Past Programs
Online Conference on Philosophical Perspectives on Contemporary Problems
Format of the Conference
Each presentation will be allotted 10 minutes, followed by 10 minutes of Q&A. Given the large number of audience members and the relatively short available time, we cannot do live Q&A, and so audience members' microphones will be muted. Instead, anyone who has a question/comment for the speaker should simply post it in the group chat in Zoom. During the Q&A, the moderator will select questions from those submitted in the chat to ask the speaker.
The last hour of the conference will consist of an online mixer with unmuted microphones where all those wishing to participate can have live discussion.
Schedule for Thursday March 25, 2021: 1 pm-5 pm Eastern Standard Time
1:00 President's Address: Rosalind Simson (Mercer University), "Reconceptualizing Abortion Rights"
Chair: Aaron Meskin (University of Georgia)
2:00 Session 1: "Algorithms in Society"
Chair: Robert Scott (University of North Georgia), Moderator: George Wrisley (University of North Georgia)
2:05-2:25 Justin Biddle (Georgia Institute of Technology) “Artificial Intelligence and Racial (In)Justice ”
This presentation draws upon recent work on the role of values in science and technology to argue that decisions about the design and implementation of AI/ML systems are value laden in ways similar to human decision making. To argue for this, I examine recent work on the development and implementation of risk assessment algorithms in criminal justice systems—in particular, algorithms that predict the risk of recidivism. I argue that the design of these predictive algorithms involves ineliminable value judgments in the following areas: problem framing, choices of data inputs, algorithm design, and deployment. The United States has the highest incarceration rates in the world, and a disproportionate number of these are people of color; I argue that the widespread adoption of criminal prediction algorithms will likely exacerbate existing inequalities, and I explore possibilities for using AI in ways that do not do this.2:25-2:45 Arjun Sawhney (Queen’s University) “Policing in the Age of Algorithms”
There is an urgent need to examine the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in policing to determine the ethical underpinnings of these technologies, as well as the political and legal consequences of putting them into use. Emerging literature discusses the use of algorithms in policing within the context of criminal justice and human rights. However, in this paper, I will argue that we ought to place the use of AI in policing within the broader discussion of settler colonialism. Framing the discussion within an analysis of settler colonialism more adequately reflects the level of discrimination and racism that is inherent in these technologies. To demonstrate, I will look to Indigenous movements such as Idle No More to argue that surveillance is a form of settler colonialism that deliberately discriminates against minority groups. I will argue that if we are to truly appreciate the problems of algorithmic policing, then the context of settler colonialism is crucial for our analysis.In outlining these background conditions, I hope to reveal the underlying power structures that mediate the use of artificial intelligence, demonstrating why AI is not neutral or objective. I hope this analysis sheds light on the complexity of artificial intelligence while also offering some insight into the ways settler colonialism informs our view of the world.2:45-3:05 Brooke Rudow (Georgia College and State University) “Algorithms and the Polis” Video: https://youtu.be/HGAUXscJBdk
In this paper, I will conduct an Arendtian analysis of predictive algorithms, especially those that generate targeted content, whether this content be news reports, entertainment media, or advertisements. Most arguments that contend with the ethics of algorithms can be grouped into three broadly construed categories: consequentialist arguments, rights-based arguments, and existential arguments. Though each of these is useful and largely successful, I want to argue that there is another reason, a more radical reason, why we ought to fervently reject targeted-content algorithms. Algorithms are premised upon the inefficiency and redundancy of thought. Algorithms do the thinking for me. They know what I like, what I do, where I go. Algorithms know every beat of my heart and every breath that I take. Algorithms know me. I need not do the work of thinking myself nor, indeed, being or becoming myself. All of this serves, ultimately, to undermine both my right and responsibility to a free body politic.3:05 break
3:20 Session 2: "Assorted Societal Challenges"
Chair: Lauren Bunch (Mercer University), Moderator: Alex Asay (University of Georgia)
3:25-3:45 Eric Shoemaker (University of Toronto) “The Equal Opportunity To Be A Legislator: Why Randomly Selecting Legislators Is More Democratic Than Electing Them”
To date, almost every argument that has been advanced in favour of randomly selecting legislators has centred the instrumental benefits of doing so. Legislatures composed of randomly selected citizens, so the argument goes, are better at doing the things which we want legislatures to do. However the most persuasive critics of randomly selected legislatures argue that they are objectionable because they are undemocratic. On the contrary, in this paper I argue that, on an equality-based conception of democracy’s value, randomly selecting legislators is more democratic than electing them. Elections fail to treat citizens as equals, because although citizens have an equal opportunity to determine who sits in the legislature, they have markedly unequal opportunities to sit in the legislature themselves. By contrast, randomly selecting legislators answers to all of the values which those democratic theorists who advance equality-based theories hold up as central to democracy: they produce justifications for the laws they enact which answer to the whole public’s interest, when legislators are randomly selected the structure of legislative decision-making is non-hierarchical, and each citizen’s judgement about what the law ought to be is treated procedurally equally by the legislature.3:45-4:05 Imge Oranli (Arizona State University) “A Regime of Epistemic Injustice: Turkey’s Three Pillars of Genocide Denialism” Video: https://youtu.be/loscljXUksc
In this paper, I apply the epistemic injustice framework to discuss the ethical and epistemological implications of the Turkish denial of the Armenian genocide. The paper begins with a discussion of the conditions under which a regime of epistemic injustice develops in Turkey due to the long-lasting history of genocide denialism. I suggest that these three major conditions have historically supported each other in building a regime of epistemic injustice: 1) the supremacist founding ideology of the Turkish Republic (Turkism), 2) the institutional practices based on this ideology (especially, educational and legal), 3) Turkish individuals’ ‘active ignorance’ and ‘epistemic vices’ (Medina 2013). After a brief introduction of these conditions, I concentrate my discussion around the third, where my main aim is to show how the racial ideology of Turkism and the institutional practices that are supported by this ideology impact the Turkish individual’s epistemic reservoir, causing what José Medina refers to as epistemic vices and active ignorance. I argue that it is on the basis of this epistemic make-up that the Turkish individual becomes a candidate for genocide denialism.4:05-4:25 Maximiliana Rifkin (Georgia State University) “On the Construct Stability of Gender Identity in Neuroscience” Video: https://youtu.be/XAtq8bn9Dkc
Despite the mounting correlational evidence implicating the body-identification network as a mechanism for gender identity, I argue that the construct of gender identity in neuroscience is not stable according to the criteria developed by Jacqueline Sullivan. Neuroscientists across labs do not agree on the terms, methods, or measures used to study the construct. Nevertheless, neuroscientists across labs do agree on implicating the body-identification network as a mechanism for gender identity. Accordingly, I argue that neuroscientific constructs can stabilize without the interlab dialogue Sullivan advocates for. Moreover, I argue that a graded notion of construct stability is needed according to which Sullivan’s criteria can be satisfied more or less by a given neuroscientific construct. Afterward I briefly discuss some explanatory and conceptual issues with the construct and suggest methodology to address them. First I discuss a challenge for using reverse inference to implicate the body-identification network as a mechanism for gender identity. Then I discuss whether body-identification symptoms attributed to differences in the body-identification networks of transgender individuals are essentially related to body sex. Finally I argue for more studies investigating the relationship between changes in the body-identification networks of transgender individuals and in their body identification symptoms to address these issues.4:25-4:45 Benjamin Rossi (Duke University) “The Wrongness of Honoring Individuals at American Colleges” Video: https://youtu.be/EDCk8hm2tQM
