In Conversation: Exploring the Philosophy of Money and Finance &ndash\; Series III
\nA series of interviews with contributors to The Philosophy of Money and Finance (Hardcover\, OUP 2024\; Paperback\, fall 2025)
\nSchedule
\n"Bitcoins Left and Right: A Normative Assessment of a Digital Currency"
Authors: Lars Lindblom and Joakim Sandberg
Interviewer: Violet Victoria
Date and Time: October 6\, 2026\, 12 pm EST (18:00 CET)
[Thi is the final interview in the series. Recordings of prior interviews can be found on Phinance.]
ORGANIZER;CN=Lisa Warenski;CN=Emiliano Ippoliti: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Paris:20260604T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Paris:20261024T170000 SUMMARY:Stanley Cavell at 100. An International Centennial Conference UID:20261024T115216Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Paris LOCATION:Roma\; Paris\; Boston\, Italy DESCRIPTION:Stanley Cavell at 100 \; An International Centennial Conference \; \;
Paris: \;4-5 June 2026 \;| Organized by Sandra Laugier\, Université\; Paris 1 Panthé\;on Sorbonne \; Rome: 8-9 June 2026 \;| Organized by Piergiorgio Donatelli\, Sapienza Università\; di Roma \; Boston: 23-24 October 2026 \;| Organized by Juliet Floyd\, Boston University \; \; \;
In 2026\, we mark the centenary of \;Stanley Cavell (1926&ndash\;2026)\, one of the \;most original and wide-ranging American philosophers of the twentieth century. Cavell&rsquo\;s work traversed traditional disciplinary boundaries&mdash\;engaging deeply with philosophy\, literature\, film\, opera\, psychoanalysis\, politics\, and both American and European traditions of thought. In the spirit of his intellectual breadth and transnational sensibility\, we are organizing a three-part international conference to celebrate his life\, work\, and legacy in Paris\, Rome\, and Boston.
\nWhy This Conference Matters
\nStanley Cavell transformed philosophy into an act of acknowledgment&mdash\;of self\, of others\, and of the everyday. His writings on skepticism\, language\, film\, and the ordinary remain vital at a time when trust in both language and human connection faces renewed challenges. From \;Must We Mean What We Say? \;to \;The Claim of Reason\, from \;The World Viewed \;to \;Pursuits of Happiness\, and through his readings of Emerson and Thoreau\, Cavell helped redefine the scope and style of philosophical writing and teaching.
\nHis engagement with Wittgenstein and Austin reinvigorated the ordinary language tradition\, while his interests in modernism\, cinema\, and American transcendentalism forged a philosophical voice that responded to&mdash\;and often transcended&mdash\;the academic context.
\nThis centennial conference will bring together philosophers\, literary scholars\, and critics to reflect on Cavell&rsquo\;s legacy and extend the conversations he began.
\nThis call for papers concerns all three installments&mdash\;Paris\, Rome\, and Boston&mdash\;of the Cavell at 100 conference.
\nSuggested Themes:
\nWe welcome proposals that engage with the following themes or propose new directions for exploring Cavell&rsquo\;s thought.
\nConference Foci:
\nParis will focus especially on Ordinary Language Philosophy\, Film\, and Popular Culture.
\nRome will center mainly on Ethics\, Politics\, and Forms of Life.
\nBoston will treat primarily Philosophy and Literature\, Tragedy\, Music\, and the Idea of America.
\nSome themes&mdash\;such as skepticism\, modernism\, the ordinary&mdash\;cut across all three conferences.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20260925T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20270416T170000 SUMMARY:Zicklin Center Workshop in Normative Business Ethics UID:20261024T115217Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:America/New_York LOCATION:3730 Walnut Street\, Philadelphia\, United States\, 19104 DESCRIPTION:Call for Abstracts for The Zicklin Center Normative Business Ethics Workshop Series
\nOver the 2026-2027 academic year\, the Zicklin Center for Governance and Business Ethics at the Wharton School\, University of Pennsylvania\, will convene a regular works-in-progress series for scholars working in normative business ethics (NBE). In particular\, the Series will workshop papers pursuing business ethics issues from a normative perspective\, or papers in moral or political philosophy with implications for the market\, distributive justice\, labor relations\, the role of business in society\, etc.
\nWorkshop Objectives
\nThe Series is part of an effort to foster normative business ethics in the academy and the public sphere. This particular initiative has two key objectives: First\, it endeavors to provide a regular forum for scholars working on business ethics from a normative perspective. The community of such scholars is relatively small\, and dispersed across numerous institutions\, and there are few opportunities for these individuals to convene and share work. This Series is an effort to connect these scholars and to enrich their shared intellectual life. Second\, the Series aims to be especially valuable to junior faculty and advanced graduate students\, by providing them with feedback from\, and opportunities to interact with\, more established members of the normative business ethics community. To that end\, we hope to have (at least) one junior author and one senior author at each session.
\nWorkshop Format
\nThe workshop will meet six times over the academic year. Any academic or practitioner with an interest in normative business ethics is invited to attend the sessions. Attendees are expected to read the papers in advance\, and to come with feedback for the paper authors. To maximize the opportunity for paper improvement\, authors will not present their papers\; we will instead spend our time together on questions and comments for the author.
\nSessions will be held on Fridays\, beginning at 1:00 pm unless otherwise indicated. We will discuss two to three papers at each session. Attendees are expected to read the papers in advance\, and to come prepared to offer feedback.
\nWe plan to hold all sessions in-person\, on the campus of the University of Pennsylvania\, in Philadelphia.
\nSession Dates:
\nSeptember 25th\, 2026
\nOctober 30th\, 2026
\nJanuary 29th\, 2027
\nFebruary 26th\, 2027
\nMarch 19th\, 2027
\nApril 16th\, 2027
\nCall for Abstracts
\nWe invite abstract submissions from \;faculty and post-docs\, and from graduate students who have advanced to the ABD stage. \;Preferential treatment will be given to those who have not presented work at the Series before\, and we especially welcome submissions from women and under-represented minorities.
\nThe abstract should propose a paper in normative business ethics\, as described above. We ask that submissions offer a fairly detailed sense of the paper without exceeding 500 words.
\nWe ask that applicants identify three of the above dates\, in order of preference\, at which they would like to present their work. Please send your abstract to Brian Berkey &ndash\; bberkey@wharton.upenn.edu -- by July 15th\, 2026. Individuals will be notified about whether their paper has been selected for presentation by August 3rd\, 2026.
\nInformation for Selected Authors
\nThe Zicklin Center will cover reasonable travel and accommodation expenses for paper authors for the session at which their paper will be discussed.
\nReimbursement for travel expenses is subject to two conditions. By accepting the offer to workshop a paper\, the paper author pledges that:
\n1. \; \; \; \; The paper they will share is at a stage of development where the author can incorporate feedback gained at the workshop (e.g.\, the paper is not yet in page proofs or in print)\; and
\n2. \; \; \; \; The paper author will send their draft paper to the organizers no fewer than 14 days before their presentation date.
\nFor co-authored papers\, we can ordinarily only provide travel funding for one of the authors\, though other co-authors are welcome to attend.
\nPlease address any questions about the CFA or the workshop to one of the organizers: Brian Berkey (bberkey@wharton.upenn.edu)\, Amy Sepinwall (sepin@wharton.upenn.edu)\, Julian Jonker (jonker@wharton.upenn.edu)\, or Paul Forrester (pforr@wharton.upenn.edu).
ORGANIZER;CN=Brian Berkey;CN=Amy J. Sepinwall;CN=Julian Jonker;CN=Paul Forrester: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261030T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261030T234500 SUMMARY:Medically Assisted Dying for Persons with Mental IIlness: Philosophical\, Ethical\, and Legal Perspectives UID:20261024T115218Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Call for Chapters: Medically Assisted Dying for Persons with Mental IIlness: Philosophical\, Ethical\, and Legal Perspectives
\n\;(Edited Volume)
\nPlanned publisher: Springer (contract in preparation)
Planned series: The International Library of Bioethics
Editors: David Černý\;\, Tomá\;&scaron\; Doležal\, Adam Doležal (Czech Academy of Sciences)\, Manuel Trachsel (University of Basel)
Rationale and Scope
\nOver the past decades\, debates on euthanasia and physician-assisted dying (PAD) have matured in many respects. Yet one domain remains both conceptually unsettled and practically urgent: psychiatric euthanasia and PAD for persons with mental disorders. A small but growing number of jurisdictions&mdash\;most prominently the Netherlands\, Belgium\, and (more recently) Canada&mdash\;have opened legal pathways for cases where psychiatric suffering is the primary indication\, provoking intense controversy across psychiatry\, bioethics\, law\, and public policy.
\nThis edited volume aims to provide a comprehensive\, systematic\, book-length treatment of psychiatric euthanasia\, integrating philosophical analysis\, normative bioethics\, comparative law\, and clinical/empirical perspectives. We welcome contributions that are philosophically rigorous and normatively ambitious while carefully engaging with clinical and legal realities.
\nWhat we are looking for
\nWe invite proposals for original chapters offering:
\nrigorous argumentation and conceptual clarity\,
\ncareful engagement with clinical and legal realities\,
\nempirical grounding where relevant\,
\nan interdisciplinary orientation (chapters may be philosophical\, bioethical\, legal\, psychiatric\, or genuinely interdisciplinary)\,
\naccessibility to an international scholarly readership.
\nThe volume is envisaged as a four-part collection&mdash\;moving from conceptual groundwork through normative debates and legal frameworks to clinical practice and lived experience.
\nSuggested Topics (non-exhaustive)
\nPart I &mdash\; Conceptual and historical foundations
\nConcepts\, definitions\, and key distinctions (psychiatric vs somatic vs &ldquo\;mixed&rdquo\; cases)
\nHistory of euthanasia debates in relation to mental illness
\nThe nature of mental suffering\; the badness (or possible acceptability) of death
\nAutonomy\, competence\, and decision-making capacity in psychiatric contexts (incl. fluctuating capacity and ambivalence)
\nPart II &mdash\; Normative arguments and ethical frameworks
\n&ldquo\;Parity&rdquo\; arguments (and their limits): somatic vs psychiatric indications
\nBeneficence\, non-maleficence\, autonomy\, justice in psychiatric euthanasia
\nVulnerability\, coercion\, and structural injustice (stigma\, poverty\, loneliness\, access to care)
\nSlippery-slope arguments\, expressivist concerns\, and symbolic meanings
\nPart III &mdash\; Legal frameworks and comparative law
\nThe Netherlands: statutory framework\, guidelines\, review practice
\nBelgium: regulation\, case law\, oversight bodies and landmark cases
\nCanada: MAiD and the contested expansion to mental disorders
\nComparative and human-rights perspectives\; emerging jurisdictions and models of professional self-regulation
\nPart IV &mdash\; Clinical practice\, empirical evidence\, lived experience
\nTreatment resistance\, prognosis\, and &ldquo\;irremediability&rdquo\;: epistemic limits in psychiatry
\nAssessing voluntariness and stability of the wish to die\; distinguishing suicidality-as-symptom from a sustained request
\nEmpirical studies: patient profiles\, clinician and review-body reasoning\, procedural experiences
\nSuicide prevention\, palliative psychiatry\, recovery-oriented care\, and &ldquo\;reasonable alternatives&rdquo\;
\nFuture directions: research priorities\, policy implications\, professional guidance
\nVolume profile and review process
\nThe book is planned for Springer&rsquo\;s International Library of Bioethics (contract in preparation). We anticipate approximately 16&ndash\;17 chapters (including an overall introduction and concluding chapter). All chapters will undergo peer review through an editor-coordinated review process.
\nSubmission guidelines
\nPlease submit an abstract including:
\nprovisional title
\nabstract (recommended 400&ndash\;800 words)
\n4&ndash\;6 keywords
\nshort author bio (100&ndash\;150 words)
\nFull chapters should be original\, written in English\, and prepared to align with Springer&rsquo\;s book-manuscript requirements.
\nTimeline
\nExtended abstracts due: 28 February 2026
\nFull chapters due: 30 October 2026
\nFinal manuscript submission to Springer: 30 December 2026
\nHow to submit
\nPlease send your abstract (single PDF or DOCX) with the subject line:
&ldquo\;Psychiatric Euthanasia &ndash\; Chapter Proposal&rdquo\; \;to: David Černý\; (david.cerny@ilaw.cas.cz)
Why Political Philosophy of Technology and Engineering? Concepts\, Problems\, Methods
\nProposed Full-Day Symposium at SPT 2027
\nJune 16-19\, Beijing
\nWhat distinguishes political philosophy of technology and engineering from political philosophy\, applied ethics\, or philosophy of technology? Emerging and disruptive technologies increasingly require us to revisit existing political concepts and\, in some cases\, to develop new normative principles for issues such as artificial agency\, responsibility gaps\, value alignment\, algorithmic governance\, infrastructural power\, and technologically mediated forms of collective life.
\nYet political philosophy of technology and engineering has only recently begun to emerge as a field that seeks to provide analytic frameworks for addressing the political dimensions of technology and engineering. Such a field must ask not only how political philosophy can be applied to technology\, but also how technologies and engineering practices reshape political concepts\, institutions\, forms of power\, conditions of agency\, and possibilities for collective life.
\nThe Political Philosophy of Technology and Engineering SIG invites submissions for a proposed full-day symposium at SPT 2027. The symposium will serve as a platform for work that contributes to field-building by proposing new ways to think about the concepts\, problems\, and methods of political philosophy of technology and engineering.
\nWe especially welcome papers that do not merely apply existing ethical or political frameworks to technological cases\, but ask how technology and engineering challenge\, transform\, or extend the conceptual and normative resources of political philosophy. While the theme of SPT 2027 invites reflection on AI and new modes of human existence\, the symposium welcomes work on AI as well as on other technologies\, infrastructures\, and engineering systems that raise political-philosophical questions.
\nPossible topics include\, but are not limited to:
\nWe welcome submissions from scholars working in philosophy of technology\, political philosophy\, political theory\, philosophy of engineering\, engineering ethics\, STS\, philosophy of AI\, social and political epistemology\, and related areas. Contributions from early-career researchers and scholars working outside dominant Anglophone or European traditions are especially encouraged.
