wisconsin-Madison)

Pedagogy Workshop Leader: TBA

Location: The Graduate Center, CUNY—New York, New York

Abstracts & Workshop Applications due: July 31st 2023

Responses: August 31st 2023

Organizers: Michael Greer (CUNY), Maria Salazar (CUNY)

Contact email: gscope.committee@gmail.com

The committee for the Graduate Student Conference on Philosophy of Education (GSCOPE) invites abstracts for papers on the topic of Higher Education, Democracy, and Controversy. The theme of the conference & post-conference pedagogy workshop reflects the difficulty in creating and maintaining respectful discourse in higher-education classrooms, especially surrounding controversial empirical, moral, and political issues. Some argue that this is an equity issue. Undergraduate students who come from rural and/or underprivileged areas are more likely to experience alienation on campus, sometimes because they have never been exposed to certain “politically correct” language or ideas, and sometimes simply because they lack the financial and social capital that their peers have. It seems crucial (and follows from democratic and civic values) to foster safe learning environments for all students, especially those students who are more likely to feel alienated on college campuses and in elite spaces. At the same time, some argue that the aim of higher education is purely epistemological, and not civic or democratic. Proponents of this view might hold that free speech and academic freedom must be properly protected for higher education to perform its proper social function: education. What is the appropriate relationship between higher education, knowledge-production, teaching, free speech, and democracy? How can higher education instructors and professors be effective teachers in the light of these relationships?

Papers must pertain to higher educationbut maybe about anything from interpersonal classroom dynamicstoinstitutional policies to campus controversy. We are particularly interested in papers that explore the following topics:

  • Philosophical issues around teaching controversy
  • Navigating different identities in the classroom and on campus
  • Free speech and controversial issues in classrooms and on campus
  • Differential roles of various higher education actors when it comes to protecting free speech (administration, tenured professors, students, residential life)
  • Training (or lack thereof) of graduate students to be teachers and the impact of this on teaching in our current political moment
  • Theright relationship(s) between democracy, knowledge,free speech, and higher education
  • The role of controversy in democracy
  • The relationship between controversy and equality
  • Teaching as an equity issue – how education might foster or impede different kinds of equity (class equity, racial equity, urban/rural equity, gender equity)
  • Disagreement in classrooms
  • Epistemological issues around disagreement and understanding
  • Trust in classrooms
  • Pedagogical tools to cope with disagreement in classrooms
  • Philosophical views on coming to understanding from different social locations, epistemic commitments, and material circumstances

We especially welcome contributions that:

  • Think about universities outside of the “top 50” and the “top 500” — we want our conversation to reflect issues found across the entire spectrum of international higher ed institutions
  • Engage with CUNY-specific issues and offer CUNY-specific solutions

Abstracts should:
– Outline the paper’s principal argument(s).
– Give a good sense of the paper’s philosophical and/or empirical contributions and methods.
– Be anonymized.

Proposal Guidelines:

Please submit abstracts of up to 500 words by midnight EST on Monday, July 31, 2023.

PDF or DOC.X by email to gscope.committee@gmail.com

Post-Conference Pedagogy Workshop

The theme of our conference Higher Education, Democracy, and Controversy is relevant to graduate student educators, who are routinely under-trained and under-equipped to engage with real-life problems they may encounter in the classroom. The lack of training for higher education teachers is a growing iue in philosophy of education.

This workshop attends to this issue by facilitating a space for graduate student educators to reflect on how to foster good teaching environments for controversial issues, and be good interlocutors with each other on controversial issues. The workshop will also touch on promoting equity in classrooms. We will provide workshop participants with a certificate of completion.

https://philevents.org/event/show/112546

Nov
16
Thu
Chrysippus on What Makes Right Acts Right. Rachana Kamtekar (Cornell) @ Wolff Conference Room/D1103
Nov 16 @ 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm

When W.D. Ross poses the question “what makes right acts right?” (The Right and the Good, ch. 2), he is asking a question that is prior to, and has a bearing on, the practical question “how do I determine the right thing to do?” The Stoics recognize this. Cicero (De Officio, where he is referring to Panaetius’ work Peri Kathêkontos) tells us that every inquiry about duty has two parts: (1) a theoretical part concerned with the end of good and evil deeds, which addresses such matters as whether all duties are perfect (omniane official perfecta sint), whether some are more important than others, and what the kinds of duties are, and (2) a practical part which sets out rules (praecepta) by which our conduct can be made to conform with the end (De Officiis, 1.7).  While Cicero himself focuses on the second, this paper seeks the answer to the first part.

 

Rachana Kamtekar is a Professor of Philosophy and Classics at Cornell University and has written on many topics in ancient philosophy and contemporary moral psychology. Her monograph, Plato’s Moral Psychology: Intellectualism, the Divided Soul and the Desire for Good, was published in 2017.  She is currently working on the relationship between action and character in ancient Greek ethics.

 

Jan
30
Tue
The Moral Status of Insects and AI Systems, and Other Thorny Questions in Global Priorities Research. Jeff Sebo and Spencer Greenberg @ Jurow Hall, Silver Center
Jan 30 @ 6:00 pm – 8:00 pm

Join us for a special live taping of the Clearer Thinking podcast. Host Spencer Greenberg and guest Jeff Sebo will discuss the moral status of insects and AI systems, as well as other thorny questions in global priorities research.