Over the past decade, campus activism in the form of “no-platforming” campaigns and the like has garnered widespread attention for its dramatic tactics and supposed conflict with principles of academic freedom. In this article, I argue that the complaints of activists have a rational basis, and are not simply cases of rationally indefensible “offensiphobia.” To wit, I contend that under certain circumstances it is prima facie seriously morally wrong for universities and colleges to honor individuals by such means as commencement addresses, speaking invitations, and so on. My argument for this claim is based upon Jeremy Waldron’s idea that the “look” of a society is a primary means by which members of marginalized groups are given assurances that their moral and constitutional entitlements will be respected. I argue that everyone, including institutional actors like American colleges, has a duty not to undermine these assurances. However, honoring individuals that either publicly expressed stigmatizing beliefs about a marginalized group or have materially contributed to their marginalization tends to undermine these assurances. Hence, it is prima facie seriously morally wrong for American colleges to knowingly and publicly honor individuals that satisfy this description. While this conclusion is limited in that it allows for overriding reasons to honor such individuals, if true it establishes a rational basis for opposing such honorifics. Moreover, given the capacious notion of “honoring” employed in the paper, it implies much more conflict between moral reason and the principles of academic freedom than is commonly thought.Schedule for Friday March 26, 2021: 1 pm-6 pm Eastern Standard Time
1:00 Session 3: "Philosophy and Technology"
Chair: Rosalind Simson (Mercer University), Moderator: Erik Nordenhaug (Georgia Southern)
1:05-1:25 Leonard Kahn (Loyola University New Orleans) “Thinking Through Dark Data as a Negative Externality”
Dark data is ethically problematic in a number of ways. First, the environmental cost of storing unused data is vast. According to one analysis, over 6 million tons of carbon dioxide are released every year as a result of storing dark data. In order to counterbalance this amount of CO2, it would be necessary to have an additional 7.5 million acres of forest land. Second, it is possible for malicious actors to hack into systems storing dark data and extract highly sensitive information. This information allows malicious actors to commit identity theft, espionage, and other harmful crimes. It is understandable, therefore, that many are now calling for the reduction or elimination of dark data.In this presentation, I argue that our first step should be to conceptualize dark data as a negative externality, i.e., a cost to third-parties of otherwise permissible and beneficial activities. As such, negative externalities can only be reduced by reducing the number and value of these beneficial activities. Hence, we should attempt (1) to estimate the costs and benefits to all parties of the activities that lead to the collection of dark data and (2) to internalize the costs of dark data in such a way that they are primarily borne by those who benefit most from its creation.1:25-1:45 Liam McCaffrey (Manchester Metropolitan University) “Comical computers and dull PCs: The ethics of giving artificial intelligence a sense of humor.” Video: https://youtu.be/gBFicG-4B3g
There seems an increasing and equal measure of excitement and anxiety about the growth in sophistication technology has demonstrated over the past 100 years. One particular anxiety that has been the subject of academic research and science fiction alike is artificial intelligence (AI) and the threat or hope it poses. But a major research gap in contemplating the ethics and future of AI is humor. While science fiction often portrays AI as humorless, researchers of computational humor are working to engineer into AI an understanding of humor. Research projects like JAPE, HAHAacronym and STANDUP have attempted to implement humor to varying degrees of success. But humor can be greatly contentious, inflicting offense and even breaking certain speech laws. If we are to programme a sense of humor into AI, whose sense of humor ought it be? Equally, if we exclude this form of intelligence from AI, then will we be able safely to engage in human-agent interaction without AI being able to discern between bona-fide and non bona-fide communication? This paper offers an introduction to the ethical problems in computational humour.1:45-2:05 Tobias Flattery (Wake Forest University) “May Kantians Always Commit Virtual Killings?” Video: https://youtu.be/bDLhfraXlSg
Is it never morally wrong to bludgeon random passersby or shoot civilians for sport—so long as they’re mere representations of persons in virtual environments, and no real persons are affected? Many have the intuition that there’s something morally amiss in some cases of virtual violence, but what is amiss? While some such acts surely reflect deficient moral character, my focus is on the moral rightness or wrongness of acts. Given how widespread virtual violence already is in contemporary immersive video gaming, and how much more widespread it’s likely to become as technology continues to advance, we ought to try to understand now whether and when virtual acts might be morally wrong.It’s widely thought that on Kantian moral theory—as opposed to, e.g., consequentialist or virtue theories—acts of virtual violence that don’t harm or misuse any persons or their avatars can’t violate Kant’s Categorical Imperative. But I argue some virtual acts can. So, Kantian moral theory can explain how at least some acts of virtual violence are morally wrong, even ones affecting no other persons—both in possible but futuristic technological settings, but also in our present technological context.2:05 break
2:20 Session 4: "Pandemic Philosophy"
Chair: Lauren Bunch (Mercer University), Moderator: Piers Stephens (University of Georgia)
2:25-2:45 Nick Byrd (Carnegie Mellon University) “Your Health vs. My Liberty: Philosophical beliefs dominated reflection and identifiable victim effects when predicting public health recommendation compliance” Video: https://youtu.be/nzGRmJTCUeI
In response to crises, people sometimes prioritize fewer specific identifiable victims over many unspecified statistical victims. How other factors can explain this bias remains unclear. So two experiments investigated how complying with public health recommendations during the COVID19 pandemic depended on victim portrayal, reflection, and philosophical beliefs (Total N = 998). Only one experiment found that messaging about individual victims increased compliance compared to messaging about statistical victims—i.e., "flatten the curve" graphs—an effect that was undetected after controlling for other factors. However, messaging about flu (vs. COVID19) indirectly reduced compliance by reducing perceived threat of the pandemic. Nevertheless, moral beliefs predicted compliance better than messaging and reflection in both experiments. The second experiment’s additional measures revealed that religiosity, political preferences, and beliefs about science also predicted compliance. This suggests that flouting public health recommendations may be less about ineffective messaging or reasoning than philosophical differences.2:45-3:05 Bill Davis (Covenant College) “COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates: Coerced Consent for Medical Treatment and Public Policy”
The public health challenge imposed by COVID-19 and the aggressive government response(s) to these challenges have led to growing interest in COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Mandating vaccination, whether by government agencies or business owners, is difficult to reconcile with the ethics of Informed Consent in medical practice. Both bioethical theory and legal practice have treated Informed Consent in a stable way for over thirty years. Permission to decline medical procedures on the grounds of patient autonomy has been widely assumed to limit the authority of others to coerce compliance. Even hospitals have typically been required to include the requiring of flu vaccines as part of labor contract negotiations (rather than having the license to impose them unilaterally). Receiving one of the COVID-19 vaccines is a morally praiseworthy thing to do; and it is likely that if most people get the vaccine, the public will benefit in numerous ways. Even so, it is not clear that these goods are sufficient to offset the costs of resetting the ethics and legal practice surrounding informed consent.3:05-3:25 Seena Eftekhari (Tufts University) “Can Liberalism Tolerate Rights Violations during a Pandemic?”