\nSubmission instructions
\nPlease submit the following materials by 31 October 2026:
\nSubmissions should be sent to \;sptppetsig@gmail.com \;with the subject line: &ldquo\;SPT 2027 Political Philosophy of Technology Symposium.&rdquo\;
\nPlease note that according to SPT\, no one will be permitted to present more than one contribution at the SPT2027 conference\, though it is allowed to be involved in further contributions in another role (such as co-author or discussant).
\nAI use and authorship policy
\nWe are aiming for a symposium featuring work that reflects contributors&rsquo\; their own research\, reasoning\, and scholarly voice. A such\, limited use of generative AI tools for editing\, proofreading\, or improving clarity is acceptable\, provided that the intellectual content\, argument\, and statement of fit are written by the submitting scholar.
\n\;
\nReview process
\nAbstracts will be reviewed competitively. Selection will be based on philosophical quality\, originality\, fit with the symposium theme\, and contribution to the development of political philosophy of technology and engineering as a field.
\nWe expect to select approximately ten papers for inclusion in the proposed full-day symposium submission to SPT 2027. Please note that selection for the symposium proposal does not guarantee acceptance by SPT\; the full symposium proposal will be submitted to the SPT 2027 review process.
\nAuthors of selected abstracts may be asked to revise their abstracts lightly in order to strengthen the coherence of the symposium proposal.
\n\;
\nTimeline
\nSubmission deadline for abstracts: 31 October 2026
Expected notification of selection for symposium proposal: 23 November 2026
Confirmation of participation due: 30 November 2026
About the SIG
\nThe Political Philosophy of Technology and Engineering SIG was established to create a scholarly community around political-philosophical approaches to technology and engineering. The SIG aims to foster work that examines how technological and engineering practices shape political concepts\, institutions\, forms of power\, collective responsibilities\, and conditions of human flourishing.
\nThis proposed symposium continues that mission by creating an ongoing forum for scholars contributing to the development of political philosophy of technology and engineering as a field.
\nFor questions\, please contact: avigailf@technion.ac.il.
Michael Schmidt\, KIT
\nPaige Benton\, Johannesburg
\nAvigail Ferdman\, Technion
\nSIG co-leaders
ORGANIZER;CN=Avigail Ferdman;CN=Paige Benton;CN=Michael W. Schmidt: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Rome:20261031T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Rome:20261031T234500 SUMMARY:Moral Demands Towards Animals: British and German Perspectives (1670–1820) UID:20261024T115220Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Rome LOCATION:Milano\, Italy DESCRIPTION:Keynote speakers: \; John Callanan (King&rsquo\;s College London) and Aaron Garrett (Boston University)
\nThe history of animal ethics in the long eighteenth century remains surprisingly understudied. British and Irish contributions have often been overshadowed by the retrospective dominance of Bentham's famous 1789 footnote\, while the parallel German tradition &mdash\; which has much more to offer than Kant's perspective on non-human animals &mdash\; has been largely neglected. Yet both traditions deserve attention in their own right\, and their juxtaposition raises important comparative questions: under what conditions do similar assumptions about sentience\, soul\, divine justice\, or humanity's place in nature generate similar or radically different ethical conclusions? What travels between these traditions\, what does not\, and why?
\nThis workshop invites contributions on any author\, text\, or debate from Britain\, Ireland\, or the German-speaking world between 1670 and 1820 bearing on the moral demands humans owe to animals: their moral or legal status\, the normative significance of sentience (or soul)\, duties of care\, animal rights\, or their denial.
\nRelevant topics and figures include\, but are not limited to:
\nWhile the workshop focuses primarily on British\, Irish\, and German-speaking authors and traditions\, contributions engaging with other relevant intellectual contexts (e.g. French\, Dutch\, or wider European debates) are also welcome\, particularly where they shed light on questions of influence\, transmission\, comparison\, or reception. Contributions engaging comparatively across traditions are especially welcome.
\nPlease send abstracts of up to 500 words to david.bartha@unimi.it by 31 October 2026. We aim to communicate decisions by mid-November 2026.
\nThere will be no registration fee. We hope to be able to contribute toward accommodation costs for accepted speakers.
\nThe workshop is organised as part of the ERC Advanced Grant '18ETHICS'\, based at the University of Milan. For more details on the project\, see our website: https://18ethics.unimi.it/
ORGANIZER;CN=David Bartha: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261101T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261101T234500 SUMMARY:Philosophical Perspectives on Homelessness\, Home-making and Belonging UID:20261024T115221Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Berlin LOCATION:Tromsø\, Norway DESCRIPTION:Call for abstracts:
\nThe 4th Tromsø\; Conference in Ethics and Political Philosophy:
\nPhilosophical Perspectives on Homelessness\, Home-making and Belonging
\nUiT The Arctic University of Norway\, Tromsø\;
\nDecember 8th-9th\, 2026.
\nKeynote speakers:
\n\nHomelessness and unbelonging are often cited as causes when one seeks to explain the rise of the political right or nationalist movements\, both historical and contemporary. At the same time\, not all responses to experiences of homelessness and unbelonging are totalitarian\, conservative or nationalist\, and one certainly does not have to be a nationalist to take the phenomenon of homelessness seriously. Philosophers working on migration and exile as well as on unhoused people have similarly underpinned the struggles and questions associated with what it means to &ldquo\;be at home&rdquo\; or to &ldquo\;have a home&rdquo\; somewhere. Feminist scholars have developed theories that advocate the reappropriation and resignification of &ldquo\;home&rdquo\;\, or that embrace the tension-filled experiences of home-making &ldquo\;in-between&rdquo\; different cultures\, languages and traditions.
\nAcknowledging at the outset the tension between possible political responses to the phenomenon of homelessness\, this conference seeks to bring together scholars working on the problems and concepts of homelessness/ home and unbelonging/ belonging. Questions the conference will address include\, but are not limited to\, the following:
\nThe organizing team welcome abstracts on any of these questions as well as related issues. We hope for a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches. We are especially interested in how different areas of scholarship can be bridged fruitfully around the topics of home\, homelessness\, and (un)belonging\, and how critical\, feminist and phenomenological perspectives on these topics can contribute to or supplement contemporary debates within analytic political philosophy and migration ethics.
\nPlease send a 300 word abstract to Kaja Jenssen Rathe (kaja.j.rathe@uit.no) by November 1st\, 2026. You can expect a decision on your abstract by November 9th\, 2026.
\n ORGANIZER;CN=Kaja Jenssen Rathe: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261104T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261106T170000 SUMMARY:The 3nd Conference Ethics and AI Towards a New Ethos of AI UID:20261024T115222Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Warsaw LOCATION:Pl. Politechniki 1\, Warsaw\, Poland DESCRIPTION:Conference ETHICS and AI\, The 3rd Edition: Towards a New Ethos of AI
\nWe are entering a historic moment in which artificial intelligence is no longer simply a tool that supports our processes\, but is becoming a personal technology &mdash\; one that co-decides\, recommends\, communicates\, and increasingly acts on our behalf. Personalised AI systems are already reshaping education\, business\, politics\, and the everyday choices we all make\, as the market moves faster than regulation can follow and ethical reflection races to keep pace with innovation. At the same time\, a real and urgent tension defines this transformation: increasingly sycophantic LLMs optimised for user satisfaction and engagement risk enclosing individuals within epistemic bubbles\; powerful AI ideologies promoted by major technology leaders frame rapid deployment as unquestionable progress\; and regulatory frameworks continue to struggle to respond adequately to the speed and scale of change. The Ethics and AI conference grows out of this tension and from the conviction that it deserves serious\, open\, cross-disciplinary conversation bringing together AI engineers\, philosophers\, ethicists\, and argumentation researchers to jointly examine the design\, social\, and political decisions shaping the future of technology. Our interest goes beyond compliance: we ask a deeper question about ethos &mdash\; what values\, what model of responsibility\, and ultimately what worldview we are embedding in the systems we build\, and what this means for our shared digital society. We seek to articulate a new ethos for AI design\, capable of translating responsibility\, justice\, and kindness into technological practice\, and of guiding the development of benevolent AI &mdash\; not merely persuasive or adaptive\, but genuinely benevolent\, trustworthy\, and oriented toward the common good and a resilient digital society.
\nKeynote speakers: \;
\nSpecial guest:
\nThe exhibition "Trust\, social media and digital society"
\nThe exhibition "Trust\, social media and digital society" presented at the Ethics and AI conference is delivered by the Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw. The conference is organised under the auspices of the [iTRUST] project (NCN/CHIST-ERA\, 2022/04/Y/ST6/00001).
\nSubmissions may address\, but are not limited to\, the following thematic areas:
\nSubmission \;
\nWe invite submissions of regular abstracts (300&ndash\;500 words) prepared for double-blind peer review. should be submitted via the EasyChair platform:https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=eaai-3. Each accepted contribution will be allocated a 30-minute presentation slot\, including time for discussion. We accept submissions in English and Polish (since part of the conference will be held in Polish).
\nConference Fee
\nThe registration fee is 600 PLN (140 euro). The registration fee for students is 300 PLN (70 euro). \;
\nSubmission deadlines \;
\nFrom June 10\, 2026: submission open \;
\nSeptember 15: submission deadline \;
\n\nOctober 5: 2026: notifications of acceptance or rejection \;
ORGANIZER;CN="Krzysztof Sołoducha": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261104T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Warsaw:20261104T234500 SUMMARY:The 3nd Conference Ethics and AI Towards a New Ethos of AI UID:20261024T115223Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Warsaw LOCATION:Pl. Politechniki 1\, Warsaw\, Poland DESCRIPTION:Conference ETHICS and AI\, The 3rd Edition: Towards a New Ethos of AI
\nWe are entering a historic moment in which artificial intelligence is no longer simply a tool that supports our processes\, but is becoming a personal technology &mdash\; one that co-decides\, recommends\, communicates\, and increasingly acts on our behalf. Personalised AI systems are already reshaping education\, business\, politics\, and the everyday choices we all make\, as the market moves faster than regulation can follow and ethical reflection races to keep pace with innovation. At the same time\, a real and urgent tension defines this transformation: increasingly sycophantic LLMs optimised for user satisfaction and engagement risk enclosing individuals within epistemic bubbles\; powerful AI ideologies promoted by major technology leaders frame rapid deployment as unquestionable progress\; and regulatory frameworks continue to struggle to respond adequately to the speed and scale of change. The Ethics and AI conference grows out of this tension and from the conviction that it deserves serious\, open\, cross-disciplinary conversation bringing together AI engineers\, philosophers\, ethicists\, and argumentation researchers to jointly examine the design\, social\, and political decisions shaping the future of technology. Our interest goes beyond compliance: we ask a deeper question about ethos &mdash\; what values\, what model of responsibility\, and ultimately what worldview we are embedding in the systems we build\, and what this means for our shared digital society. We seek to articulate a new ethos for AI design\, capable of translating responsibility\, justice\, and kindness into technological practice\, and of guiding the development of benevolent AI &mdash\; not merely persuasive or adaptive\, but genuinely benevolent\, trustworthy\, and oriented toward the common good and a resilient digital society.
\nKeynote speakers: \;
\nSpecial guest:
\nThe exhibition "Trust\, social media and digital society"
\nThe exhibition "Trust\, social media and digital society" presented at the Ethics and AI conference is delivered by the Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw. The conference is organised under the auspices of the [iTRUST] project (NCN/CHIST-ERA\, 2022/04/Y/ST6/00001).
\nSubmissions may address\, but are not limited to\, the following thematic areas:
\nSubmission \;
\nWe invite submissions of regular abstracts (300&ndash\;500 words) prepared for double-blind peer review. should be submitted via the EasyChair platform:https://easychair.org/conferences/?conf=eaai-3. Each accepted contribution will be allocated a 30-minute presentation slot\, including time for discussion. We accept submissions in English and Polish (since part of the conference will be held in Polish).
\nConference Fee
\nThe registration fee is 600 PLN (140 euro). The registration fee for students is 300 PLN (70 euro). \;
\nSubmission deadlines \;
\nFrom June 10\, 2026: submission open \;
\nSeptember 15: submission deadline \;
\nOctober 5: 2026: notifications of acceptance or rejection \;
ORGANIZER;CN="Krzysztof Sołoducha": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261105T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261106T170000 SUMMARY:Security-Relevant Research in Academia - Debates\, Definitions\, and Best-Practices UID:20261024T115224Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Berlin LOCATION:Karlsruhe\, Germany DESCRIPTION:Date: 5-6 November 2026
Location: Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT)\, Germany
Submission Deadline: 15 August 2026
Contact: scott.robbins@kit.edu
Universities stand at the critical intersection of open inquiry and societal responsibility. The ongoing war in Ukraine has illustrated how rapidly scientific advances can be repurposed for conflict\, raising the stakes for research touching on national security\, cryptography\, dual-use technologies\, and emerging weapon systems. To address these challenges\, we invite submissions for a conference dedicated to exploring the complex area of Security-Relevant Research (SRR) within higher-education institutions.
\nWe seek contributions from scholars\, administrators\, ethicists\, defense professionals\, policy makers\, and engineers/technology developers that examine the fundamental questions surrounding SRR. We are particularly interested in papers that address:
\nWhile advocates argue that academic freedom fuels innovation and that university-based research offers transparent\, ethical alternatives to opaque military labs\, critics warn of accelerating arms races\, the exposure of students to dual-use dilemmas\, and conflicts of interest with defense sponsors. This workshop aims to navigate these tensions\, fostering a dialogue that balances innovation with ethical stewardship.
\nSubmission Guidelines
We invite abstracts of 300&ndash\;500 words (excluding references) that propose a paper for presentation. Submissions must include the author's name and affiliation. Please send your abstracts via email to scott.robbins@kit.edu by 15 August 2026.
Presentation Format
Selected authors will be invited to present their work during the workshop. Each presentation will be allocated 20 minutes\, followed by 10 minutes for Q&\;A and discussion.
Publication Opportunity
A primary goal of this workshop is to synthesize the insights\, case studies\, and draft guidelines generated during the event. Following the conference\, all participants will be invited to submit their full manuscripts for consideration in a special issue dedicated to Security-Relevant Research in Academia. We will have more information about this in due time.