 

About the speakers

 

Jeff Sebo is Associate Professor of Environmental Studies, Affiliated Professor of Bioethics, Medical Ethics, Philosophy, and Law, Director of the Animal Studies M.A. Program, Director of the Mind, Ethics, and Policy Program, and Co-Director of the Wild Animal Welfare Program at New York University. He is the author of Saving Animals, Saving Ourselves (2022) and co-author of Chimpanzee Rights (2018) and Food, Animals, and the Environment (2018). He is also an executive committee member at the NYU Center for Environmental and Animal Protection, a board member at Minding Animals International, an advisory board member at the Insect Welfare Research Society, a senior research fellow at the Legal Priorities Project, and a mentor at Sentient Media.

 

Spencer Greenberg is an entrepreneur and mathematician with a focus on improving human well-being. He’s the founder of ClearerThinking.org, which provides 70 free, digital tools to help people make better decisions and improve their lives, as well as the host of the Clearer Thinking podcast. Spencer is also the founder of Spark Wave, an organization that conducts psychology research and builds psychology-related products designed to help benefit the world. He has a Ph.D. in applied math from New York University, with a specialty in machine learning, and his work has been featured by numerous major media outlets, including The Wall Street Journal, the Independent, the New York Times, Gizmodo, and more.

 

Thank you to Effective Altruism New York City for their generous support of this event.

Apr
12
Fri
Comparative Philosophy and Practical Applied Ethics. Laura Specker Sullivan (Fordham) @ Faculty Hoose
Apr 12 @ 5:30 pm – 7:30 pm

Comparative philosophy is gaining traction in professional academic philosophy, with specialist journals, organizations, books, and public campaigns. These inroads have been made in canonical areas of philosophy, including epistemology, metaphysics, logic, and value theory. Yet comparative philosophy still plays little role in practical applied ethics, an interdisciplinary research area in which work with practice and policy implications are dominated by the anglophone world. In this article, I explain why comparative work might be especially difficult in this type of applied ethics, and I suggest how comparative philosophers might overcome these challenges to connect their theoretical work with contemporary practical issues.

With responses from Wenqing Zhao (CUNY Baruch)

NOTE ON ENTRY FOR NON-COLUMBIA GUESTS: The door to Philosophy Hall will only open with a Columbia University ID card. If you do not have this card please arrive early where someone will be standing outside until the meeting begins. If you arrive late, you can ask someone walking nearby to let you in or contact Cole at cf2798@columbia.edu. Please only contact Cole as a final resource so as not to interrupt the talk. 

RSVP IS REQUIRED FOR DINNER:. Dinner will take place at a nearby restaurant. Please contact Cole at cf2798@columbia.edu for further information. RSVPs are limited.

 

Comparative Philosophy Seminar:

  • January 19 – Alex Watson (Ashoka University)
  • February 2 – Davey Tomlinson (Villanova University)
  • April 5 – Laura Specker (Fordham University)
  • May 3 – Daniel Stephens (University at Buffalo)
May
3
Fri
An Ethics of Attention. Daniel Stephens (U Buffalo) @ Philosophy Hall 716
May 3 @ 5:30 pm – 7:30 pm

ABSTRACT: Spurred partly by recent attempts to ethically assess various negative effects of the attention economy, philosophers have begun to pay more attention to the role that attention plays in our ethical lives. This has included some more general discussion of the ethics of attention. In this talk, I add to this recent discussion by outlining a proposal for a comprehensive ethics of attention. On my proposal, an ethics of attention includes norms that stem from the role that attention plays in the formation of our character, in constituting our relationships and social roles, and in our other ethical decision making and behavior. Because of attention’s nature as a finite resource, and because our various roles and relationships involve interpersonal expectations for how others allocate their attention, an ethics of attention should provide norms that govern how we collectively allocate our attention among these morally important purposes. Because these morally important purposes are all competing for our attention, one goal of an ethics of attention should be to find practices that help to synergize how people meet these demands. I call such a set of practices a “social-attentional scheme”, and propose that the ultimate goal of an ethics of attention is to find an optimal social-attentional scheme. I conclude by discussing the various ways in which we can understand early Confucian ethics as providing us with one such social-attentional scheme, and propose some lessons we can take from this Confucian example as we try to continue developing a contemporary ethics of attention.

With responses from Elizabeth Edenberg (CUNY Baruch)

Presented by THE COLUMBIA SOCIETY FOR COMPARATIVE PHILOSOPHY

NOTE ON ENTRY FOR NON-COLUMBIA GUESTS: The door to Philosophy Hall will only open with a Columbia University ID card. If you do not have this card please arrive early where someone will be standing outside until the meeting begins. If you arrive late, you can ask someone walking nearby to let you in or contact Cole at cf2798@columbia.edu. Please only contact Cole as a final resource so as not to interrupt the talk. 

RSVP IS REQUIRED FOR DINNER:. Dinner will take place at a nearby restaurant. Please contact Cole at cf2798@columbia.edu for further information. RSVPs are limited.