The discovery of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19 or severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2)) in 2019 and its global spread in 2020 has caused governments around the world to implement drastic, and some might say, draconian measures to stymie the further spread of the virus. The most common argument offered against these governmental mandates has been that they impermissibly violate individual rights. If this sort of argument is correct, then it seems that a liberal state must remain severely hamstrung in its ability to respond to the spread of a harmful virus. In this paper, I argue that liberalism possesses the resources to permit, at least theoretically, the violation of individual rights for the sake of combatting the further spread of a virus. Whether such violations are permissible in practice depends on the context of the situation in question. I proceed to argue that it is permissible for a liberal state to violate citizens’ right to bodily integrity by requiring that they wear face coverings in public spaces.3:25 Break
3:40 Session 5: "Philosophical Approaches to Climate and Environment"
Chair: Robert Scott (University of North Georgia), Moderator: Eric Dickman (University of the Ozarks)
3:45-4:05 Mark Causey (Georgia College & State University) “The Incompatibility of Capitalism with Animal and Environmental Well-Being”
Marx and Engels wrote of the “metabolic rift” produced by the increasing urbanization of their world whereby nutrients were increasingly removed from the countryside and concentrated in the cities, upsetting the natural ecosystem cycles that could have returned nutrients to the soil. This rift creates the twin problems of soil depletion on the farm and waste management in the city. I will argue that animal agriculture as practiced by capitalist production methods creates a similar metabolic rift by depleting the soil and water through a highly inefficient ratios of grain and water per calorie of food produced which is still concentrated in the city but now creates waste management issues in both the rural areas [especially where Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations are located] and in the cities. In order to provide our own growing urban population with cheap meat, dairy, and eggs, the use of intensive farming methods which are harmful to both the animals and the environment predominate. But because of the overall property and commodity status of animals within the capitalist system, even the so-called “humane” production of meat, dairy and eggs are also by nature inimical to genuine concern for animal or environmental well-being.4:05-4:25 Robert Hudson (University of Saskatchewan) “Defending Value-Free Climate Science” Video: https://youtu.be/zXia2Iz1tKs
In this paper I examine a novel argument against the ideal of value free science formulated by Eric Winsberg in various papers he has authored or co-authored since 2009. Winsberg’s approach in these papers is based on his reflection on the characteristics of global climate models (GCMs), characteristics he believes necessitate the value-ladenness of the evidential evaluation of such models. In brief, he maintains that it is impossible to have an “analytic understanding” of GCMs, and as a result non-epistemic values get lost in the “nooks and crannies” of these models (which I call the ‘epistemic opacity’ argument), or are needed to make such models computationally tractable (which I call the ‘purposes and priorities’ argument). In response to Winsberg, I claim that the epistemic opacity argument misrepresents the way in which values influence the empirical assessment of GCMs: the values that motivate various hidden elements of climate models are irrelevant to the epistemic evaluation of these models. Moreover, the purposes and priorities argument entails an anti-realist perspective on climate models, which is not in line with climate science's current preoccupation with attempting to understand, and thus potentially manage climate change.4:25-4:45 Joshua Luczak (Singapore Management University) “Climate Denialism is Harmful Bullshit” Video: https://youtu.be/CeToxssDsh4
This paper is about the epistemic harms of climate denialism. These harms are a consequence of it being bullshit. This paper intends to show that a number of significant claims made by climate denialists are bullshit. It also intends to show that this bullshit is harmful. In fact, it is harmful in several ways. It is often harmful because it undermines the epistemic demands imposed on us by what we care about. It is harmful because it undermines the epistemic demands imposed on us by the social roles we occupy. It is harmful because it undermines the epistemic demands imposed on us by morality. And it is harmful because it corrodes epistemic trust. This paper also discusses what all of this means for our individual moral duty to mobilise governments, through activism and voting, to act on mitigating the effects of anthropogenic climate change. Importantly, the normative force of this duty will be questioned in light of the damage being done by climate denialism bullshit.4:45-5:05 Daniel Burkett (University of New South Wales) “Let’s Be Rational: A ‘Fair Share’ Approach to Individual Carbon Emissions” Video: https://youtu.be/22yUIkHgb2M
The current literature presents three main ways of arguing that individuals have a moral obligation to curb their carbon emissions. My intention here is not to refute these approaches, but to present a fourth way: one that avoids the problems with its three alternatives, and—I argue—better captures our moral intuitions regarding what kinds of obligations we have as individuals given the current climate crisis. I contend that carbon emissions are best thought of as a scarce communal resource, and—as with other scarce resources such as a food, water, or medical supplies—are ideally suited to the adoption of a rationing approach. I argue that since most of us have already consumed our lifetime fair share of carbon emissions, we each have a compelling reason to minimise our personal emissions in any way possible going forward.5:05 philosophy cocktails/socializing
Online Workshop on Ethical Issues in Today’s Turbulent World
In recent years, the Georgia Philosophical Society has met only once a year for a full-day conference. In light of current events, we thought that philosophers might like a chance to share some ideas and reflections this fall. So, in association with Global Ethics Day, we decided to try something new: an online workshop to take place on the afternoons of Thursday 10/22 and Friday 10/23. (Global Ethics Day is actually Wednesday, 10/21, but it is observed all week.) Each speaker will present for ten minutes, followed by ten minutes of questions and discussion.
Instructions for Participating
Given the large number of audience members and the relatively short amount of time for each talk, we cannot do live Q&A, and so audience members microphones will be muted. Instead, if you have a question/comment for the speaker, simply post that in the group chat in Zoom. Once the speaker has finished after 10 minutes, the moderator will select questions from those submitted in chat to ask the speaker. Q&A will last another 10 minutes, for 20 minutes per session total.
At the close of the event, there will be an online mixer where all those wishing to participate can have live discussion – audience microphones will be unmuted for this.
Schedule for Thursday October 22, 2020: 12 pm-2 pm Eastern Standard Time
12:00 Session 1, Chair: Rosalind Simson (Mercer University), Moderator: Devin Horn (University of Georgia)
12:05 Kathryn Norlock (Trent University) “Moral Regress, or, If a president violates the Hatch Act and “no one cares outside of the Beltway,” does it make a sound?”