This conference is supported by BMFTR\, as part of the "MilEth" project (Military Defense Technologies and Ethics).
\nKeynotes:
Michiel Bot (Tilburg University)
Lonneke Peperkamp (Radboud University Nijmegen &\; Netherlands Defense Academy)
Conference Organizers:
\nScott Robbins &mdash\; Post-Doctoral Researcher\, KIT\, ARRTI
Nathan Wood &mdash\; Junior Research Group Leader\, TUHH
Alexander Bagattini &mdash\; Senior Researcher\, KIT\, ARRTI
Volker Gollnick &mdash\; Professor\, TUHH
Nico Brä\;hler &mdash\; Managing Director\, ARRTI\, KIT
KIT &mdash\; TUHH
ORGANIZER;CN="Nico Brähler": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261105T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261106T170000 SUMMARY:The 2026 Online Symposium of the Network of Asian Environmental Philosophy UID:20261024T115225Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Call for Papers
\nThe 2026 Online Symposium of the Network of Asian Environmental Philosophy
\nMud\, Islands and Ocean
\nDates: November 5 (Thu) - 6 (Fri)\, 2026 \; \; \; \; \; \; No conference fee\, participation is free.
\nMud\, islands and ocean are places of mixture and changes. Animals and people leave traces in the mud. The NAEP symposium 2026 dives into blue humanities and interrogates the fringes between worlds and aims to explore views in terms of fluidity and process. In the mud\, soil and water shift forms and transform. Boundaries are not clearly apparent. Environmental philosophy forces us to reconsider certain assumptions about clear boundaries delimiting and isolating things\, and mud invites us to this journey.
\nOceans can be places of both encounters and separations\, and \; islands can easily trigger narratives of isolation. Mud involves and interconnects lands and seas. Mud also hosts specific ecosystems and bridges the worlds of different species. But places of mixtures and changes can also be places of tensions\; the encounter between different worlds can unleash clashes about access and belonging. Many struggles about justice unfold in muddy waters.
\nThe NAEP 2026 Online Symposium welcomes contributions from scholars\, practitioners and stakeholders on a broad range of aspects within Asian worldviews\, including but not limited to:
\nSilt\, sand and shells\, changing materialities and temporalities
\nPhilosophies of microbiology and oceanology
\nSea-faring people\, slow living\, Indigenous and local knowledge (ILK) and practices
\nJustice and radical approaches to transformation
\nMangroves and coastal ecosystems as protectors from climate change
\nSea level rise and the futures of islands
\nEcofeminism insights on water and birth
\nPhilosophical explorations about natural boundaries\, artificial delimitations\, holism and animism
\nWhale songs and artistic expressions (narratives\, artforms\, storytelling\, memory landscape&hellip\;) related to mud\, islands and ocean in Asian cultures
\nEarly- and mid-career scholars are especially encouraged to send proposals.
\nWe welcome abstracts for individual presentations\, panels\, online posters and workshop proposals. Please submit your 200-250 words abstract with your name\, affiliation and contact informationthrough this form\, by August 16th\, 2026 (or by email toasiaenviphilo@gmail.com).
\nLanguage: The primary language of the conference is English. We aim to be non-native friendly\, so we make it a rule that we speak slow and accessible English. If you would like to present in a language other than English\, please contact us.
\nOrganisation: Laÿ\;na Droz\, Orika Komatsubara\, Dipanwita Pal\, Concordia Marie Lagasca-Hiloma\, Romaric Jannel\, Spriha Roy\, Felipe Cuervo\, May Aye Thiri.
\nAbout the Network of Asian Environmental Philosophy (NAEP)
\nThe Network of Asian Environmental Philosophy (NAEP) was founded by agroup of scholarsin the field of environmental philosophy in Asia in 2019 with the goal to supportworks related to environmental philosophy within Asian traditions of thoughts broadly conceived or related to grassroots perspectives on environmental issues in Asia. \; \; Visit our website:www.asiaenviphilo.com
ORGANIZER;CN="Laÿna Droz";CN=Romaric Jannel: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20261106T234500 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20261106T234500 SUMMARY:Confronting the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence UID:20261024T115226Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:America/New_York LOCATION:800 Linden Street\, Scranton\, United States\, 18510 DESCRIPTION:We welcome proposals for individual papers\, panels\, workshops\, or creative presentations.
\nSubmission Guidelines
\nSubmissions should include:
\nAll submissions will undergo blind peer review by the interdisciplinary planning committee.
\nPlease submit the above information to the online submission form.
\nhttps://form.jotform.com/262075169144054 \;
ORGANIZER;CN=George Aulisio: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20261109T234500 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20261109T234500 SUMMARY:2027 GSCOPE (Graduate Student Conference on Philosophy and Education) UID:20261024T115227Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:America/New_York LOCATION:525 W 120th St\, New York\, United States\, 10027 DESCRIPTION:Contact: gscope.committee@gmail.com
\nThe intention of this conference is to offer a space to think critically about pressing questions to do with the interrelated concepts of interdisciplinarity and education. These questions might include: what is the purpose of education\, how can educational aims best be achieved\, what counts as knowledge\, what counts as teaching\, where do the boundaries of individual academic disciplines (as well as the academic/non-academic distinction) serve as a barrier or limitation\, and how can these boundaries be addressed.
ORGANIZER;CN=Fiona Tuschling Brady: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20261112T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20261114T170000 SUMMARY:2026 Policing\, Policy\, and Philosophy Initiative (3PI) Symposium UID:20261024T115228Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:America/Chicago LOCATION:New Orleans\, United States DESCRIPTION:The Policing\, Policy\, and Philosophy Initiative (3PI) is accepting submissions for its 2026 Paper Prize. The prize winner will be recognized this November at the Philosophy\, Politics\, and Economics (PPE) Society Annual Meeting in New Orleans\, LA.
\nThe prize committee will evaluate papers based on their originality in advancing philosophical debates on policing and their skill in translating insights from philosophy into concrete implications for policy. The winner of the 3PI Paper Prize will receive a $1\,000 award. Also\, should the author(s) choose\, the paper awarded the 3PI Paper Prize will receive consideration for publication in the \;Journal of Public Policy. \;
\nFaculty\, postdocs\, graduate students\, and independent scholars with advanced degrees all are eligible to submit a paper for consideration. (Past prize winners are not eligible.) Submissions for the 3PI Paper Prize should be (1) unpublished manuscripts\, (2) anonymous\, and (3) no more than 3\,500 words (excluding abstract\, notes\, and references). \;The deadline to apply is May 8\, 2026. Please submit your paper at the following link: https://forms.gle/nGgsBLPwWsPRfphHA. \;Decision notifications will be sent in late May.
\nThe winner and runner-up of the prize will present their papers at the 3PI Symposium\, which for the first time in 2026 will be in person. The symposium will take place at the 2026 PPE Society Annual Meeting\, November 12&ndash\;14 in New Orleans. The exact day of the symposium/panel featuring the 3PI prize winner and runner-up will be announced this summer. Symposium participants will need to register for and travel to the PPE Society Annual Meeting.
\nAbout 3PI: The Policing\, Policy\, and Philosophy Initiative (3PI) draws on tools from philosophy to understand policing&rsquo\;s role in society and inform policy. Through its events and resources\, 3PI fosters collaboration among philosophers and ethicists\, highlights research in philosophy on policing\, and connects scholars with policymakers and community leaders. 3PI has been supported by funding from the American Philosophical Association \;and Rock Ethics Institute \;at Penn State\, where it is based. For more information about 3PI\, visit: https://3pi.la.psu.edu/. If you have questions about 3PI or its paper prize\, please email contact3pi@psu.edu.
ORGANIZER;CN=Ben Jones;CN=Raff Donelson;CN="Désirée Lim": METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Qatar:20261115T060000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Qatar:20261115T060000 SUMMARY:Moral Education in Modern Schooling Systems UID:20261024T115229Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Asia/Qatar LOCATION:Doha\, Qatar DESCRIPTION:The Research Center for Islamic Legislation and Ethics (CILE) invites scholars and researchers to submit proposals for a research seminar on moral education and the teaching of ethics in modern schooling systems\, with particular attention to Muslim societies.
\nContemporary ethical scholarship has devoted considerable attention to questions such as What is the good? and What makes an action moral? Yet an equally important question concerns how young people are educated for the good.
\nMoral formation has long occupied a central place in philosophical and Islamic intellectual traditions\, from discussions of virtue and character to concepts such as adab\, tarbiya\, and taʾdīb. Modern schooling\, however\, has significantly changed the context in which moral formation takes place. Compulsory education\, centralized curricula\, the role of the nation-state\, religious and civic education\, globalization\, and increasingly diverse societies all raise important questions about what values schools should teach\, how they should teach them\, and toward what ends.
\nThe seminar seeks to advance scholarly discussion on moral education in modern schooling systems\, with particular attention to Muslim societies\, consistent with CILE's mission. It aims to examine the religious\, philosophical\, ethical\, pedagogical\, psychological\, and curricular dimensions of teaching ethics\, while exploring how Islamic intellectual and educational traditions can contribute to contemporary debates on character formation\, moral reasoning\, citizenship\, and human flourishing. By bringing together scholars and practitioners\, the seminar aims to develop an interdisciplinary theoretical and practical understanding of moral education and its role in addressing the challenges facing contemporary societies.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20261115T234500 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20261115T234500 SUMMARY:5th Annual Penn-Georgetown Digital Ethics Workshop UID:20261024T115230Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:America/New_York LOCATION:Washington\, D. C.\, United States DESCRIPTION:We invite submissions for the 5th Annual Penn-Georgetown Digital Ethics Workshop\, to be held at Georgetown University on April \; 9th-10th\, 2027. Submissions in any area of digital ethics\, broadly construed\, are welcome.
Conference presentations will be 30 minutes\, and each paper will be assigned a commentator. Papers of roughly 4000-4500 words will be due to commentators on February 15th\, 2027.
Please submit an abstract of no more than 500 words\, formatted for blind review\, to \;pgdeworkshop@gmail.com. Abstracts should be submitted in PDF form\, single-spaced\, with no references. Please name the file after the title of the paper\, e.g.\, "A Theory of Justice.pdf". Please include your name and institutional affiliation in the body of your email.
Abstracts are due November 15th\, 2026. Applicants will be notified of decisions by December 15th\, 2026.
The workshop is generously sponsored by the Georgetown Center for Digital Ethics and the Wharton Accountable AI Lab.
\nSome funding will likely be made available to at least some speakers and commentators to defray accommodation costs. We have limited funds\, and we will decide precisely how to distribute them after the review process.
Questions can be addressed to either of the conference organizers:
Brian Berkey: \;bberkey@wharton.upenn.edu
Will Fleisher: \;will.fleisher@georgetown.edu
What happens when communities need answers before institutions have them?
\nIn this Q&\;A\, Mike Steer reflects on communicating with South Australian communities during the unprecedented algal bloom\, when rapidly evolving science could offer probabilities rather than definitive answers &ndash\; while communities\, media and political leaders demanded explanations.
\nRather than asking simply how we combat misinformation\, this conversation asks a more difficult question: \;what are the ethical responsibilities of institutions when certainty is impossible?
\n(Note: This session will be held at Australian Eastern Dayligh Time\, which is \;UTC +11)
\nFacilitated by: Dr Larelle Bossi
\nLarelle is CEO and Founder of Ethical Ocean\, a Research Fellow at Griffith University&rsquo\;s Institute for Ethics\, Governance and Law\, and Vice President of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics. Her research and advisory work focuses on ocean ethics\, biocultural ethics and transformative ocean governance\, drawing on ecofeminist theory and First Nations kinship worldviews. She has developed ethical frameworks for aquaculture\, offshore wind and wave energy\, and works across ocean governance\, place attachment\, cultural licence and the decolonisation of marine spaces. Larelle is also an advisory member of the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy.
\nProf Mike Steer
\nProfessor Steer brings over two decades of expertise in marine science to his role at the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI). His expertise spans various fields including fish biology\, fisheries science\, cephalopod ecology\, molecular science\, fishery reform\, gear selectivity\, and fleet dynamics\, providing direction for numerous applied research initiatives that have advanced Australia&rsquo\;s seafood industry.
\nProfessor Steer's strategic leadership centres on forging genuine relationships to facilitate collaborations with stakeholders and industry partners\, ensuring SARDI's work remains pertinent and impactful in fisheries management and sustainable livestock practices. He drives meaningful advancements\, bridging the gap between academia and industry to address critical challenges in South Australia's aquatic ecosystems and livestock industries.
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T100000 SUMMARY:Not Born Yesterday: Why humans are less gullible than we think (Closing Keynote) UID:20261024T115232Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Closing Keynote: AAPAE Symposium 2026
\nIt is often thought that humans are gullible\, easily manipulated by demagogues\, advertisers\, and politicians. I will argue that the opposite is true: humans are equipped with a set of psychological mechanisms that allow them to properly evaluate communicated information\, and to reject information that is false or harmful. I will rely on experimental psychology data\, as well as studies showing the failures of mass persuasion\, from Nazi propaganda to American presidential campaigns. I will also suggest that\, when people do accept false beliefs\, they often do so only in a superficial manner. \;
\n\;(Note: this event will be hosted on Australian Eastern Daylight Time\, which is UTC+11).
\nHugo Mercieris a cognitive scientist working at the Jean Nicod Institute in Paris. He studies human reasoning and communication\, as well as cultural evolution. He is the co-author\, with Dan Sperber\, of The Enigma of Reason\, and the author of Not Born Yesterday: The Science of Who we Trust and What we Believe. \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T100000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T110000 SUMMARY:Anticipatory Obedience: Living in the Autocrat's Reality UID:20261024T115233Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Abstract: Unlike the dictators of the past\, today's autocrats gain power through democratic elections and then consolidate it by co-opting society's primary institutions\, from the judiciary and business to universities and cultural life. Their central tool isn't force but reality. Autocrats seek to draw everyone into the world they construct\, because that is what secures their control. This talk examines how anticipatory obedience\, or conforming to the autocrat's wishes before being required to do so\, accelerates the rise of autocracy and the erosion of democracy.
