this weeks meeting will be a seminar style presentation by Luke Dorman. He’ll be speaking about the philosophical evolution of Postmodern philosophy, inspired significantly by the book Explaining Postmodernism by a contemporary philosopher, Stephen Hicks. Once again we will be in Olson 144 at 7:30pm, I hope to see you all there 🙂
Hi everyone, we will be having our next meeting today, Thursday 12th, at 7:30pm in Olson 144. We decided to keep our meetings here throughout the rest of the quarter. The seminar will be held by Prof. Adam Sennet discussing his work on “Ways of Believing”. The topic will be non-semantic tools to help with semantic problems.
Hi everyone, our first club meeting will be this Thursday, October 5th at 7:30 in Olson 144. It’ll mostly be a social with some time set apart to introduce the club; who we are, what we do and anything else you need to know. THERE WILL BE FREE FOOD
If you are new to the philosophy club I recomend checking out our facebook page, it’ll give you the same updates with the bonus of being able to intereact digitally with rest of the UC Davis Philosophy community.
This week we are going to discuss a paper by Sheila Lintott on “A Feminist Reclamation of the Word Sexy”. Whoever can please try to read the paper before the meeting, or at least give it a quick skim. As always the meeting will be tomorrow; Thursday June 1st, in Wellman 235.
This week our presenter will be Stephen DiLorenzo, a grad student here are Davis. We meet in Wellman 235 at 7:00pm.
Military Ethics, Rules of Engagement (ROE), Blame, Moral Injury, Self-Defense
I am concerned that the military’s Rules of Engagement (ROE) exclusively focus on prescribing the permissible actions but fail to consider the servicemember’s blameworthiness. In explaining this concern, I will illuminate that permissible actions do not necessarily yield blamelessness; while permissibility is a function of the goodness of outcomes, blamelessness is a function of an agent’s blameless intentions. Why should we care about permissible actions done with blameworthy intentions? I will offer two distinct motivations. Using a self-defense situation as an example, I will explain why ROE that neglect to consider blame can increase the magnitude of harm done to an apparent but merely possible attacker. Secondly, we are certainly concerned about the harms done to servicemembers, and possessing an ill-defined or blameworthy intention can result in harm to servicemembers in the form of a ‘moral injury’. I limit the discussion of my concern to in bello situations with an Army self-defense ROE, however, considerations of blame are likely important other situations with other ROE. Considerations of blame are likely also important in wider applications such ad bellum decision and law enforcement.
I know we haven’t used this is a while but the club decided to bring it back, so you can all expect this to be a consisteant thing from now on.
So we will be having our meeting this week on Thursday, March 16th, @ 7pm in Wellman, room 229.
Dan Arday will be presenting on Fake News in todays media.
How does President Trump manipulate the media? What is “Fake News” and how can you be more aware of it? What is the filter bubble and how can you escape yours? Finally why is there such a great disagreement in America about ‘the facts’ right now? Come to this discussion and learn how Donald Trump uses methods such as ‘trading up the chain’ and selective attention to control the media. Then, learn how philosopher William Clifford’s argument on the epistemic responsibility of belief can help you to not be duped by fake news. Next, learn about how Aristotle’s virtue ethics can help you escape your filter bubble by being a more well-informed person. Finally dive into current moral psychology and understand the moral foundations behind both conservatives and liberals. Learn how each party’s moral foundations “bind and blind” them to certain points of view, causing each party be more receptive and vulnerable to certain types of fake news.
This meeting will not be focusing on the particular political issues, so do not attend expecting to extensively debate their merits.
At our meeting this week grad student Tim Houk will be presenting on luck and free will. His talk is titled “No Luck for Libertarians.” I’ve attached a copy of the paper with an abstract. He intends on expanding section 3.1 (titled “The No Contrastive Explanation Objection”), so might skip other parts and spend extra time on that.
We’ll be in Wellman 229 at 7pm on Thursday, March 9th!
Additionally, if you’re interested in presenting next quarter, please let me know and I’ll get you set up with a presentation date.