Video of talk: https://youtu.be/9-G9_TlBURA
12:25 Yi Deng (University of North Georgia) “qin min (亲民), relatedness, and civic learning”
In this paper, I propose that qin min (亲民) in the Great Learning 《大学》 embraces a type of relational citizenship that could be derived from a sense of relatedness rather than from comprehensive Confucian moral doctrines. Specifically, I start with a textual analysis of the debate between Zhu Xi and Wang Yangming about whether qin (亲) should be explained as “renewing.” In the Song Dynasty scholar Zhu Xi’s Annotations to the Great Learning, he explained “loving” (亲 qin) as “new/renovate/innovate” (新 xin). Later, Wang Yang Ming in his Questions on the Great Learning insisted qin was “loving the people.” In this paper, I interpret qin as the synthesis of “loving” and “renewing.” Then, qin min (亲民) could embrace a certain type of relational citizenship derived from a sense of relatedness that an individual should recognize and feel within various relationships. As students living with and in relation to others, they should be able to recognize and have concern for others, engage in various affiliations and develop a sense of relatedness to others. Correspondingly, cultivating a thin conception of Confucian good, such as a sense of relatedness, might embrace cultural diversity and reconcile the tension between liberal education and moral neutrality. In the remainder of the paper, I develop the practical implications and importance of a type of Confucian civic learning described above in liberal education especially during the Covid-19 pandemic.12:45 Brian Armstrong (Augusta University) “Curricular Ethics in a Time of Transition”, Video of talk: https://youtu.be/1zDpfjnRLc4
Many of us have, for years now, participated in workshops focused on curricular design. Those who’d never attended such things likely found them impossible to avoid over the summer, as circumstances – not choice – forced nearly everyone to engage in substantive curricular (re)design. One concept that we might have encountered is “transparency,” which is at the heart of a curricular design approach known as TILT, for Transparency in Learning and Teaching. According to its creator, Mary-Ann Winkelmes, transparency is a matter of engaging “teachers and students in focusing together on how college students learn what they learn and why teachers structure learning experiences in particular ways.” However, whereas I take the concept of transparency to be a primarily ethical concept, Winkelmes does not generally present TILT in explicitly ethical terms; rather, she speaks in the technocratic terms of outcomes and best practices. Nonetheless, I believe that Winkelmes offers an initial sense of what an ethical approach to curricular design entails. In my presentation, then, I will aim to articulate this nascent curricular ethics and some of its problematic tensions.1:05 break
1:15 Session 2, Chair: Eric Dickman (University of the Ozarks), Moderator: Devin Horn (University of Georgia)
1:20 Betty Jean Stoneman (Emory University) “Navigating the Ambiguity of Existing as an Individual and as a Member of Society: Simone de Beauvoir and Civil Disobedience”
Video of talk: https://youtu.be/DK084cvsVyw
1:40 Pascal Brixel (Clemson University) “Why We Work”, Video of talk: https://youtu.be/BUFsfvcFGAU
In capitalist societies, people generally work for the sake of a monetary incentive, which is extrinsic to the work they are performing. As a result, there is a disconnect between the value of work—that which makes work good, as the kind of work it is—and its motive—that which motivates the individual worker to perform it.The disconnect has been dramatized by the social and economic fallout of the Covid-19 pandemic. “Essential workers” have been widely lauded for putting their lives on the line to make a valuable social contribution—but our economic system generally presumes that it is not this valuable social contribution but an extrinsic monetary incentive which motivates the individual worker.I argue that extrinsically motivated work is not done fully voluntarily, and that to incentivize others’ work in this way is objectionably to use them as a mere means. This moral problem rises to the level of an intolerable wrong when—as in the case of much “essential” labor in these times—the work in question involves significant burdens and risks, and the incentive in question is access to basic necessities.
Schedule for Friday October 23, 2020: 3 pm-6 pm Eastern Standard Time
3:00 Session 3, Chair: Aaron Meskin (University of Georgia), Moderator: Alex Asay (University of Georgia)
3:05 Rosalind Simson (Mercer University) “The Ethics of Masks and Mask Mandates”, Video of talk: https://youtu.be/QsYX_ycRRZE
My project is to identify and briefly comment on several interesting philosophical issues raised by the current debates about masks. I begin by suggesting that wearing masks to protect others is best characterized as a negative duty to avoid harming others rather than as a positive duty to remove others from harm’s way. After noting that we have negative duties to avoid not only behaviors certain to cause harm but also ones that pose significant risks of harm, I compare failing to wear a mask to protect against Covid-19 to two other behaviors that are potentially injurious to others: driving a car, and not wearing a mask to protect against transmitting the seasonal flu. I then turn to the issue of governmentally imposed mask mandates and address the common objection that mask mandates unduly interfere with personal autonomy. I suggest that it can be instructive to compare mask mandates in this respect to laws prohibiting smoking in public places and to laws requiring seat belts in vehicles.3:25 Jonathan Spelman (Ohio Northern University) “Mask-Less Shopping Is Like Drunk Driving. We Should Outlaw It.”, Video of talk: https://youtu.be/R9C9htTsr94
In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, many states, local governments, and businesses across the U.S. have prohibited people from shopping without face coverings. But some states, including Georgia, have not. In this paper, I argue that this is a mistake. Those states that have not outlawed mask-less shopping should do so. Although this view is the consensus view among public health officials and philosophers, arguing for it is more difficult than it has been made out to be. After describing what I call the public health argument for outlawing mask-less shopping and explaining why it fails, I give a better argument for outlawing mask-less shopping. That argument depends on the claim that mask-less shopping is analogous to drunk driving. After considering and responding to several objections to my argument, I present a couple of reasons to think that mask-less shopping is even worse than drunk driving. It follows that every state should outlaw mask-less shopping.3:45 Justin Simpson (University of Georgia) “Episodic Memory, Material Culture, and Retrospective Epistemic Violence”, Video of talk: https://youtu.be/MifSoLIaC-o
The recent controversy surrounding Confederate monuments brings together issues of material culture, memory, and personal identity. This paper develops an account to address the intersection of these three issues. This account draws upon recent neurological research that problematizes the storage model of memory and demonstrates how remembering involves an active construction, which can modify the content of episodic memory. By connecting this research with the concept of technological mediation, I argue that material culture can modify episodic memory during the act of remembering. Consequently, material culture can retroactively reconstitute a person’s identity. This account introduces new dimensions to ongoing moral debates. In particular, I contend that material culture in the form of Confederate monuments can instigate retrospective forms of epistemic violence.4:05 break
4:15 Session 4, Chair: Robert Scott (University of North Georgia), Moderator: Alex Asay (University of Georgia)
4:20 William A.B. Parkhurst (University of South Florida) “Monuments to Erasing History: Confronting the History of Erasing Minority Monuments in Archives”
Video of talk: https://youtu.be/YATZLj0O1Hc
4:40 Nathan Nobis (Morehouse College) “Promoting Ethics for and with People Like Us”, Video of talk: https://youtu.be/TU8m7DdRAz4
The world, at present, appears to be in an ethical crisis. There has been some significant moral progress, but it seems like we are witnessing an ethical decline: actions and views that used to be seen as “beyond the pale” of decency are now common views: what used to be acceptable is now often accepted, with enthusiasm. Given this, Global Ethics Day might appear to be an absurd event since we are collectively just so far from any widespread concern about ethics. But what can we do? Give up in seeking a more ethical world? That would be unethical. So, what should we do? My discussion relates to what can be done about this by people interested in ethics and who have some training in getting people to better think about ethics. My suggestions largely relate to (a) acknowledging our own errors, (b) keeping things simple, (c) finding agreements and (d) continuing conversations. While I am honestly unsure if this can lead to enough ethical goods, individually and collectively, it seems clear that we must try harder to finally figure out the “ethics” of, or what we should about, promoting ethics.5:00 philosophy cocktails/socializing
6:00 end
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Meeting of the Georgia Philosophical Society
Saturday, February 22, 2020
“Suffrage and Democracy”
Location: Mercer University McEachern Art Center, 322 2nd Street, Macon, GA
10:30 AM: “Why Meritocratic Democracy is Better than Democracy”
-11:20 AM Dr. John Park, California State University, Sacramento
Commenter: Dr. Micah Lewin, GSU Perimeter College
11:30 AM “Distributing Carts Before Horses: Or the Presumptions of Distributive Justice”
-12:20 PM Chris Byron, University of Georgia
Commenter: Dr. Yi Deng, University of North Georgia
2:00 PM “Early Intersectional Approaches of Black Feminism: New Archival Evidence”
-2:50 PM William A. B. Parkhurst, University of South Florida
Commenter: Dr. Sabrina Hom, Georgia College
3:00 PM “Exercising One’s Voice: Merleau-Ponty and the Grounds of Conversation”
-3:50 PM Dr. Susan Bredlau, Emory University
Commenter: Dr. Eric Dickman, Young Harris College
4:00 PM “Abortion, the Pro-Life Argument, and the Relevance of Gender Issues”
-4:50 PM Dr. Rosalind Simson, Mercer University
Commenter: Dr. Nathan Nobis, Morehouse College
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Meeting of the Georgia Philosophical Society
Saturday, February 23, 2019
Mercer University School of Law, Macon, Georgia
"Freedom and Society"
Session 1A: Conditions and Ends of Freedom
Moderator: Dr. Eric Dickman, Young Harris College
10:30-11:25 “Demanding Existence: Dewey and Beauvoir on Habit, Institutions, and Freedom” - Dr. Susan Bredlau, Emory University
Respondent: Dr. Robert H. Scott, University of North Georgia
11:30-12:25 “Cultural Rights as Individual Rights” - Marie Kerguelen Le Blevennec, Boston University
Respondent: Dr. Rosalind Simson, Mercer University
Session 1B: Political Freedom, Ethics, and A.I.