\n(Note: this is an online event hosted in Australia. All times are in Australian Eastern Daylight Time. \;Australian Eastern Daylight Time (AEDT) is UTC+11\, meaning it is 11 hours ahead of Coordinated Universal Time)
\n\nJoanne B. Ciulla is a pioneer in the field of leadership ethics. Her research focuses on the ethical challenges of leadership. She has also written extensively on topics in business ethics such as meaningful work. Before joining RBS\, she held the Coston Family Chair in Leadership and Ethics at the Jepson School of Leadership Studies (University of Richmond)\, where she was one of the school&rsquo\;s founders. Jepson was the first degree-granting liberal arts school of its kind in the world. Ciulla has held academic appointments at Harvard Business School\, The Wharton School\, LaSalle University. Her visiting positions include the UNESCO chair in Leadership Studies at the United Nations International Leadership Academy (Jordan)\, the Gourley Professor of Business Ethics\, University of Melbourne (Australia) and visiting professorships at the University of Fort Hare (South Africa)\, Nyenrode Business School (Netherlands)\, Oxford University (Green College)\, and the Harvard&rsquo\;s Kennedy School. She has also been a Fulbright Specialist.
\nFor her scholarship\, Ciulla has received Lifetime Achievement Awards from The Society for Business Ethics\, the International Leadership Association\, and the Network of Leadership Scholars at the Academy of Management. In addition\, she is the recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award for Service to the field of business ethics from the Society for Business Ethics\, a Master Teacher Award from The Wheatley Institution at Brigham Young University\, an Outstanding Faculty Award from the Virginia State Council of Higher Education\, and a Distinguished Educator Award from the University of Richmond.
\nCiulla sits on the editorial boards of The Business Ethics Quarterly\, The Leadership Quarterly\, and Leadership and edits the New Horizons in Leadership Studies Series (Edward Elgar)\, one of the largest collections of books from the humanities and the social sciences on leadership. She has served as president of The Society for Business Ethics and The International Society for Business\, Ethics\, and Economics. In addition\, Ciulla has also worked with the Aspen Institute\, The Brookings Institution\, and the World Economic Forum. She has been an expert witness\, consulted and given lectures and seminars to business\, government\, and non-profit organizations worldwide.
\n\n\n\n ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T110000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T120000 SUMMARY:Trustworthy Institutions Stick Their Necks Out: Prediction\, Accommodation\, and the Ethics of Public Health Communication UID:20261024T115234Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:This session will be part of &lsquo\;Truth\, Democracy\, and Misinformation&rsquo\;\, the 20206 Symposium of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.
\nThe AAAPE exists to promote awareness of applied ethics and foster relationships between practitioners and academics.
\nThe event will be held on online. The event is free for members and ticketed for non-members. More information\, including the full program\, schedule\, and registration is available at: https://events.humanitix.com/aapae-misinformation-workshop
\n\; Abstract
\nIn February 2020\, US public health authorities advised the public that wearing masks was unnecessary\, only to reverse this guidance a few weeks later\, explaining that the earlier advice had partly reflected concerns about supply shortages. Millions of people noticed. For many of them\, the lesson was not that science self-corrects but that official announcements track something other than the truth. Episodes such as this one\, I&rsquo\;ll argue\, are central to understanding why medical misinformation and conspiracy theories continue to flourish\, and they also suggest how health institutions and medical professionals might best respond.
\nI begin from a claim that has become increasingly plausible in recent philosophy of medicine (Goldenberg 2021\; Levy 2022\; Kelsall 2025): that distrust of health institutions is not (mainly) a failure of individual rationality\, but is instead a reasonable response to the evidence that distrustful people actually possess\, including documented patterns of institutional non-honesty (Brown and Barra 2023) and of experts who meet criticism with derision rather than engagement (Brooks 2025). If we take this seriously\, then the standard toolkit of debunking\, labeling\, and content moderation treats the symptom while feeding the disease.
\nI&rsquo\;ll then offer a diagnosis of what distinguishes trustworthy from untrustworthy communication\, drawing on the distinction between prediction and accommodation in the philosophy of science. The slogan is Popper&rsquo\;s\, but the account is not: what matters is not falsifiability but the confirmational asymmetry defended by weak predictivists (Maher 1988\; Hitchcock and Sober 2004\; Barnes 2008)\, on which successful prediction is evidence about the reliability of the method that produced a claim. Conspiracy theories fail this test not because they never predict\, but because the methods that generate them would have delivered a theory whatever the evidence had been. Institutional communication\, I&rsquo\;ll argue\, can fail it in the same way. Guidance that shifts without acknowledgment\, for example\, or thresholds that move when convenient\, tells reasonable audiences that the process behind the guidance is tracking something other than the evidence\, and they discount it accordingly. On this analysis\, the crucial difference between legitimate expertise and its imitators is not who speaks\, but whose methods have made checkable commitments and survived them.
\nThis diagnosis motivates a constructive ethics of institutional communication\, which I&rsquo\;ll develop in terms of three interlocking professional obligations. 1. Institutions ought to communicate in dated\, checkable predictions whose failure would be recognized as such\, wherever the evidence permits. 2. They should acknowledge uncertainty honestly rather than projecting a confidence they do not have. 3. Labels such as &ldquo\;misinformation&rdquo\; and &ldquo\;conspiracy theory&rdquo\; should be reserved for claims that fail the predictive test\, rather than being deployed against dissent as such.
\nI will conclude by considering both the promise and the (real) limits of predictive communication. Trust\, on this account\, is earned in the way that theories earn confirmation\, since in both cases what is being estimated is the reliability of the process behind the claims. Institutions cannot simply demand it from us\, but can only underwrite it.
\n\nAbout the Author
\nBrendan Shea (PhD\, University of Illinois) teaches philosophy and computer science at Rochester Community and Technical College and is a Resident Fellow of the Minnesota Center for Philosophy of Science. His research spans bioethics\, philosophy of science\, and the ethics of computing and AI\, and he serves as a public member of the Institutional Biosafety Committee at Mayo Clinic. He is the author of several open-access textbooks on logic\, ethics\, and computing\, and of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on Karl Popper.
\n ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T134500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T144500 SUMMARY:Democratic Understanding UID:20261024T115235Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:This session will be part of &lsquo\;Truth\, Democracy\, and Misinformation&rsquo\;\, the 20206 Symposium of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.
\nThe AAAPE exists to promote awareness of applied ethics and foster relationships between practitioners and academics.
\nThe event will be held on online. The event is free for members and ticketed for non-members. More information\, including the full program\, schedule\, and registration is available at: https://events.humanitix.com/aapae-misinformation-workshop
\nAbstract:
\nThis paper is about the value of understanding to democratic politics. It seems obvious that there is something of value to understanding one another in politics. The wheels of our discussions would be oiled\, and decisions would be easier and\, likely\, more just&mdash\;perhaps citizens would be disposed to compromise more\, or make decisions with their fellow citizens&rsquo\; interests in mind&mdash\; if citizens were more willing and able to understand where their fellow citizens were coming from.
\nBut then\, of course\, things are more complicated\, even with something that seems so obviously valuable as understanding. One problem\, which has received attention as of late\, is that it doesn&rsquo\;t always seem valuable&mdash\;for others\, or for us&mdash\; to understand\, particularly with empathy\, those who hold views that we think abhorrent\, for doing so may give credence to such views.
\nHowever\, there is yet another problem\, one which has been severely overlooked by theorists writing on understanding and democracy (see\, e.g.\, Hannon 2025\; Lepoutre 2023\, 2026\; Prescott- Couch 2025a\, 2025b\; see\, relatedly\, Goodin 2000\; Morell 2010\; Scudder 2020). The problem is that\, even if we accept that there is something valuable about understanding others in deliberative democracies\, particularly as a key source of the very justification of democracy\, democracies are made up of millions of people who are limited by time and resources and distance. In these circumstances\, we should reasonably ask: who should citizens be expected to understand? How should one decide\, among the millions that make up a modern democratic polity\, who one ought to spend one&rsquo\;s time and energy trying to understand? I outline a non-ideal approach to political understanding\, and suggest that\, far from being an unattainable ideal that throws into question the justification of democratic rule\, citizens already possess existing\, but different\, forms and degrees of understanding of their fellow citizens\, with particularly informed understandings of those they know personally.
\nAlas\, even with this more realistic approach to understanding and democracy\, one might reasonably ask: How does our actual\, if limited and even deficient\, understanding of certain others scale up to the level of democratic politics writ large? (For more on the &lsquo\;scaling up problem&rsquo\; of deliberative democracy\, see Tanasoca 2020). To address this question\, I first argue that there is particular democratic value in understanding others who understand us\, where such reciprocal processes change us\, and so change what is available to be understood in the process. Second\, I argue there is democratic value in our understanding others who understand others (i.e. those who we don&rsquo\;t know directly). This enables us to have a limited understanding of\, as well as informed deference towards\, those whom we may never know directly. Third\, I argue that this meso-level analysis of how we actually understand others scales up through a daisy-chain model of overlapping connections. Ultimately\, this &lsquo\;scaling up&rsquo\; justifies democracy even amidst the ways in which ordinary citizens fail to live up to ideal of reciprocal understanding.
\nAbout the Author:
\nJaclyn Rekis is a postdoctoral fellow with David Enoch&rsquo\;s &lsquo\;Liberalism Rekindled&rsquo\; Project out of the Department of Philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. She lives in Kingston\, Ontario\, Canada.
\nJaclyn specialises in political philosophy\, particularly at the intersection of ethics\, epistemology\, and religion. Her work is mainly concerned with why citizens\, and persons more generally\, ought to better understand one another\, and how they should do so. Jaclyn has recently been interested in how ordinary and flawed human practices can be good for democracy and liberalism. \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T143000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T153000 SUMMARY:From Aligned Outcomes to Conditions of Judgment: AI\, Deep Disagreement\, and Democratic Public Discourse UID:20261024T115236Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:This session will be part of &lsquo\;Truth\, Democracy\, and Misinformation&rsquo\;\, the 20206 Symposium of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.
\nThe AAAPE exists to promote awareness of applied ethics and foster relationships between practitioners and academics.
\nThe event will be held on online. The event is free for members and ticketed for non-members. More information\, including the full program\, schedule\, and registration is available at: https://events.humanitix.com/aapae-misinformation-workshop
\n\; \; \; Abstract:
\nAIincreasinglymediatesdemocraticdisagreement.Itrecommendswhatcitizensencounter\,ranks competingclaims\,moderatesspeech\,andisbeginningtoparticipatedirectlyindeliberationitself. Much of the debate about these systems therefore asks how they might identify misinformation more reliably or better reflect the values of the people affected by them. These are important questions. But they begin too late.
\nAlignment research has often approached normative disagreement through value extraction\, preference aggregation\, or the search for sufficiently shared values (Christiano et al.\, 2017). More recent pluralistic approaches explicitly resist collapsing human values into a single aggregate and seek instead to preserve diverse perspectives (Sorensen et al.\, 2024\; Fazelpour &\; Fleisher\, 2025). Yet disagreement still tends to appear as something a system must represent\, accommodate\, aggregate\,ortranslateintoausablenormativeoutput.Theunderlyingquestionremains:giventhat people disagree\, what should the system do?
\nDeep disagreement unsettles this framing. Some political conflicts concern not only competing judgments but the standards by which those judgments are assessed: what counts as relevant evidence\, a good reason\, or a consideration that ought to matter. Where the evaluative framework itself is contested\, there may be no neutral procedure capable of converting disagreement into a uniquely correct answer\, or even an uncontested compromise. Democratic theory confronts a structurally similar problem. Persistent normative disagreement is a normal feature of pluralistic politicallife(Rawls\,1993)\,yetcitizensmuststillmakecollectivedecisionsandjustifythemtoone another when substantive agreement remains out of reach (Gutmann &\; Thompson\, 1996).
\nThis matters for alignment becauseAI systems do not merely produceanswers from judgments that people have already formed. They increasingly shape the conditions under which judgment itself develops: which perspectives become visible\, how a disagreement is framed\, what counts as a reason worth answering\, and whether people have opportunities to challenge assumptions andrevisetheirpositions.Ifdeepdisagreementcannotsimplybetransformedintothecorrectnormative output\, alignment cannot be concerned only with outputs.
\nI therefore develop an account of alignment as normative coordination. Drawing on Bex-Priestley andShemmer's(2017)accountofdisagreementwithinsharedprojects\,Iarguethattherelevantaim is to sustain practices in which people can exchange reasons\, remain mutually answerable\, contest one another's claims\, and revise their judgments without presupposing eventual consensus. Their account does not itself resolve deep disagreement\; rather\, it helps identify what can remain normatively important when substantive resolution is unavailable.
\nThisreframesthegovernanceofAI-mediatedpublicdiscourse.Truthstillmatters\,andsomefactual claims are simply false. But correcting falsehoods cannot settle the normative disagreements through which citizens decide what matters\, what follows from the facts\, or what they owe one another. The paper therefore develops criteria for evaluatingAI-mediated discourse in terms of visibility\, authority\, mutual answerability\, and opportunities for revision.Alignment should be assessed not only by the outcomes systems produce\, but by the conditions of judgment they help create.
\nAbout the Author:
\nYifan Li recently completed his PhD in Philosophy at the University of Essex. His research focuses on moral responsibility\, agency\, and the ethical and political implications of artificial intelligence. His current work examines AI alignment\, distributed responsibility\, democratic disagreement\, and the conditions under which AI-mediated environments shape human judgment and accountability.
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T153000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T163000 SUMMARY:How to Handle Conspiracy Theories? UID:20261024T115237Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:This session will be part of &lsquo\;Truth\, Democracy\, and Misinformation&rsquo\;\, the 20206 Symposium of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.
\nThe AAAPE exists to promote awareness of applied ethics and foster relationships between practitioners and academics.
