A Negative Dominance Approach to Normative Minimality, (work in progress).Abstract: What does it take for a theory to qualify as the minimal version of a normative theory, rather than merely a thinner variant of a full view? While philosophers frequently contrast minimal “floors” with ideal “ceilings,” we lack a principled account of how the floor is fixed by the complete theory. This paper develops a general account of Normative Minimality. I assume a full normative theory X that ranks options by balancing at least two X-relevant normative properties, one of which admits scalar formulations. A purported minimal theory is understood as a restriction of that full theory obtained by fixing a formulation of the scalar property.I argue that a formulation counts as normatively minimal if and only if it constitutes the supremum of the untradable set. I define this through a test of Negative Dominance via Internal Tradability. A formulation is sub-minimal if it is set so low that it falls below the threshold of functional efficacy; from the perspective of the full theory, such a property is dominated by the need for other core goods and is thus tradable. Conversely, a formulation is supra-minimal if it sets the threshold so high that it incorporates normative luxuries—properties that are valuable but strictly dominated by the need to preserve the core. The valid minimal theory of X is therefore not merely the weakest threshold that functions, but the maximal interpretation of the property that remains strictly non-negotiable. This yields a non-arbitrary procedure for extracting the “hard core” of a theory, distinguishing its essentialdemands from its ideal extensions.Moral Reminder and Moral Progress, (work in progress).Abstract: Standard accounts of moral progress tend to focus on macroscopic changes in beliefs, institutions, or deliberative procedures. This paper offers a micro-founded account of how progress can arise from the internal phenomenology of moral agents. I argue that genuine moral conflicts leave behind normative “remainders”—claims that survive even justified all-things-considered decisions. While some remainders are merely “tragic” (reflecting unavoidable scarcity), others are “critical” (reflecting avoidable structural defects).Drawing on Williams, Young, and Tessman, I show how the persistence of “moral residue”—the reactive attitudes fitting to such remainders—functions as an epistemic signal. When agents sustain, rather than suppress, the “outlaw emotions” associated with critical remainders, they generate a distinctive internal pressure to reinterpret their moral situation. Progress, on this view, often begins when a community reclassifies a repeated loss from a tragic necessity into a structural injustice.The Positive Duty to Aid and Sweatshop Jobs, (with Billy Christmas, work in progress).Abstract: Berkey (2019) argues that sweatshop labour, though mutually beneficial, is wrongfully exploitative because it represents only partial compliance with a pre-existing duty to aid. He models this on a case where an owner sells a single life-saving drug dose at an extortionate price. This paper accepts Berkey’s premise of a group-directed duty but rejects the specific application of the "drug-rescue" analogy to employment. We argue that a critical disanalogy exists: while a single drug dose is indivisible, the financial surplus used for wages is divisible. We contend that when a benefit is divisible, a duty owed to a disadvantaged group requires sharing that benefit across the widest possible set of members. Consequently, the duty to aid in the sweatshop context supports using surplus to hire additional workers at the equilibrium wage—widening access—rather than concentrating benefits by increasing wages for a select few. We support this claim through an analysis of job subcontracting and rent dissipation, showing that "fair wage" premiums often fail to reach the intended beneficiaries. Finally, we argue that the duty should be assessed dynamically: retaining profits is justifiable if used to fund investment that expands future employment, thereby discharging the duty to aid more effectively than immediate wage hikes.Is a More-Than-Minimal State the Meta-Utopia?, under review at Philosophy and Public Affairs.Ken we keep them? Sunstein's Barbie Goods Reconsidered, (with Gianluigi Giustiziero), under review at Public Administration Review.The Accuracy-Explainability Trade-off, the Right to Explanation, and Implications for Organisations, (with Carissa Véliz), R&R at the Journal of Business Ethics.Abstraction as Flexibility: Prudential Agreement under Evaluative Uncertainty, R&R at Economics and Philosophy.Self-Esteem and Technological Unemployment: Should We Halt AI to Protect Meaningful Work? Cordasco, C. L., Véliz, C., J Bus Ethics (2025).The Dark Side of AI in Professional Services, Trincado-Munoz, F. J., Cordasco, C.L., & Vorley, T. The Service Industries Journal, 1–20 (2024).The Ethics of Entrepreneurship: A Millian Approach, Cordasco, C.L., J Bus Ethics (2023).Market Participation, Self-Respect, and Risk Tolerance, Cordasco, C.L., Cowen, N. J Bus Ethics (2023). An Institutional Taxonomy of Adoption of Innovation in the Classic Professions, Cordasco, C., Gherhes, C., Brooks, C., & Vorley, T. (2021). Technovation, 107, 102272.