Moderator: Dr. Arthur Howard, Mercer University
10:30-11:25 "Hannah Arendt's Notion of Political Freedom" - Dr. Pablo Iturrieta, Carleton University
Respondent: Dr. Yi Deng, University of North Georgia
11:30:12:25 "The Better-Than-Human Standard: Anthropomorphism in the Ethics of Autonomous Weapons" - Dr. Matthew Lee, Berry College
Respondent: Dr. Richard Dub, Georgia State University
Session 2A: Freedom, Justice, and Fairness
2-2:55 “The Meaning of Mass Incarceration” - Jason Byas, University of Illinois
Respondent: Dr. Murray Skees, University of South Carolina Beaufort
3-3:55 "Black Reconstruction in America as Critique of Political Economy" - Dr. Osman Nemli, Vassar College
Respondent: Dr. Eric Dickman, Young Harris College
4-5:00 "Effective Altruism and the Challenge of Partiality: Should We Take Special Care of Our Own?" - Dr. Rosalind Simson, Mercer University
Respondent: Dr. Isadora Mosch, Georgia College and State University
Session 2B: Freedom, Logic, and Language
Moderator: Dr. Robert H. Scott, University of North Georgia
3-3:55 “Nietzsche on Freedom, the Evolution of Language, and Social Epistemology” - William Parkhurst, University of South Florida
Respondent: Dr. Dan Larkin, Georgia Southern University
4-4:55 "Groundwork for the Moral Evaluation of Speech Acts" - Emily Mathias, University of South Carolina
Respondent: Dr. James Grindeland, University of North Georgia
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Georgia Philosophical Society Annual Meeting at the APA
Friday, January 5, 2018
Savannah Convention Center
Keynote Speaker: Dr. Gertrude Gonzalez de Allen, Spelman College
Session 1 Topic: Identity, Public and Private
Chair: Dr. Yi Deng, University of North Georgia
11:15-12:05 “Participating in Perception: Merleau-Ponty, Russon, and the Lived Significance of Others” by Dr. Susan Bredlau, Emory University
Respondent: Dr. Nathan Eric Dickman, Young Harris College
12:15-1:05 “With Friends Like These, Who Needs Relatives? Why Civil Society Does Not
Presuppose the Family in the Philosophy of Right” by Daniel Schwartz, Georgia State University
Respondent: Irami Oseifrempong, University of Georgia
1:15-2:05 “Hannah Arendt and Philosophical Influence” by Dr. Karin Fry, Georgia Southern University
6:00-6:50 GPS business meeting, with short talk by Dr. Richard Winfield (UGA) on the philosophical importance of political participation in relation to his current run for congress.
Session 2 Topic: Identity Traversing Technology, Gender, Geography, and Race
Chair: Dr. Creighton Rosental, Mercer University
7-7:50 pm “The Loss of Personal Identity in Things: Malafouris and Third-Wave Extended Mind” by Chris Lay, University of Georgia
Respondent: Dr. Jack Simmons, Armstrong State University
8-8:50 “Feminist Aims and a Trans-Inclusive Definition of ‘Woman’" by Katie Lane Wynne Kirkland, Georgia State University
Respondent: Dr. Isadora Mosch, Georgia College and State University
9-10 Keynote address: “Afra: Discourse on Womanhood, Migration, Blackness and Latin US Caribbean Identity”
by Dr. Gertrude Gonzalez de Allen, Spelman College
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Georgia Philosophical Society Annual Meeting
Friday, April 7 – Saturday, April 8, 2017
Rollins Campus Center, Young Harris College*
Friday 5 – 6 p.m. Presidential Address: Liberty, Liberalism and
Environmentalism: An Overview.
- Piers H.G. Stephens, The University of Georgia.
6 – 8 p.m. Dinner and reception
Saturday 8:30 – 9 a.m. Welcome
9 – 9:50 a.m. "Transcendental Phenomenology, the
Intellectual Virtues, and the Rational
Demand for Diversity as a Virtue.”
- Robert H. Scott, University of North Georgia.
Respondent: Mark Daniel Kemp, Georgia State University.
10 – 10:50 a.m. "The Duty of Veracity.”
- Ava Thomas Wright, The University of Georgia.
Respondent: Nathan Eric Dickman, Young Harris College.
11 – 11:50 a.m. “Gratitude and Alterity in Environmental Virtue
Ethics.”
- Nathan Michael Wood, The University of Georgia.
Respondent: Ryan Lake, Georgia State University Perimeter College.
12 – 12:30 p.m. GPS Business Meeting
12 – 1:30 p.m. Lunch
1:30 – 2:20 p.m. “Striving, Bad Infinity, and the Possibility of
Therapeutic Redemption.”
- Alyssa R. Lowery, Vanderbilt University.
Respondent: Michael Gregory, University of South Carolina.
2:30 – 3:20 p.m. “Letting go of the ‘I’: Nietzsche, Suicidal Nihilism,
and the Bodhisattva Ideal.”
- George Wrisley, University of North Georgia.
Respondent: Kendall Marchman, Young Harris College.
3:30 – 4:20 p.m. “The Liberal Ironist and the Other.”
- Gaetano Venezia III, Georgia State University.
Respondent: Jason Byas, Georgia State University.
4:30 p.m. Meeting Closing
*Sponsored by YHC’s Ethics Across the Curriculum initiative.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Georgia Philosophical Society Annual Meeting
Saturday, April 23, 2016
Peabody Hall, University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Nature and Naturalism
9.00am: Coffee and conversation
9.15am: “Displacing the Nature/Culture Dualism in Environmental Aesthetics” – Tony Chackal (University of Georgia)
Respondent: Robert H. Scott (University of North Georgia)
10.15am: “Why not ‘City Sounds, Urban Colors’?” – George Wrisley, (University of North Georgia).