\nThe event will be held on online. The event is free for members and ticketed for non-members. More information\, including the full program\, schedule\, and registration is available at: https://events.humanitix.com/aapae-misinformation-workshop
\nAbstract:
\nConspiracy theories &ldquo\;have been and continue to be mainstream&rdquo\;. Nonetheless\, in ordinary language\, the term &lsquo\;conspiracy theory&rsquo\;is predominantly pejorative\, suggesting that all such theories are false. Politically the term is often used to easily dismiss opponents. This is evident\, for example\, in the official position of the White House under Trump surrounding conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 pandemic. Some scholars interpret the available empirical research as suggesting &ldquo\;that conspiracy theories are harmful&rdquo\;: These theories can be dangerous\, particularly when they exacerbate existing problems\, such as anti-vaxxers sentiment\, climatechange denial and hate speech against minorities. Belief in conspiracy theories is said to hinderanadequateunderstandingofreality\, \;andcould\,inturn\,destabilizesocietyasawhole by diminishing trust in epistemic authorities and fostering paranoia. Thus\, it is clear\, that conspiracy theorising poses a threat to democracy.
\nDespite the pejorative use in ordinary language\, not all conspiracy theories can be false\; some\, such as the Watergate scandal of 1972\, have been proven true. Consequently\, the philosophical debate seems to have settled on the approach that the plausibility of each conspiracy theory must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. In order to avoid dismissing promisingconspiracy theories prematurely\, each one must be investigated from a neutral point of view with sufficient research effort.
\nHowever\, this seems to be an unrealistic expectation: Typically\, the necessary expertise\, cognitive capacity and time are too limited to thoroughly investigate every conspiracy theory before forming an epistemic position on its plausibility. Instead\, it should be possible to swiftly dismiss absurd conspiracy theories\, such as the idea that reptilians rule the world or that the Earth is flat\, without investing research effort. One&rsquo\;s capacities should instead be reserved for more meaningful conspiracy theories that seem more probable\, such as the Watergate scandal. So far\, literature providing guidance on how to handle conspiracy theories pragmatically and epistemologically has been scarce. Furthermore\, there is a lack of nuanced\, established definitions of conspiracy theories.
\nThe aim of this paper is to address this issue. It seeks to provide a conclusive definition that distinguishesbetweendifferenttypesofconspiracytheory\,whileacknowledgingboththepejorative use of the term in everyday language and the possibility that some theories may be true. The paper suggests a pragmatic three-step process for determining the type of a given conspiracy theory\, enabling one to dismiss absurd theories and focus their efforts on thoroughly investigating only the more meaningful ones. As evaluation criteria the epistemic virtues proposed by Kuhn were chosen and are used to determine the loveliness and thus the likeliness of a conspiracy theory\, building on Lipton's considerations regarding the inference to the best explanation. The resulting framework provides a nuanced understanding of conspiracy theories\, offering a reliable basis for responsible handling.
\nAbout the Author:
\nEva Pö\;ll was awarded a Master's degree in Philosophy earlier this year. She completed her studies with a thesis on the epistemic status of conspiracy theories\, a topic that also inspired her presentation here. She is currently completing a Master's degree in Information Systems\, focusing on Software Development and Process Management. Until summer 2023\, she was a research assistant in the philosophy department at the university of Mü\;nster. During this time\, she worked on the interdisciplinary BlockTechDiVer project\, analysing the demands\, preconditions\, and possible implementations of blockchain applications from a consumer perspective. Her current research interests lie in applied ethics\, particularly conspiracy theories and conceptual engineering.
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T161500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261117T171500 SUMMARY:The Principle of Habeas Mentem and the Democratic Harms of Digital Misinformation UID:20261024T115238Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:This session will be part of &lsquo\;Truth\, Democracy\, and Misinformation&rsquo\;\, the 20206 Symposium of the Australian Association for Professional and Applied Ethics.
\nThe AAAPE exists to promote awareness of applied ethics and foster relationships between practitioners and academics.
\nThe event will be held on online. The event is free for members and ticketed for non-members. More information\, including the full program\, schedule\, and registration is available at: https://events.humanitix.com/aapae-misinformation-workshop
\n
Abstract:
The central claim of this presentation is that the democratic harm of misinformation does not lie only in the circulation of false or misleading content. It also lies in the infrastructural transformation of the conditions under which citizens form beliefs\, assign trust\, recognise expertise\, deliberate with others\, and participate in collective decision-making. For this reason\, democratic theory requires not only protections for freedom of expression\, but also a more explicit normative framework for safeguarding mental autonomy and epistemic self-government. I propose to conceptualise this framework through the principle of habeas mentem\, understood as a contemporary counterpart to habeas corpus.
\nThe starting point of the paper is the relationship between truth\, trust\, and democratic legitimacy. Democratic politics presupposes citizens who are able to access reliable information\, contest public claims\, evaluate reasons\, and revise their judgements in light of evidence. Yet digital communication increasingly takes place within environments structured by algorithmic curation\, platform incentives\, data extraction\, behavioural profiling\, and personalised persuasion. In such contexts\, misinformation and disinformation do not merely distort isolated opinions. They can alter the epistemic and affective conditions under which citizens form beliefs\, assign credibility\, and participate in public deliberation. The harm is thus not only cognitive\, but also political. It concerns the erosion of the conditions that allow citizens to judge\, deliberate\, and act together as members of a democratic community.
\nAgainst this background\, the paper proposes habeas mentem as a regulative principle for democratic societies confronted with misinformation\, disinformation\, and epistemic manipulation. Historically\, habeas corpus protected individuals against arbitrary detention by affirming that political authority could not dispose of the body without public justification. By analogy\, habeas mentem affirms that political\, technological\, and commercial powers should not be allowed to capture\, manipulate\, or bypass the conditions of mental self-determination. This does not imply a right to be free from all influence. Democratic communication necessarily involves persuasion\, rhetoric\, disagreement\, and contestation. The relevant distinction is between forms of public persuasion that remain answerable to reasons and forms of manipulation that exploit opacity\, asymmetry\, profiling\, or cognitive vulnerability in order to circumvent reflective agency.
\nThe presentation concludes by outlining the institutional implications of this principle. These include digital rights against manipulative profiling\, political microtargeting\, synthetic propaganda\, and behavioural steering. They also include transparency duties for algorithmic curation\, public repositories for targeted political messages\, independent auditing of recommender systems\, safeguards against biometric and affective surveillance\, and restrictions on the political use of cognitive or neural data. More broadly\, the protection of mental autonomy requires a separation of digital power\, supported by antitrust measures against dominant platforms\, limits on the integration of data extraction\, content distribution\, advertising\, and AI infrastructures\, as well as democratic oversight.
\nThe paper argues that responding to misinformation requires a shift from a narrow concern with false content to a broader account of communicative and epistemic self-government. Citizens must be protected not only in their capacity to speak\, but also in their capacity to think\, judge\, trust\, disagree\, and participate in democratic life.
\nAbout the Author:
\nGabriele Giacomini is Assistant Professor at the University of Udine and Scientific Coordinator of the Master&rsquo\;s programme in Philosophy of the Digital and Artificial Intelligence. His research lies at the intersection of political theory\, digital media\, and the social sciences\, with a particular focus on the political and societal implications of digital technologies and artificial intelligence. He holds a PhD in Neuroscience from Vita-Salute San Raffaele University in Milan and the IUSS University School for Advanced Studies in Pavia\, and he has held research positions at the Center for Advanced Studies Southeast Europe in Rijeka\, Croatia\, and at Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona\, Spain. His publications include "The Arduous Road to Revolution. Resisting Authoritarian Regimes in the Digital Communication Age" (Mimesis International\, 2022).
ORGANIZER;CN=Larelle Bossi;CN=Hugh Breakey;CN=Jacqueline Boaks: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Brussels:20261117T203000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Brussels:20261117T223000 SUMMARY:Free Speech and Experimentality UID:20261024T115239Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Brussels LOCATION:Vesteplein 1\, Delft\, Netherlands\, 2611 WG DESCRIPTION:Why do liberal societies value free speech so highly? Political philosopher Robert Simpson (UCL) argues that one ethical foundation of free speech is the ideal of experimentality: there is value in people testing boundaries and defying established norms. Drawing on the cultural politics of popular music\, Simpson explores both the promise of experimentality and the question of whether norm-breaking really deserves the esteem we often give it.
\nEach year\, TU Delft hosts the Van Hasselt Lecture\, which gives a stage to leading thinkers on topics of "ethics\, peace and justice in our technological age"\, and brings the university community and the wider Delft public together for an evening of stimulating ideas. The lecture commemorates Frans van Hasselt\, a Delft student who publicly protested the dismissal of Jewish professors at the university in November 1940\, and who was murdered in Buchenwald concentration camp two years later.
\nThe lecture is jointly organised by the Department of Values\, Technology and Innovation at TU Delft and Studium Generale TU Delft. It is in English and admission is free\, but registration via Theater de Veste is required.
ORGANIZER;CN=James Hutton: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20261119T130000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20261121T170000 SUMMARY:Multilateralism\, International Institutions and the Ethics of War UID:20261024T115240Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Zurich LOCATION:Bern\, Switzerland DESCRIPTION:International institutions and multilateralism no longer occupy the central place in the ethics of war that they once did in classic writings on war and peace. Whereas Immanuel Kant placed a strong federation of states at the core of his vision for perpetual peace\, much of contemporary just war theory focuses primarily on the rights and responsibilities of individuals\, with states and multilateral institutions as a derivative object of interest.
\nHowever\, recent events such as the US attack on Iran without UN authorization\, Ukraine&rsquo\;s potential NATO membership as a key issue in prospective peace talks with Russia and US cuts to peace-keeping UN institutions bring questions of multilateralism back into sharp relief. \;
\nThis workshop offers an opportunity to discuss new work on multilateralism\, international institutions and the ethics of war. We welcome submissions on questions including but not limited to:
\nWorkshop details
\nThe workshop will be held on 19-21 November at the University of Bern (Switzerland). The workshop will be pre-read and we expect a full draft of the paper by mid-October. Selected speakers will be invited to act as commentators on one of the other papers. We will be able to cover accommodation and part of the travel expenses. \;
\nSubmission
\nIf you are interested\, please send a pdf or word document with your abstract of 750 - 1000 words to Ms Njango Njung&rsquo\;e (mary.njunge[at]students.unibe.ch). \;The document itself should not contain any identifying information\; please include your name\, email and institutional affiliation in the body of your email. Submission deadline is 15 May 2026.
\nWorkshop organizers: Lisa Hecht (Bern)\, Adis Selimi (Saarland)\, Njango Njung&rsquo\;e (Bern)
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20261120T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20261121T170000 SUMMARY:Philosophy of Animal Welfare UID:20261024T115241Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:America/New_York LOCATION:Duke Law School\, 210 Science Drive\, Durham\, United States DESCRIPTION:This conference will focus on the nature\, measurement\, and moral significance of animal well-being. \; \; We invite philosophical contributions on the following topics: (1) Which animals are welfare-subjects? \; (2) What is the appropriate account of well-being for nonhuman animals (be it a hedonic\, desire- or preference-based\, objective-good\, or hybrid theory)? (3) Does the very same account apply to both human and nonhumans (the question of &ldquo\;invariabilism&rdquo\;)? \; (4) How should animal welfare be measured\, on one or another account of well-being? \; (5) How does animal welfare matter morally? \; (6) \; How should uncertainty about any of these topics be managed?
\nThose interested in presenting at the conference should email an abstract not to exceed 300 words to leanna.doty@law.duke.edu. \; Please include a current CV. \;Due date for abstracts: \; June 1\, 2026. \; \;Presentations should be based on work-in-progress\, rather than already published work. \; \; (Working papers available at the conference date will be circulated to participants\, but are not required for a presentation.) The conference will be an in-person conference. \; Zoom presentations are possible\, but preference will be given to in-person presentations. \; \;The conference sponsors will cover accommodation (up to 3 nights) for those presenting at the conference\, and vegan food will be served during the conference. \; \; We have limited budget to cover travel by early career scholars (within five years of their degree).
\nBecause of space limitations\, participation in the conference will be limited to presenters.
ORGANIZER;CN=Matthew D. Adler: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Rome:20261125T230000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Rome:20261125T230000 SUMMARY:Destination Management and Mobility Justice for Sustainable Human and More-than-human Futures: Approaching Florence (and Destinations Beyond) in Motion UID:20261024T115242Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Rome LOCATION:Florence\, Italy DESCRIPTION:Keynote Speaker:
\nMimi Sheller
\nWorcester Polytechnic Institute\, USA
\nIn this interdisciplinary conference\, we seek to examine critical issues in the field of global Destination Management and Tourism Mobilities in pursuit of means\, modes and practices to promote a greater Mobility Justice within\, between\, and beyond destinations (Sheller 2018\; 2024). Situated within the Florentine context\, this conference offers fertile ground for cross-pollination between Florence and other destinations concerned with how Destination Managers and Destination Management Organizations (DMOs) can be pivotal actors\, agencies\, and organizations committed to a more just\, sustainable\, and responsible mobile world.
\nAs the politics of mobility play out in real time through the bodies and streets\, we see local\, national and transnational governance struggle to keep pace with the impacts and drivers of climate change\, urbanization\, and migration. All the while we watch as mass tourism and overtourism thread impacts through micro\, meso\, and macro scales. Simultaneously\, migrants\, refugees\, asylum seekers\, undocumented\, stateless\, and trafficked persons experience increasing pressures and injustices through the same forces that support the most mobility privileged in global tourist flows. In this entangled web of mobility regimes and infrastructures\, it is important to examine where travel and tourism have historically been a cultural force for promoting peace and dialogue\, as much as examining where conflict\, friction\, and tensions have arisen from them. Destinations offer an opportunity to analyze and intervene at specific sites of human migrations and mobilities\, and what in hopes of more just tourism mobilities in destinations across the world. \;
\nFlorence is no stranger to conflicts over tourism mobilities and tensions within its unique identity as a site of global patrimony. As a destination caught in the crosshairs of its rich past and an uncertain future in this age of polycrisis\, conflicting representations and identities intersect\, diverge\, and weave a complex social fabric. Destination Management offers a targeted lens through which to interrogate the relation between global travel\, tourism and mobility justice in Florence and beyond.
