CFP: 14th Braga Meetings on Ethics and Political Philosophy
Submission deadline: April 15, 2024
Conference date(s):
June 26, 2024 - June 28, 2024
Conference Venue:
CEPS - Centre for Ethics, Politics and Society
Braga,
Portugal
Details
PANEL 4: IMPARTIALITY AND SUBJECTIVITY IN THE METHOD OF ETHICAL AND POLITICAL THEORIES
https://14bragameetings.weebly.com/
CONVENORS: J. A. COLEN, JÓNi COELHO, and JOÃO DA ROCHA RODRIGUES
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to j[email protected] , [email protected] or [email protected]
Dialogue and rational argumentation in ethics and politics are very difficult today because extreme positions and a kind of deafness about the arguments of others prevail. It has become almost a reflex to use a subjective qualification, such as “for me”, “for us”, “in our culture” or “our society”, as if such a complement represented the last word on the matter. The result is not just a fashionable theory, but a deep conviction that often leads to deflecting or neglecting the arguments of others. This crude “subjectivism” is a reflex that has become instinctive and suggests to us that reason cannot serve as a resource to which we can appeal from received opinions and habits of concrete societies.
However, rule utilitarianism and deontic liberalism, which dominate current ethical and political theorizing, different they may be from each other, almost always require an impartial point of view. They require at least the possibility of temporarily abstracting our subjective interests and points of view and submitting our prejudices, opinions, and personal and social bonds to the court of reason.
These theories are, therefore, in conflict with the deep trends of the culture that surrounds us. Some moral and political philosophers, such as Bernard Williams, criticized all moral theories as “an idea too much”, for neglecting bonds, loyalties, and subjective projects, although without rejecting the importance of truth and truthfulness, while others, such as Richard Rorty, have suggested the outright abandonment of all theories in favor of ironic narratives, and the abandonment of any reference to truth itself in favor of pragmatism.
Recently, following the works of Thomas Nagel, studies, essays, and in-depth works have multiplied in which they seek to reconcile impartiality in ethics and politics with irreducibly subjective elements that serve as its counterweight. This conciliation strives to save impartiality and equality, without neglecting personal ties and projects, and hopes to recover the possibility of rational reflection not only on the opinions of our community but also on our perspective. It is enough to point out, as an example of this effort, the works of Thomas Nagel, Liam Murphy, Samuel Scheffler, and Susan Wolf, on the most varied topics.
We are interested in communications on a wide range of topics related to “the general problem of subjective and objective”, such as:
- The View from Nowhere and from Somewhere
- The First-Person Standpoint
- Realism and Altruism
- Reasons and Motivations
- Moral Luck
- Fragmentation of Value and Obligation
- Inequality of Talents and Limits to Impartiality
- Ownership and taxation
- Personal Rights and Public Space
CONVENORS: J. A. COLEN, JÓNi COELHO, and JOÃO DA ROCHA RODRIGUES
All inquiries about the panel should be sent to j[email protected] , [email protected] or [email protected]
Dialogue and rational argumentation in ethics and politics are very difficult today because extreme positions and a kind of deafness about the arguments of others prevail. It has become almost a reflex to use a subjective qualification, such as “for me”, “for us”, “in our culture” or “our society”, as if such a complement represented the last word on the matter. The result is not just a fashionable theory, but a deep conviction that often leads to deflecting or neglecting the arguments of others. This crude “subjectivism” is a reflex that has become instinctive and suggests to us that reason cannot serve as a resource to which we can appeal from received opinions and habits of concrete societies.
However, rule utilitarianism and deontic liberalism, which dominate current ethical and political theorizing, different they may be from each other, almost always require an impartial point of view. They require at least the possibility of temporarily abstracting our subjective interests and points of view and submitting our prejudices, opinions, and personal and social bonds to the court of reason.
These theories are, therefore, in conflict with the deep trends of the culture that surrounds us. Some moral and political philosophers, such as Bernard Williams, criticized all moral theories as “an idea too much”, for neglecting bonds, loyalties, and subjective projects, although without rejecting the importance of truth and truthfulness, while others, such as Richard Rorty, have suggested the outright abandonment of all theories in favor of ironic narratives, and the abandonment of any reference to truth itself in favor of pragmatism.
Recently, following the works of Thomas Nagel, studies, essays, and in-depth works have multiplied in which they seek to reconcile impartiality in ethics and politics with irreducibly subjective elements that serve as its counterweight. This conciliation strives to save impartiality and equality, without neglecting personal ties and projects, and hopes to recover the possibility of rational reflection not only on the opinions of our community but also on our perspective. It is enough to point out, as an example of this effort, the works of Thomas Nagel, Liam Murphy, Samuel Scheffler, and Susan Wolf, on the most varied topics.
We are interested in communications on a wide range of topics related to “the general problem of subjective and objective”, such as:
- The View from Nowhere and from Somewhere
- The First-Person Standpoint
- Realism and Altruism
- Reasons and Motivations
- Moral Luck
- Fragmentation of Value and Obligation
- Inequality of Talents and Limits to Impartiality
- Ownership and taxation
- Personal Rights and Public Space
If you want to apply, please submit an abstract of a minimum of 400 words and a maximum of 500 words along with five keywords and a short bio (max 300 words).
All proposals must be submitted online through our website using the Abstract submission form: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScXVI7qeMVqPWdCthpfygZOH468pBfe4lmvuWbfQq7KhddL9A/viewform
Ensure that you select the correct panel throughout the filling of the form.
Deadline for abstract submissions: APRIL 15th