Respondent: Harry Tolley (Perimeter College at Georgia State University)
11.15am: Coffee
11.30am: “Is the Mental Causally Inert? A Response to Kim” – De Yang (Georgia State University)
Respondent: Eric Dickman (Young Harris College)
12.30-2.00pm: Lunch
2.00pm: GPS Business meeting
2.30pm: “Race, Its Relation to Group Agency, and the Genetic Approach to Race” – Reyes Espinoza (Purdue University)
Respondent: Daniel Crescenzo (University of Georgia)
3.30: Coffee
3.45pm: “Bringing Meaning Back to the Natural World: Worldview Transformation and Nonconceptual Meaning” - Clint Johnson (University of Georgia)
Respondent: George Wrisley, (University of North Georgia)
5.00pm: Meeting closes
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Georgia Philosophical Society Annual Meeting
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Hosted by Oglethorpe University
Schedule of Events
9:15-9:45am Coffee and Conversation
9:45am Why Tell War Stories?
Aaron Pratt, Emory University
Response: Eric Dickman, Young Harris College
11:00am Marx's Historical Materialism and the Underdetermination Problem
Travis Holmes, Georgia State University.
Response: Daniel Louis Crescenzo, University of Georgia
12:10 GPS Business meeting
12:30 Lunch Oglethorpe's Student Center (TLCC).
Lunch is being provided for all participants on behalf of OU's Provost Office
During Lunch: BOR meeting in Student Center (TLCC, Meeting Room 225)
2:00pm Psychopathy and Moral Responsibility
Andrew J. Vierra, Georgia State University.
Response: Martha Nodar, Oglethorpe University alumna.
3:15pm Keynote Address -- Interspecies Ethics
Cynthia Willett, Emory University
5:00pm On Theodorus
Landon D. C. Elkind, University of Iowa.
Response: Catherine Culver, Coastal College of Georgia
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at rwoller@uga.edu
DIRECTIONS TO CAMPUS
Earl Dolive Theatre, 2nd Floor of the Philip Weltner Library (The main entrance to the library will be closed until noon. Please use the door to the right of the main entrance and take the elevator to the second floor and turn left to find Earl Dolive Theatre)
http://oglethorpe.edu/about_us/directions/
http://oglethorpe.edu/about_us/directions/campus_map.asp
From the front gate, take the left fork, and go to the far end of the campus. Park in the large tiered lot.
The Library is the large stone building facing the quad.
For more information see:
Website http://sites.google.com/site/gaphilosophy
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaPhilosophicalSociety
Georgia Philosophical Society - Spring Meeting
Saturday, March 29th
Hosted by Oglethorpe University
Schedule of Events
10:00 Coffee & Conversation
10:30 A Strong Mind: A Case for Enduring Emergent Person
Aaron Sullivan (Georgia State University)
Respondent: James Grindeland (University of Georgia)
11:40 GPS Business meeting
12:00 Lunch
(The USG Board of Regents Philosophy Advisory Committee will meet during lunch)
1:30 Keynote Address: Kant on Self-Esteem and Duties to Oneself
Lara Denis (Agnes Scott College)
3:00 Virtue and Strength in The Metaphysics of Morals
Adam Schmidt (Georgia State University)
Respondent: Sean Meslar (University of Georgia)
4:10 Can Positive Duties be Derived from Kant’s Categorical Imperative?
Michael Yudanin (University of Georgia)
Respondent: Jackson Schwartz (University of Georgia)
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at rwoller@uga.edu
DIRECTIONS TO CAMPUS
Earl Dolive Theatre, 2nd Floor of the Philip Weltner Library
http://oglethorpe.edu/about_us/directions/
http://oglethorpe.edu/about_us/directions/campus_map.asp
From the front gate, take the left fork, and go to the far end of the campus.
Park in the large tiered lot.
The Library is the large stone building facing the quad.
For assistance, contact Devon Belcher, 720-785-4421
For more information see:
Website http://sites.google.com/site/gaphilosophy
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaPhilosophicalSociety
A flyer about the Fall Conference.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Georgia Philosophical Society Fall Conference
Saturday, November 16, 2014
hosted by
Oglethorpe University
Schedule of Events
9:00 Coffee & Conversation
9:30 Session I 'Of Creative Memory: An Essay on Montaigne's Recollection' – Dustin Peone, Emory University
Comments: Brian McNeil, University of Georgia
10:30 Break
10:45 Session II 'Against Indifference: Popper's Assumption of Distribution Preference' – Brett Mullins, Georgia State University
Comments: Brian Patterson, Oglethorpe University
11:45 Business Meeting
12:00 Lunch
1:15 Keynote Address “Rethinking Fairness: On the Meaning of Community Input” - Chris Cuomo, University of Georgia
2:30 Break
2:45 Session III 'Lowe's For-Category Ontology, Dispositions, and the Laws of Nature' – Peter Furlong, University of North Carolina, Asheville
Comments: Neil van Leeuwen, Georgia State University
3:45 Break
4:00 Session IV 'The Problem with Words and Silence: Reconciling Conceptualism with the Ineffability of Buddhist Enlightenment' – George Wrisley, University of North Georgia
Comments: Brad Patty, University of Georgia
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at rwoller@uga.edu
DIRECTIONS TO CAMPUS
Earl Dolive Theatre, 2nd Floor of the Philip Weltner Library
http://oglethorpe.edu/about_us/directions/
http://oglethorpe.edu/about_us/directions/campus_map.asp
From the front gate, take the left fork, and go the the far end of the campus. The Library is the large stone building facing the quad. Parking is all over.
For assistance, contact Devon Belcher, 720-785-4421
CALL FOR PAPERS
Georgia Philosophical
Society
Fall Conference
Saturday, November 16, 2013
[NOTE NEW DATE!]
Oglethorpe University
Keynote Speaker
Chris Cuomo, University of
Georgia
“Rethinking Fairness: On the Meaning of Community Input”
(Abstract available upon request)
Special consideration will be granted to papers from Georgia and
neighboring states, and papers related to the keynote paper's topic.
Papers must not exceed 3000 words. Graduate submissions
welcome. Blind review.
Submission Deadline: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 27
Send Papers to: Rwoller@uga.edu
The Georgia Philosophical Society values and welcomes diversity in
its membership, its conference presenters and attendants, and the
subject matter of its presentations. The Society encourages
participation in all of its activities by as diverse a group of faculty
and students as possible.
Website
Website http://sites.google.com/site/gaphilosophy
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/GeorgiaPhilosophicalSociety
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Georgia Philosophical Society Spring Meeting
Saturday, March 30, 2013
Agnes Scott College
9:30 Coffee, bagels, and conversation.
10:00 “Hume on ‘A Degree of Equality’ as a Necessary Condition of Justice”– Adam Schmidt (Georgia State University)
Respondent: Dan Crescenzo (UGA)
11:10 “In Defense of Rawls' Egalitarian Retraction”– Carson Young (Georgia State University)
Respondent: Matthew Schneider (UGA)
12:10 GPS business meeting.
12:30 Lunch, in the campus dining room. (Note: the USG Board of Regents Philosophy Advisory Committee will meet during the lunch hour.)