\nAs a UNESCO World Heritage Site\, Florence represents a rich cultural tourism destination that is increasingly impacted by increasingly global flows and circulations of people\, objects\, artifacts\, information\, resources and capital. It has resulted in intersecting crises of housing displacement and homelessness\, food insecurity\, growing civil protest\, increasing environmental resource and climatic constraints\, uneven distribution of tourist fluxes between major and minor cultural sites\, and loss of local goodwill in response to the immobilities created by tourism.
\nThis conference seeks to bring to light the complexities of questions of justice in a hypermobile world. How does one respect cultural heritage while local peoples and cultures suffer across so many dimensions\, often deprived of their cultural rights\, unable to access their own heritage sites? How do we support human and more-than-human futures\, adaptable and responsive to environmental constraints\, changes\, and challenges? Many questions arise that require interdisciplinary perspectives.
\nWe invite papers to contribute to the emerging field of Destination Management\, focusing on the intersections of issues in social\, cultural\, environmental\, and mobility justice within the roles and responsibilities of Destination Managers and DMOs (Destination Management Organizations). We welcome a wide range of disciplinary perspectives and methods\, including case study analyses\, historical or contemporary mobilities\, and theoretical contributions that are committed to exploring what Justice means within Destination Management theory and practice.
\nThematically\, we ask contributors to examine how questions of justice can be integrated into interdisciplinary Destination Management scholarship that contend with the domains of travel and tourism. Submissions can include both normative and empirical research broadly relevant to informing questions of Justice and Mobilities\, and can broadly range from social sciences\, STEM\, humanities\, and arts fields\, and present either contemporary or historical perspectives. We aim to \;explore where various areas of justice can be connected to the objectives of Destination Management research as a growing interdisciplinary field. We encourage scholars and practitioners to investigate the applicability of distributive\, deliberative\, procedural\, restorative\, and epistemic justice in the framework of their presented contributions.
\nWe are interested in case studies which either (A) center their analyses on Florence\, Italy (or the region of Tuscany) in order to seek translatable and transversal solutions for other destinations\, or (B) center on global destinations beyond that bring critical insight into the issues facing Florence. We are seeking to find &ldquo\;common ground&rdquo\; amongst the examined problem spaces that exist across destinations to build a growing literature concerned with promoting Mobility Justice within Destination Management. Theoretical contributions should include insight or practical application to transversal issues across Florence and other destinations.
\nSUBMISSION GUIDELINES:
\nWe ask for 300-word abstracts\, submitted with a separate cover page that includes title\, name\, affiliation\, and a short bio of the author(s) of a maximum of 300 words\, which can be submitted to dstm@gonzaga.edu by November 25th\, 2026.
\nThe conference will be held from March 11th to 12th at Gonzaga in Florence\, a school of Gonzaga University based in the historic center of the city of Florence. It will be open to the public\, by registration. There will be no registration fee to attend the conference. As our inaugural conference\, we are unable to offer travel funds at this time.
\nTopical Areas:
\nMobility Justice (motility\, capabilities approach\, migration\, transport\, space\, accessibility\, flows)
\na. \; \; \; \; Migration\, refugees\, stateless persons\, human trafficking and modern day slavery
\nb. \; \; \; \; Critical Disability Studies &\; mobility infrastructures for travel &\; tourism industries
\nc. \; \; \; \; The Right to the City\, labour\, and yransportation equity
\nd. \; \; \; \; Mobility\, technological transformation\, and electrification
\ne. \; \; \; \; Climate Mobility Justice and immigration/refugee crises
\nSocial Justice (intersectionality\, human rights\, kinopolitics distributive justice\, reparation\, processual justice)
\na. \; \; \; \; Indigenous Rights and Land Consent
\nb. \; \; \; \; Human rights Abuses in the travel and tourism industry
\nc. \; \; \; \; Intercultural exchange for responsible\, sustainable\, and peace tourism
\nd. \; \; \; \; Reparative justice\, public policy\, media\, and communications
\ne. \; \; \; \; Critical Disability Studies and transport justice
\nCultural Justice: (heritage studies\, restoration and repatriation\, cultural property\, political ecology)
\na. \; \; \; \; Art\, antiquities\, museum studies\, and decolonization
\nb. \; \; \; \; Cultural heritage\, human rights\, and access to culture
\nc. \; \; \; \; Cultural property trafficking\, return and restitution\, reclamation\, and reparations
\nd. \; \; \; \; Museum security\, contemporary eco-vandalism and protest movements
\ne. \; \; \; \; Conflicts in historiography of heritage and Post-conflict reconstruction
\nEnvironmental Justice (environmental racism\, geoengineering\, pollution and carbon\, biodiversity and reparations\, More-than-human ethics):
\na. \; \; \; \; National parks\, seascapes\, urban green space\, and depavement movements
\nb. \; \; \; \; Plastic pollution\, chemical colonialism\, exposomics\, and water protectors
\nc. \; \; \; \; Protected habitats\, ecotourism and politics of spared or shared land
\nd. \; \; \; \; Agriculture\, food Justice\, &ldquo\;The Commons&rdquo\;\, land sovereignty\, and eco-activism
\ne. \; \; \; \; Botanical gardens\, zoos\, &ldquo\;beasts of burden&rdquo\;\, and more-than-human mobility
\nConference Organizers:
\nDenise Regina Percequillo Hossom
\nGonzaga University
\nAlesia Koush
\nGonzaga University
\nUNESCO Chair - University of Siena
\nhttps://www.gonzaga.edu/gonzaga-in-florence/public-events/conferences/dstm-2027-conference ORGANIZER;CN=Denise Regina Percequillo Hossom: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20261201T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20261201T234500 SUMMARY:Disembodied agency in Neuro Technologies: Ethical and Legal Challenges UID:20261024T115243Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Disembodied agency in Neuro Technologies: Ethical and Legal Challenges
\nEdited by L. Valera &\; Marcelo Barrientos
\nCall for Abstracts
\nIn the framework of our research "Redeeming autonomy: disembodied agency in Neuro Technologies (RADIANT)" project\, we invite you to participate in the shaping of the book "Autonomy in emerging technologies: ethical and legal challenges". The contribution of women will be especially encouraged\, as well as papers addressing Latin-America&rsquo\;s perspective.
\nThe current development of NTs like brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) and neurofeedback (NF) in cognitive neuroscience and clinical interventions is demanding new ethical approaches and regulations\, as the recent case for neurorights has shown. The advancements in this field sparked concerns about the potential misuse of these NTs since they seem to cause a potential loss of personal autonomy.
\nThe topics to be addressed\, as the title of the research suggests\, will be the crossovers between Philosophy\, Ethics and Law\, to address the challenges of autonomy facing the development of technology in general\, and\, specially\, brain-computer interfaces and neurofeedback\, data protection\, privacy and neurorights.
\nSome examples of topics:
\nThe list is indicative rather than exhaustive. People interested in these - or similar - topics may send a long abstract (1.000 words including references) to avillamizar@uc.cl by December 1st. We expect that final papers would be around 4\,000-6\,000 words. (Please note that neither submission nor acceptance of an abstract is a guarantee of publication). The deadline for the final paper is May 30th\, 2027. The book will be published between 2027/2028 in a Springer series.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20261201T234500 DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20261201T234500 SUMMARY:Bioethics and the Border 2027: Contested Spaces UID:20261024T115244Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:America/Chicago LOCATION:Edinburg\, United States DESCRIPTION:Call for Abstracts
\nBioethics and the Border 2027
\nThe University of Texas\, Rio Grande Valley
\nFebruary 5-6\, 2027 | Edinburg\, Texas (and online)
\nTheme: Contested Spaces
\nThe Bioethics MS and Department of Philosophy at the University of Texas\, Rio Grande Valley invites submissions for the 2027 Bioethics and the Border Graduate Conference\, to be held February 5-6\, 2027. This first annual conference explores the ethical challenges and opportunities that emerge in border contexts\, broadly construed to include geographic\, legal\, political\, cultural\, social\, technological\, and conceptual spaces.
\nEach year the conference will examine a different aspect of bioethics and the border. The 2027 theme\, &ldquo\;Contested Spaces\,&rdquo\; invites participants to consider places\, practices\, identities and institutions where competing values\, interests and claims create ethical tensions. These include but are not limited to geographical\, legal\, and political borders\, healthcare settings\, research environments\, public health systems\, digital spaces\, and communities experiencing social and political marginalization.
\nWe welcome submissions for both in-person and online presentationsfrom graduate students across disciplines such as bioethics\, philosophy\, medicine\, nursing\, public health\, law\, anthropology\, sociology\, the life sciences and related fields.
\nSubmission Guidelines
\nAuthors should submit an abstract of 300-500 words describing the work they wish to present at the conference\, including original research andworks in progress.
\nPlease include:
\nThe conference is committed to increasing accessibility and welcomes both in-person and online presentation. All talks will take place in Central Time (USA).
\nSubmission Information: Via google forms: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSft_vz3867ltdojencJrXmcfa2mKB2PRIBwYHGjyRT7FlaX5w/viewform?usp=preview \;
\nImportant Dates:
\nFor questions please contact:hannah.allen@utrgv.edu \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Hannah Allen;CN=Ian Werkheiser;CN=Ioan Muntean;CN=Gregory Gilson;CN=Stephen Smith: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Riyadh:20261203T090000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Riyadh:20261205T170000 SUMMARY:Artificial Intelligence and the Question of Ethics UID:20261024T115245Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Asia/Riyadh LOCATION:Riyadh\, Saudi Arabia DESCRIPTION:The Riyadh International Philosophy Conference 2026 invites researchers and specialists to submit proposals for its sixth edition\, held under the theme &ldquo\;Artificial Intelligence and the Question of Ethics.&rdquo\; This edition explores the philosophical and ethical challenges raised by contemporary AI systems across six main areas. \;
The conference themes include:
* major international AI ethics frameworks and documents\, their philosophical foundations\, and their cultural counterparts in non-Western traditions\, with particular attention to Arab and Islamic ethical traditions\;
* the ethical challenges of AI-generated content\, research\, and authorship\, including misinformation\, deepfakes\, provenance\, credibility\, and intellectual property\;
* AI systems and moral responsibility\, including the distribution of responsibility among users\, owners\, and developers\, as well as the responsibility gap in cases of unforeseen harm\;
* AI and decision-making\, including the autonomy of AI systems\, ethically sensitive decisions\, black-box systems\, explainability\, and the right to intelligibility\;
* AI\, privacy\, and data ownership\, especially in healthcare and judicial contexts\; \;
* and algorithmic bias and predictive models\, with special focus on justice\, fairness\, and the right not to know in health-related prediction.
The conference welcomes contributions from diverse philosophical perspectives and especially encourages submissions from underrepresented traditions\, particularly Islamic philosophy.
For submissions and further details: https://engage.moc.gov.sa/philosophy_conference/?lang=en
\;
Presenters will receive a competitive honorarium\, full-board accommodation\, and airfare. \;
CALL FOR BOOK CHAPTERS Beyond the Sum: Experiences\, Autonomy\, and Complexity in Multiple Disabilities
\nEditor: Prof. Dr. Ana Paula Barbosa-Fohrmann
Institution: Federal University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRJ)\, Brazil
I. Scope and Central Hypothesis
\nWhat happens when two or more disabilities coexist in the same person?
\nThis edited volume starts from the understanding that multiple disabilities should not be conceived simply as the sum of two or more separately identifiable disabilities. When different disabilities coexist in the same person\, they may interact\, modify one another's manifestations\, and produce a configuration of experience that cannot be adequately understood by examining each disability in isolation.
\nThe central hypothesis of the volume is that the coexistence of disabilities may produce a qualitatively distinct form of complexity\, rather than merely a quantitative increase in limitations or support needs.
\nThis complexity does not necessarily result from the severity of an individual disability. A single disability may involve significant limitations and intensive support needs\, while the coexistence of two or more disabilities may generate a complex situation even when each condition\, considered separately\, is not necessarily severe.
\nMultiple disabilities may coexist from early stages of life or develop successively over time. The emergence of an additional disability may transform a person's experience of themselves\, others\, and the world\, as well as their possibilities of communication\, participation\, decision-making\, and exercise of rights.
\nThe volume therefore seeks to shift the focus from separately identified disabilities to the person who experiences them together.
\nAutonomy constitutes a central and transversal concern. It should not be equated with independence\, self-sufficiency\, or the absence of support. Contributions are invited to examine how autonomy may be expressed and exercised in situations of interdependence\, including those involving intensive or permanent support.
\nThe volume welcomes philosophical\, theoretical\, empirical\, and interdisciplinary contributions addressing lived experience\, embodiment\, perception\, communication\, cognition\, temporality\, intersubjectivity\, care\, vulnerability\, recognition\, accessibility\, support\, participation\, and the exercise of rights.
\nII. Thematic Organization of the Volume
\nPart I &mdash\; Rethinking Multiple Disabilities
\nPhilosophical\, theoretical\, and conceptual approaches to multiple disabilities\, complexity\, lived experience\, embodiment\, autonomy\, interdependence\, care\, vulnerability\, recognition\, and models of disability.
\nPart II &mdash\; Experiences of Multiple Disabilities
\nEmpirical studies\, case studies\, and theoretically grounded investigations of specific configurations of coexisting disabilities.
\nContributions should examine how different disabilities interact and how this interaction affects the person's experience\, rather than merely describing each condition separately.
\nPart III &mdash\; Rights\, Support\, and Institutions in the Context of Multiple Disabilities
\nStudies addressing education\, healthcare\, legal capacity\, supported decision-making\, care\, assistive technologies\, accessibility\, ageing\, public policies\, family relationships\, social participation\, institutionalization\, and other relevant issues.
\nParticular attention may be given to whether existing legal frameworks\, policies\, institutions\, and support systems adequately respond to the complexity of multiple disabilities.
\nIII. Conceptual Guidelines
\nContributions should engage with the central hypothesis of the volume and offer an original contribution to the understanding of multiple disabilities.
\nIn particular\, authors are encouraged to consider the following principles:
\nThe person\, rather than the diagnosis\, should remain at the center of the analysis.
\nMultiple disabilities should not be treated as a simple addition of separate conditions.
\nSeverity and multiplicity should not be regarded as equivalent concepts.