1:30 Keynote Address: Roberta Berry (Georgia Tech) – “Fractious Problems in Science and Technology Policy: A Navigational Approach to Policymaking.”
Respondent: Andrew J. Cohen (Georgia State University)
2:40 “Lord, Liar, or Lunatic Lite: A Longer Look at Lewis’s Logic” – James Sennett (Brenau
University)
Respondent: Joel Peddle (Morehouse College)
3:50 “A Response to the Luck Argument – Mirja Perez de Calleja (Florida State University)
Respondent: James Grindeland (UGA)
Advance copies of papers available: email rwoller@uga.edu.
Conference is in Letitia Pate Evans Hall, room A/B, (bottom floor). http://emergency.agnesscott.edu/external/content/document/1702/195479/1/campusmap.pdf gives directions to the college, a campus map, and parking information. (Guests will not be ticketed.) For on-campus assistance, call Prof. Hal Thorsrud of Agnes Scott, (404) 680-5177.
Georgia Philosophical Society officers:
President: Larry Peck (Georgia Perimeter College)
Vice President: Devon Belcher (Oglethorpe University)
Secretary: Ray Woller (University of Georgia).
Program Committee:
Devon Belcher (Oglethorpe University) – chair
Vicky Davion (University of Georgia)
Omar Bozeman (Morehouse College)
--------------------------------------
Please see the meeting schedule for the Georgia Philosophical Society conference, Saturday, October 20, at Oglethorpe University.
Georgia Philosophical Society
Fall Meeting Saturday, October 20th
Oglethorpe University*
9:30 Coffee, bagels, and conversation.
10:00 “Exploring the Role of Equality In Adam Smith’s Political Theory” – Kathryn Joyce (Georgia State University)
Respondent: Nathan Wood (UGA)
11:10 “What Is Art?” - Isadora Mosch (University of Georgia)
Respondent: Neil Van Leeuwen (Georgia State University)
12:10 Lunch, at the campus cafeteria.
1:10 Keynote Address: “Justice As Reciprocity Revisited” - Christie Hartley (Georgia State University)
Respondent: Katharine Schweitzer (Emory University)
2:20 “On Questioning Differently” – Nathan Dickman (Young Harris College)
Respondent: Mark Banas (Georgia Perimeter College)
3:30 “Spinoza On A Supposed Right To Lie” – Matthew Homan (Kennesaw State University)
Respondent: Ed Glowienka – Emory University
Advance copies of the conference papers are available by email from Ray Woller, rwoller@uga.edu.
*The conference room is the auditorium in Lupton Hall. There is ample parking nearby. For on-site assistance, call Devon Belcher, 720-785-4421.
Georgia Philosophical Society officers:
President: Larry Peck (Georgia Perimeter College);
Vice President: Devon Belcher (Oglethorpe University);
Secretary: Ray Woller (University of Georgia).
GPS Program Committee: Devon Belcher (Oglethorpe University) – chair;
Janet Donohoe (University of West Georgia);
Sebastian Rand (Georgia State University).
As previously announced, the keynote presentation will be Christie Hartley’s “Justice As Reciprocity Revisited.”
Abstract
The concept of reciprocity is nearly ubiquitous in political philosophy, although there is disagreement over what it entails and its proper role, if any, in a theory of justice. In this paper, I discuss the central elements of any conception of justice as reciprocity. I stress that theories of justice as reciprocity have different views of the purpose of reciprocal
cooperation and that, as a result, theories can differ considerably when it comes to the kind of cooperative contributions that are fitting and sufficient as a matter of fairness in cooperative exchange. I offer a sketch of a view of justice as reciprocity that I think has important advantages over one interpretation of Rawls’s notion of reciprocity.
This conference we are having respondents as well as presenters. We hope this addition will be welcome.
We look forward to seeing you at the conference!
Larry Peck
President, Georgia Philosophical Society
https://sites.google.com/site/gaphilosophy/
Larry Peck, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Chair, Department of Humanities and Fine Arts
Georgia Perimeter College (Dunwoody Campus)
2101 Womack Road
Dunwoody, GA, 30338
Office: E Building, room 2104
(770) 274-5472
---------------------------------------
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Older Conferences
Spring Conference
Saturday, March 24th
hosted by
Morehouse College
Schedule of Events
9:00 Coffee & Conversation
9:30 Session I 'Rawls and the Principle of Ontological Liberty' - Chelsea H. Snelgrove, Oglethorpe University
10:30 Break
10:45 Session II 'Does Heraclitus View Body as Distinct from Soul?' - Shawn Loht, Mercer University
11:45 Business Meeting
12:00 Lunch
1:30 Session III 'Reclaiming African Authenticity Through Science and Technology' - Donatien Cicura, Georgia Gwinnett College
2:30 Break
2:45 Session IV 'The Mental Lives of Oysters' - Peter Ahumada, University of Georgia
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at rwoller@uga.edu
Georgia Philosophical Society, Fall Meeting Saturday, Nov. 5
Emory University
Bowden Hall, Room 118*
10:45 Coffee & Donuts
11:00 Session I: “Spinoza and the Problem of Representation,” Matthew Homan, Emory University
12:00 Lunch at local restaurants
1:30 Session II: “What are Questions?” Jared A. Millson, Agnes Scott College
2:30 Session III: “The Possibility of a Logic of Experience: Schlick and Wittgenstein on the
Phenomenological A Priori,” Jacob Rump, Emory University
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at rwoller@uga.edu
*Map:
http://emap.fmd.emory.edu/website/campus/index.htm
Click Academic Departments in left frame and select philosophy
Bowden Hall is in Red and not numbered
Actual Address: 561 South Kilgo Cir
Free parking in parking decks
Georgia Philosophical Society Spring 2011
Spring Meeting Saturday, April 9
Oglethorpe University*
In the Talmadge Room second floor
Emerson Student Center
12:00 Business Meeting
Coffee, tea, & Light Snacks available
12:30 Session I: “Kantian Duties to Children, a
Matter of Degree,” Mike Huddleson, Georgia State University
1:30 Session II: “The Justification of Fundamental
Epistemic Principles,” Jonathan Matheson, University of North Florida
2:30 Session III: “The Role of Luck in Moral
Responsibility,” Eric Brown, University of Georgia
3:30 Reception: Wine & heavy hors d’oeuvres served
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at rwoller@uga.edu
*DIRECTIONS
4484 Peachtree Road NE, Atlanta, GA 30319
Emerson Student Center is building 11 on this map:
http://www.oglethorpe.edu/about_us/directions/campus_map.asp
Georgia Philosophical Society
Fall Meeting, 2010
Saturday, December 4th
Oglethorpe University*
9:30 Coffee, Snacks, and Society Business Meeting
10:00 “Kant's Conception of Autonomy in Two Objections to Metaethical Constitutivism,” Paul Tulipana, Georgia State University
11:00 “The Particularity Problem,” Carl Ehrett, Furman University
12:00 KEYNOTE PAPER:
“‘Artifact’ as Artifact: A Category and Its Vicissitudes,” Beth Preston, University of Georgia
1:00 Lunch
(Meeting of Board of Regents Academic Advisory Committee on Philosophy)
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at
rwoller@uga.edu
*DIRECTIONS
4484 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30319-2797
www.oglethorpe.edu/about_us/directions/
Philip Weltner Library in the Earl Dolive Theater on the 2nd floor
Signs will be posted / On-site help 720-785-4421
CALL FOR PAPERS
for the upcoming meeting of the
GEORGIA PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY
at
Oglethorpe University
Saturday, December 4, 2010
KEYNOTE SPEAKER
Beth Preston, UGA
‘Artifact’ as Artifact: A Category and Its Vicissitudes
There is increasing interest in artifacts among philosophers. The leading edge is the metaphysics of artifacts and artifact kinds. However, in all the excitement an important (and, one would think, prior) question has been neglected. What is the status of the category ‘artifact’ itself? Philosophers have taken its theoretical integrity and usefulness pretty much for granted. Dan Sperber argues against its integrity and usefulness for the purposes of naturalistic social science. However, Sperber’s argument does not take sufficient account of what categories are and how they function in human thought and action. Thus even if its conclusion is correct, his argument is not cogent. A different kind of argument is required. The purpose of this paper is to supply one, and then to deploy it to show that ‘artifact’ is not useful and does not have sufficient integrity for philosophical purposes either.