\nThe interaction between disabilities may transform the person's experience and the effectiveness of available support.
\nThe need for support should not be equated with the absence of autonomy.
\nLived experience and the temporal development of disabilities should receive attention whenever relevant.
\nEach chapter should formulate a clearly defined research problem and present an original theoretical\, philosophical\, empirical\, or interdisciplinary contribution.
\nA guiding question for all contributions is:
\nWhat can we understand about a person and their experience only when we stop examining separately the disabilities that coexist in that person?
\nIV. Eligibility and Submission Guidelines
\n1. Eligible Participants
\nProposals are welcome from master's students\, master's degree holders\, doctoral students\, PhD holders\, postdoctoral researchers\, and academic staff working in the fields of Law\, Psychology\, Education\, Health Sciences\, and Philosophy.
\nResearchers may participate regardless of whether they are currently affiliated with a university or research institution.
\nIndividual chapters and co-authored contributions involving up to three authors per chapter are accepted.
\n2. Submission of Chapter Proposals
\nInterested contributors must submit an extended abstract of 500&ndash\;600 words\, including references but excluding the title and author identification.
\nThe proposal must contain:
\na) Provisional chapter title\;
\nb) Definition of the research problem\;
\nc) Hypothesis or central research question\;
\nd) Research objectives\;
\ne) Methodology or theoretical-methodological approach\;
\nf) Expected contribution to the understanding of multiple disabilities\, considering the central hypothesis and conceptual orientation of the volume\;
\ng) Main bibliographical references.
\nEach author and co-author must provide the following information:
\nFull name\;
\nAcademic degree or qualification\;
\nInstitutional affiliation\, if applicable\;
\nEmail address\;
\nORCID iD (mandatory)\;
\nLink to the Lattes CV (mandatory for Brazilian authors).
\nDeadline for submission of proposals: December 7\, 2026.
\n3. Evaluation and Announcement of Results
\nProposals will be evaluated by the editor according to their thematic relevance\, theoretical or methodological consistency\, originality\, and contribution to the central hypothesis of the volume.
\nThe list of accepted proposals will be published by December 18\, 2026\, exclusively on the editor's website:
\nhttps://apbarbosafohrmann.com/
\nApplicants are responsible for consulting the website. Individual notifications by email will not be sent.
\nAcceptance of a proposal does not guarantee acceptance of the full chapter\, which will be subject to final editorial evaluation.
\n4. Submission and Formatting of Full Chapters
\nAuthors whose proposals have been accepted must submit their completed chapters by May 21\, 2027.
\nThe following requirements apply:
\nAccepted languages: English\, Portuguese\, or Spanish.
\nLength: 15&ndash\;18 pages\, including bibliographical references.
\nFile format: Microsoft Word (.docx)\, A4 paper size.
\nMain text font: Times New Roman\, 12 pt.
\nChapter title: Times New Roman\, 14 pt\, bold and centered.
\nText alignment: Justified.
\nLine spacing: 1.5.
\nFirst-line paragraph indentation: 1.25 cm.
\nMargins: 3 cm (top and left)\; 2 cm (bottom and right).
\nCitations: Author&ndash\;date system\, in accordance with ABNT NBR 10520:2023.
\nDirect quotations exceeding three lines: Times New Roman\, 10 pt\, single-spaced\, with a 4 cm left indentation and without quotation marks.
\nBibliographical references: In accordance with ABNT NBR 6023:2025\, with titles of works consistently highlighted in bold.
\nChapters must present an original contribution consistent with the conceptual guidelines of the volume.
\nFull chapters must also include the identification and academic information of all authors and co-authors\, as specified in Section IV.2.
\nV. Important Dates StageDeadline Submission of extended abstracts December 7\, 2026 Announcement of accepted proposals By December 18\, 2026 Submission of full chapters May 21\, 2027 Expected publication Second half of 2027 VI. Submission Address
\nBoth chapter proposals and\, subsequently\, completed chapters must be sent to:
\n\nPlease use the following email subject lines:
\nFor extended abstracts:
\nChapter Proposal &ndash\; Multiple Disabilities Edited Volume
\nFor completed chapters\, following acceptance:
\nFull Chapter &ndash\; Multiple Disabilities Edited Volume
\nAll submissions must include the identification and academic information of every author and co-author\, as specified above.
\nFurther information and announcement of results:
\nhttps://apbarbosafohrmann.com/
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261208T120000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Berlin:20261209T170000 SUMMARY:Philosophical Perspectives on Homelessness\, Home-making and Belonging UID:20261024T115247Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Berlin LOCATION:Tromsø\, Norway DESCRIPTION:The 4th Tromsø\; Conference in Ethics and Political Philosophy: \;Philosophical Perspectives on Homelessness\, Home-making and Belonging
\nUiT The Arctic University of Norway\, Tromsø\;
\nDecember 8th-9th\, 2026.
\nKeynote speakers \;
\nHomelessness and unbelonging are often cited as causes when one seeks to explain the rise of the political right or nationalist movements\, both historical and contemporary. At the same time\, not all responses to experiences of homelessness and unbelonging are totalitarian\, conservative or nationalist\, and one certainly does not have to be a nationalist to take the phenomenon of homelessness seriously. Philosophers working on migration and exile as well as on unhoused people have similarly underpinned the struggles and questions associated with what it means to &ldquo\;be at home&rdquo\; or to &ldquo\;have a home&rdquo\; somewhere. Feminist scholars have developed theories that advocate the reappropriation and resignification of &ldquo\;home&rdquo\;\, or that embrace the tension-filled experiences of home-making &ldquo\;in-between&rdquo\; different cultures\, languages and traditions.
\nAcknowledging at the outset the tension between possible political responses to the phenomenon of homelessness\, this conference seeks to bring together scholars working on the problems and concepts of homelessness/ home and unbelonging/ belonging. Questions the conference will address include\, but are not limited to\, the following:
\nThe organizing team welcome abstracts on any of these questions as well as related issues. We hope for a variety of theoretical and methodological approaches. We are especially interested in how different areas of scholarship can be bridged fruitfully around the topics of home\, homelessness\, and (un)belonging\, and how critical\, feminist and phenomenological perspectives on these topics can contribute to or supplement contemporary debates within analytic political philosophy and migration ethics.
\nPlease send a 300 word abstract to Kaja Jenssen Rathe (kaja.j.rathe@uit.no) by November 1st\, 2026. You can expect a decision on your abstract by November 9th\, 2026.
\n* The conference is sponsered by Society for Applied Philosophy and UiT Institute of Philosophy and First Semester Studies. \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Kaja Jenssen Rathe: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Paris:20261209T093000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Paris:20261209T170000 SUMMARY:Philosophy of AI / Philosophie de l'IA UID:20261024T115248Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Paris LOCATION:91 Avenue de la Libération\, Nancy\, France\, 54000 DESCRIPTION:The rapid development of generative AI raises profound and pressing moral and theoretical questions about humanity\, mindedness\, agency\, technology\, responsibility\, and governance. The philosophy department of the Université\; de Lorraine is pleased to host this first workshop in a planned annual series\, which marks the announcement of its English-language Masters programme in Applied Philosophy\, beginning in 2027. The Philosophy of AI is one of three core themes of the Masters programme\, alongside climate and environment\, and health. The workshop will take place in English and French.
\n\nSpeakers: Carina Prunkl (INRIA)\, Henri Stephanou (Paris 1)\, Andrew Arana (Université\; de Lorraine)\, Baptise Mé\;lè\;s (CNRS)
\n\nAttendance is free and open to all but numbers are limited. To register\, please email Conor McHugh (Conor-Paul.Mc-Hugh@univ-lorraine.fr)\, using the subject line &lsquo\;AI workshop registration&rsquo\;.
\n\nVenue: Room 324\, 91 Avenue de la Libé\;ration\, Nancy Organisers: Conor McHugh and Andrew Arana\, Université\; de Lorraine We gratefully acknowledge the support of ENACT\, the Grand Est AI Cluster. \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Conor McHugh: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115042Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Bogota:20261209T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Bogota:20261211T170000 SUMMARY:2nd Annual PPEL in the Global South Conference UID:20261024T115249Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:America/Bogota LOCATION:Bogotá\, Colombia DESCRIPTION:After a hugely successful pilot conference in Bengaluru\, India in 2025 (see here)\, we are back with a second edition of the PPEL in the Global South. This in-person conference aims to bring together scholars working in Philosophy\, Politics\, Economics\, and/or Law from around the globe\, and in particular to facilitate interaction between scholars based in the Global South and those in the West and elsewhere.
\nWe invite submissions on any topic that engages at least one of the focus disciplines (Philosophy\, Politics\, Economics\, and Law) and that clearly addresses a normative issue. Submissions at the intersection of more than one of these fields are especially welcome. The conference language is English.
\nPlease submit an anonymized abstract \;of no more than 500 words using this link: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSc9sgj7EYCK7reriDbaojKPoJz-aWkPAOhTfWgX0EGIT9dHHg/viewform \;
\nAbstracts should be submitted in PDF form\, single spaced\, with no bibliography/references\, the title at the of the page\, and all on a single page. Please name the PDF file with the title of your paper &ndash\; for example\, &ldquo\;A Theory of Justice.PDF&rdquo\;. \;Double submissions will not be considered. \;Submission of co-authored work is allowed.
\nThe deadline for submissions is April 1st\, 2026 (anywhere on earth).
For more info about the PPEL in the Global South initiative\, visit www.ppelintheglobalsouth.com
The New York University Center for Bioethics is pleased to invite submissions of abstracts for the 7th Annual Philosophical Bioethics Workshop\, to be held in person at NYU on Friday and Saturday\, April 23-24\, 2027.
\nWe are seeking to showcase new work in philosophical bioethics\, very broadly understood. This includes (but is not limited to) neuroethics\, environmental ethics\, animal ethics\, reproductive ethics\, research ethics\, ethics of AI\, data ethics\, public health ethics\, gender and race in bioethics\, and clinical ethics.
\nIn addition to the keynote speaker (to be announced)\, there will be 5-7 speakers \;selected based on the quality of submitted abstracts\, including one slot set aside for a graduate student speaker. The most promising graduate student submission will be awarded a Graduate Prize\, which includes an award of $500\, and may include lodging\, depending upon university policies at the time of the award. Please indicate in the submission form whether you would like to be considered for the Graduate Prize.
\nPlease submit extended abstracts of 750-1\,000 words to this Google Form by December 15\, 2026: \;https://forms.gle/iuVc697bzhqCSmQj8. \;Abstracts should be formatted for anonymized review\, and papers should be suitable for presentation in 30-35 minutes. Notifications of acceptance will be sent out by mid-January.
\nWhen submitting your abstract\, please also indicate whether you would be interested in serving as a commentator-chair in the event that your abstract is not selected for presentation. We will be inviting 5-7 additional participants to serve as commentator-chairs. Speakers will be expected to send drafts of the talk to commentator-chairs several weeks before the workshop.
\nThis year&rsquo\;s workshop is organized by Daniel Fogal\, Sam Fullhart\, S. Matthew Liao\, Claudia Passos-Ferreira\, and Z Quanbeck of the NYU Center for Bioethics. Questions may be sent to \;philosophicalbioethics@gmail.com. (If you \;experience \;issues with the Google Form\, you may also submit abstracts via email to this address.)
ORGANIZER;CN=Daniel Fogal;CN=Samuel Fullhart;CN=S. Matthew Liao;CN=Claudia Passos-Ferreira;CN=Z Quanbeck: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115043Z DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Qatar:20261231T060000 DTEND;TZID=Asia/Qatar:20261231T060000 SUMMARY:Economic Cosmologies and Ethics in Islamic Scholarship UID:20261024T115252Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Asia/Qatar LOCATION:Doha\, Qatar DESCRIPTION:This research seminar is convened by Dr. Sami Al-Daghistani (Centre for Theology and Religious Studies\, Lund University).
\nWe invite researchers to submit proposals for a seminar exploring the ethical and cosmological foundations of economic thought across Islamic intellectual traditions. The seminar examines how Muslim scholars have understood wealth\, ownership\, exchange\, production\, and livelihood within broader conceptions of morality\, divine trust\, and human flourishing.
\nOver recent decades\, Islamic economics and finance have attracted considerable attention from scholars and practitioners. The field has been variously understood as a &ldquo\;third-way&rdquo\; economic system\, part of wider Islamization efforts\, and a discipline within the social sciences. These different approaches have generated debates about its scope\, methods\, and relationship to classical Islamic sources. Despite the growth of scholarship on Islamic economics\, the relationship between classical ethical frameworks and modern Islamic economics remains underexplored. This seminar addresses that relationship by asking: What are the ethical-economic principles of classical Islamic thought? What is the nature of ownership? What is the purpose of wealth? How is the human being situated in relation to economic resources and the lived environment? Is the economy primarily a sphere of competition\, or one of trust and stewardship?
\n ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115043Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20270109T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20270109T234500 SUMMARY:2nd East Tennessee Rural Biomedical Ethics Conference UID:20261024T115253Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:Rural contexts present unique challenges for medical research and practice &ndash\; and thus\, unique challenges for biomedical ethics.
\nThe 2nd East Tennessee Rural Biomedical Ethics Conference will be held on Saturday\, February 20th\, 2027 via Zoom. The event will be co-hosted by the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies and the Center for Rural Health and Research at East Tennessee State University. \;
\nThe conference invites abstract submissions on any topics broadly related to rural medical ethics\, including any social-epistemic issues related to rural medicine or any issues related to public health policies that impact rural populations. \;
\nExample topics may include but are not limited to: issues related to the social determinants of health in rural contexts\, resource allocation\, access to services\, clinical considerations about confidentiality\, familiarity\, and blurrerd professional-personal boundaries\, cultural and social issues related to stigma and stereotype and related instances of epistemic injustice\, the uniqueness of rural medicine\, harm reduction\, public policy challenges\, issues disproportionately impacting rural populations\, e.g.\, drug abuse\, deaths of despair\, home healthcare\, or topics on community-based or resilience-based research or any other areas related to rural health and healthcare. Interdisciplinary and case-study approaches are also welcome.