Papers on or related to the speaker's topic are especially encouraged
Papers must not exceed 3000 words
Graduate student submissions welcome
Blind review
SUBMISSION DEADLINE
November 17, 2010
Send Papers to: rwoller@uga.edu
PDF of CFP available here.
Georgia Philosophical Society
Spring Meeting
Saturday, April 3rd
Morehouse College*
9:30 Coffee, Snacks, and Society Business Meeting
10:00 “Defusing the Demandingness Objection,”
Matthew Braddock, Duke University
11:00 “African Communalism and Public Health Policies in Botswana,”
Kipton Jensen and Joseph Gaie, La Grange College
12:00 “Virtue Ethics and Metaphysics,”
Richard Parry, Agnes Scott College, Emeritus
1:00 Lunch
(Meeting of Board of Regents Academic Advisory
Committee on Philosophy)
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at
rwoller@uga.edu
*DIRECTIONS
www.morehouse.edu:16080/about/directions.html
www.morehouse.edu:16080/about/pdf/Campus_Map.pdf
Leadership Bldg, Rm. 240, corner of Westview Dr. and West End Ave.
For help on campus call our host Nathan Nobis at 404-825-1740
************************************************************
Georgia Philosophical Society
Fall Meeting
Saturday, November 14, 2009
Georiga Perimeter College Dunwoody Campus
9:30 Coffee, Snacks, and Society Business Meeting
10:00 “No Argument Without Identity,” TroyCatterson, North Ga College & State University
11:00 “The Virtue of Faith,” Ben McCraw, UGA
12:00 “The Second Incapacity: Peirce's Denial ofIntuition,” Robert Lane, University of West GA
1:00 Lunch
Closed Meeting of Board of Regents Academic
Advisory Committee on Philosophy
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at
rwoller@uga.edu
DIRECTIONS TO CAMPUS
http://www.gpc.edu/Campus_Maps/Dunwoody.html
We’re meeting in Room 1200 of the Learning Resources
Center (NLRC) in the main quadrangle
For help on campus call our host Larry Peck at (678) 656-4269
Closed Meeting of Board of Regents Academic
Advisory Committee on Philosophy
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at
rwoller@uga.edu
DIRECTIONS TO CAMPUS
http://www.gpc.edu/Campus_Maps/Dunwoody.html
We’re meeting in Room 1200 of the Learning Resources
Center (NLRC) in the main quadrangle
For help on campus call our host Larry Peck at (678) 656-4269
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at
rwoller@uga.edu
DIRECTIONS TO CAMPUS
http://www.gpc.edu/Campus_Maps/Dunwoody.html
We’re meeting in Room 1200 of the Learning Resources
Center (NLRC) in the main quadrangle
For help on campus call our host Larry Peck at (678) 656-4269
Spring Meeting, Saturday, March 28th, 2009
Clayton State University*
9:00 Coffee & Conversation
9:30 Stephen Matthew Duncan: “Can I Be Many?” Georgia State University
10:30 Nathan Nobis: “Why Francis Beckwith’s Case Against Abortion Fails” Morehouse College
11:30 Business Meeting
12:00 Lunch
2:00 Raleigh Miller: “Two Dimensions of Moral Responsibility” Georgia State University
3:00 Roger Wertheimer: “Origin of Metalinguistic Misconception” Agnes Scott College
Advance copies available by e-mail from Raymond Woller at rwoller@uga.edu
Fall Meeting, Saturday, November 15, 2008
Agnes Scott College, 213 Buttrick Hall
9:00 Coffee, Rolls, & Conversation
9:30 “Common Ground and the Sorites,” Eric Snyder,
University of Georgia
10:30 "Re-Interpreting Self-Ownership: An Argument
for a Political Obligation to Help", Matt
Schneider, University of Georgia
11:30 Business Meeting
12:00 Lunch
[1:00 Closed Meeting of Board of Regents Academic
Advisory Committee on Philosophy [Buttrick Hall 211]
2:00 “Kierkegaard on Indirect Communication,”
Mark Tietjen, University of West Georgia
3:00 “Hegel on the Laws of Motion,” Sebastian Rand,
Georgia State University
Spring Meeting, Saturday, March 3rd, 2007
University of Georgia
205S Peabody Hall*
9:00 Coffee
9:30 Sarah Wright "Altruism and Measuring Value"
10:30 Break
10:45 Richard Parry "How Can Pleasures be True or False?"
11:45 Lunch
1:30 Rene Jagnow "Paradise Lost Twice: David Chalmers on Phenomenal Content."
2:30 Break
2:45 Mark Tietjen "Blunt Readings of Kierkegaard."
Fall Meeting, Saturday, November 17th, 2007
Georgia State University
Troy Moore Library / 9th Floor of
General Classroom Bldg*
9:00 Coffee & Conversation
9:30 Charles Cross, UGA: "Causal Independence
and the Identity of Indiscernibles"
10:30 Glenn Kirkconnell, Georgia Perimeter College:
"Either/Or as Religious Polemic"
11:30 Business Meeting
12:00 Lunch
2:00 James Sennett, Brenau University:
"Acceptance, Faith, and Epistemic
Justification"
3:00 Dan Farnham, UGA: "Maybe Virtue is
Necessary for Happiness"
Fall Meeting, Saturday, November 18, 2006
Agnes Scott College, Decatur
Buttrick Hall 213
(bldg 4 on campus map: http://www.agnesscott.edu/pdf/campusmap.pdf )
9:00 Coffee & Snacks
9:30 Troy Catterson: Sorting out the Sortals: A
Fregean Argument for Essentialism
10:25 Break
10:30 Dan Forbes: Spinoza and Leibnizean Possible
Worlds
11:25 Break
11:30 Andrew Jason Cohen: Emotions in Exchanges
12:25 Business Meeting
12:30 Lunch
1:30 Dan Farnham: A Hegelian Theory of Retribution
2:25 Break
2:30 Jack Simmons & Gene Mesco: Genes-Memes:
Information and the New Science of Evolution
3:25 Break
3:30 Beth Preston: Proper Function, Selection, and
Fitness in Comparative Perspective