\nTo apply\, please submit an abstract of 400-500 words along with name\, email\, affiliation information\, and confirmation of willingness to participate in the entire conference (9am-3pm) to \;EastTNRuralBiomedEthicsConf@gmail.com by \;January 9th\, 2027. Notices will be sent out no later than January 12th. Presenters will be given 30 minutes to present followed by a 15-minute Q&\;A.
\nFor inquires\, please email either \;EastTNRuralBiomedEthicsConf@gmail.com \;or duea01@etsu.edu.
ORGANIZER;CN=Austin Due: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115043Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20270113T000000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20270113T000000 SUMMARY:Digital determinants and ethical AI in global health UID:20261024T115254Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:BMC Medical Ethics invites submissions to our new Collection\, Digital determinants and ethical AI in global health. The integration of digital technologies and artificial intelligence (AI) into healthcare has transformed the landscape of global health\, introducing new opportunities and challenges. As these technologies become more embedded in clinical practice and public health strategies\, emphasizing the ethical implications surrounding their use is crucial.
\nRecent advancements have highlighted the necessity for algorithmic transparency and accountability\, as well as the need for inclusive approaches to AI that prioritize health equity. With this\, researchers are encouraged to contribute to a more equitable healthcare system that respects patient rights and fosters trust in digital health solutions. Embedding ethical considerations at the forefront of digital innovation\, rather than treating them as secondary concerns\, is critical to ensuring that emerging technologies do not reinforce existing health inequities.
\nThis Collection examines the intersection of digital determinants and ethical AI\, with particular attention to informed consent\, algorithmic transparency\, and the implications of emerging technologies for patient autonomy and healthcare equity. To ensure a genuinely interdisciplinary dialogue\, we invite submissions from physicians\, legal scholars\, philosophers\, engineers\, computer scientists\, data scientists\, and other digital‑technology professionals. Key areas of interest include\, but are not limited to:
\nThis Collection supports and amplifies research related toSDG 3: Good Health and Well-Being.
\nAll manuscripts submitted to this journal\, including those submitted to collections and special issues\, are assessed in line with oureditorial policiesand the journal&rsquo\;speer-review process. Reviewers and editors are required to declare competing interests and can be excluded from the peer review process if a competing interest exists.
\nFor more info\, contact to Jon Rueda\, Spanish National Research Council (jon.rueda@csic.es)
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115043Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20270113T160000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20270113T170000 SUMMARY:NARRABODY: Narrative and Body in Post-Stroke Selfhood. A Longitudinal Qualitative Study UID:20261024T115255Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:We are delighted to announce the next series of UK XPHI Online. This is a monthly online workshop devoted to discussion of work in progress in experimental philosophy (broadly construed). We feature work from all areas of experimental philosophy\, by researchers at all career stages\, from the UK and all over the world. The workshop meets once a month on Teams\, typically the second Wednesday of each month (16:00-18:00 UK time)\, for a two-hour session that typically features two talks (each 40 minutes plus 15 minutes Q&\;A). \;
\n\;Talk 1
\nTalk 2
\nOct 14\, 16-18 UK
\nRedesigning Ethical Thought Experiments: Reassessing the Experimental Challenge to Moral Intuition\, Pietro Tunesi (Trinity College Dublin)
\nWhat people (don't) want to know in the moral domain\, Jordan Wylie (Cornell University)\, Nathan Liang (Cornell University)\, and Charlotte Austin (Cornell University)
\nNov 11\, 16-18 UK
\nMoral Encroachment and Doxastic Wronging: An Experimental Investigation\, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (Aarhus University)\, Kevin Reuter (University of Gothenburg)\, Somogy Varga (Aarhus University)\,
\nThe Side-Effect Effect and &ldquo\;Intentionally&rdquo\;\, Lilian O&rsquo\;Brien (Tampere University\, University of Helsinki)\, Svetlana Vetchinnikova (University of Helsinki).
\nDec 9\, 16-18 UK
\nMischaracterization Objection 2.0\, David Bordonaba-Plou (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)\, Krzysztof Sękowski (University of Warsaw)
\nFrom Thought Experiments to Experimental Evidence: Transparency and Quality of Reporting in Experimental Philosophy: Bartosz Maćkiewicz (University of Warsaw)\, Katarzyna Kuś (University of Warsaw)\, Joanna Gęgotek (University of Warsaw)\, Monika Gurak (University of Warsaw)\, and Franciszek Kittel (University of Warsaw).
\nJan 13\, 16-18 UK
\nNARRABODY: Narrative and Body in Post-Stroke Selfhood. A Longitudinal Qualitative Study\, Camille Lé\;pingle (ENS de Lyon)
\nA cross-cultural\, qualitative study on HPV vaccination intention\, Konrad Henne (University of Heidelberg)\, Alejandra Petino Zappala (Ruhr University Bochum)\, Nora Heinzelmann (University of Heidelberg)
\nFeb 10\, 16-18 UK
\nDo subjects have revelation intuitions?\, Marcus Ashby (King&rsquo\;s College London)
\nCorrect\, incorrect\, or does it depend? Demonstrating and explaining variation in folk metanormative judgment\, Mikló\;s Kü\;rthy (University of Graz)\, Geoffrey Goodwin (University of Pennsylvania)\, Paulo Sousa (Queen's University Belfast).
\nTo submit for future series\, please email the organizers an abstract of up to 500 words by Dec 15\, 2026 to james.andow@manchester.ac.uk.
\nThis series is organised by:
\nEugen Fischer (UEA)
\nJoanna Demaree-Cotton (Oxford)
\nJames Andow (Manchester)
ORGANIZER;CN=James Andow;CN=Joanna Demaree-Cotton;CN=Eugen Fischer: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115043Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20270113T170000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20270113T173000 SUMMARY:A cross-cultural\, qualitative study on HPV vaccination intention UID:20261024T115256Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:We are delighted to announce the next series of UK XPHI Online. This is a monthly online workshop devoted to discussion of work in progress in experimental philosophy (broadly construed). We feature work from all areas of experimental philosophy\, by researchers at all career stages\, from the UK and all over the world. The workshop meets once a month on Teams\, typically the second Wednesday of each month (16:00-18:00 UK time)\, for a two-hour session that typically features two talks (each 40 minutes plus 15 minutes Q&\;A). \;
\n\;Talk 1
\nTalk 2
\nOct 14\, 16-18 UK
\nRedesigning Ethical Thought Experiments: Reassessing the Experimental Challenge to Moral Intuition\, Pietro Tunesi (Trinity College Dublin)
\nWhat people (don't) want to know in the moral domain\, Jordan Wylie (Cornell University)\, Nathan Liang (Cornell University)\, and Charlotte Austin (Cornell University)
\nNov 11\, 16-18 UK
\nMoral Encroachment and Doxastic Wronging: An Experimental Investigation\, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen (Aarhus University)\, Kevin Reuter (University of Gothenburg)\, Somogy Varga (Aarhus University)\,
\nThe Side-Effect Effect and &ldquo\;Intentionally&rdquo\;\, Lilian O&rsquo\;Brien (Tampere University\, University of Helsinki)\, Svetlana Vetchinnikova (University of Helsinki).
\nDec 9\, 16-18 UK
\nMischaracterization Objection 2.0\, David Bordonaba-Plou (Universidad Complutense de Madrid)\, Krzysztof Sękowski (University of Warsaw)
\nFrom Thought Experiments to Experimental Evidence: Transparency and Quality of Reporting in Experimental Philosophy: Bartosz Maćkiewicz (University of Warsaw)\, Katarzyna Kuś (University of Warsaw)\, Joanna Gęgotek (University of Warsaw)\, Monika Gurak (University of Warsaw)\, and Franciszek Kittel (University of Warsaw).
\nJan 13\, 16-18 UK
\nNARRABODY: Narrative and Body in Post-Stroke Selfhood. A Longitudinal Qualitative Study\, Camille Lé\;pingle (ENS de Lyon)
\nA cross-cultural\, qualitative study on HPV vaccination intention\, Konrad Henne (University of Heidelberg)\, Alejandra Petino Zappala (Ruhr University Bochum)\, Nora Heinzelmann (University of Heidelberg)
\nFeb 10\, 16-18 UK
\nDo subjects have revelation intuitions?\, Marcus Ashby (King&rsquo\;s College London)
\nCorrect\, incorrect\, or does it depend? Demonstrating and explaining variation in folk metanormative judgment\, Mikló\;s Kü\;rthy (University of Graz)\, Geoffrey Goodwin (University of Pennsylvania)\, Paulo Sousa (Queen's University Belfast).
\nTo submit for future series\, please email the organizers an abstract of up to 500 words by Dec 15\, 2026 to james.andow@manchester.ac.uk.
\nThis series is organised by:
\nEugen Fischer (UEA)
\nJoanna Demaree-Cotton (Oxford)
\nJames Andow (Manchester)
ORGANIZER;CN=James Andow;CN=Joanna Demaree-Cotton;CN=Eugen Fischer: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115043Z DTSTART;TZID=America/New_York:20270115T130000 DTEND;TZID=America/New_York:20270115T130000 SUMMARY:Civil Discourse in a Polarized World UID:20261024T115257Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:America/New_York LOCATION:Atlanta\, United States DESCRIPTION:Call for Papers
\nCivil Discourse in a Polarized World
\nHosted by the Jean Beer Blumenfeld Center for Ethics\; \;The Philosophy\, Politics\, and Economics Program\; The Department of Philosophy\; and the Center for \;Ethics Student Forum\; all at Georgia State University.
\nDates: April 22 and 23\, 2027 \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \; \;
\nLocation: Georgia State University\; Atlanta\, Georgia
\nKeynote Speakers: \; \; \; \; \; \;
\nJohn Corvino (Wayne State University\, Philosophy) \;
\nLilliana Mason (John Hopkins University\, Political Science)
\n\nWe are pleased to announce the following calls for papers:
\nFaculty\, Graduate Students\, and Independent Scholars and Practitioners: \;
\nWe invite abstracts for presentations on (a) the role\, form\, and possibility of civil discourse today\, (b) polarization and its relationship to civil discourse\, or (c) other related topics. Selected participants will have 50-minutes for their presentation\, followed by Q&\;A. We expect to have at least three 90-minute sessions\, each devoted to one presentation. \;Accepted speakers will be provided a $1250 honorarium. Email submissions to \;ethics@gsu.edu \;with the subject line &ldquo\;Civil Discourse Conference.&rdquo\;
\n\nDeadline for Abstract Submission: January 15\, 2027
\nNotification of Acceptance: February 1\, 2027
\nUndergraduate Students: \;
\nWe invite abstracts on (a) the role\, form\, and possibility of civil discourse today\, (b) polarization and its relationship to civil discourse\, or (c) other related topics. Selected participants will have 10-20 minutes for their presentation\, followed by Q&\;A. We expect to have at least six slots for these presentations. \;Accepted speakers will be provided a $300 honorarium. Email submissions to \;ethics@gsu.edu\, with the subject line &ldquo\;U.G. Civil Discourse Conference.&rdquo\;
\n\nDeadline for Abstract Submission: February 15\, 2027
\nNotification of Acceptance: March 1\, 2027
\nAbout the Conference
\nIn the last decade we have seen democratic backsliding and a rise of authoritarianism across the globe. In many liberal democracies\, there is clear polarization and loss of trust in societal institutions. More generally\, there is a decrease in open discourse. We aim to have an interdisciplinary discussion on these and related topics. We are especially interested in proposals for improving civil discourse and strengthening liberal democracy but are open to empirical studies and essays that are normative in orientation.
\nWe welcome abstract submissions (maximum 500 words\, including references) for presentations. Presentations might address the following\, or any related topic:
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \;What is civil discourse? What is its value? How can we promote it?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \;Should the state regulate (limit or promote) discourse of some sort? \;
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \;Is there a duty to engage in civil discourse? Who would have this duty? \;
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \;How can we reduce political polarization and acrimony?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \;What are the relationships between civil discourse\, social trust\, and democratic backsliding?
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \;What role does Higher Education play in the rise of polarization\, reducing it\, or increasing civil discourse? \;
\n·\; \; \; \; \; \; \;How might technology&mdash\;online social platforms\, e.g.\,&mdash\;aid or hinder civil discourse? \;
\nQuestions? Email Andrew J. Cohen (cohenaj@gsu.edu) or Christie Hartley (chartley@gsu.edu).
ORGANIZER;CN=Andrew Jason Cohen;CN=Christie Hartley: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115043Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20270201T234500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20270201T234500 SUMMARY:The Digital Worlds Workshop UID:20261024T115258Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/London DESCRIPTION:The philosophy departments at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley and The University of North Dakota invite submissions for a virtual workshop to be conducted remotely from April 30 - May 2\, 2027. We seek papers that interrogate the way modern digital technology enhances\, hampers\, or alters our experience of our lived worlds. We encourage submissions on any aspect of the digital world\, and in particular on this year&rsquo\;s theme of rootedness.
\n\nWork on digital technologies often focuses on their alienating\, atomizing and polarizing effects. This year\, we are particularly interested in explorations of the flip side: rootedness and correlate concepts like dwelling\, community\, connection\, place\, resonance\, etc. Are there ways that digital worlds promote rootedness? If alienation is a problem\, what are the appropriate responses? We especially encourage collaborative projects that cross disciplinary boundaries.
\n\nThe purpose of this workshop is to collaboratively develop works-in-progress with an eye toward publication. This is a pre-read workshop with each paper having a designated commenter to lead the conversation\, rather than formal conference presentations. We invite extended abstract submissions of approximately 500 words by February 1st\, 2027. We also invite expressions of interest to be a commenter on a paper\, independent of a submission (it is not necessary to submit a paper to provide commentary). The discussion draft of the papers will be required one month in advance of the meeting for everyone to pre-read and for commenters to review and prepare feedback.
\n\nAbstracts and any questions should be submitted to: digitalworldsworkshop@gmail.com
\nFurther information\, including programs from past workshops\, can be found at
\nhttps://digitalworldsworkshop.com/
ORGANIZER;CN=Michael Butler;CN=Ian Werkheiser: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115043Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20270204T093000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Zurich:20270205T170000 SUMMARY:Philosophical Perspectives on Parenthood and Gender UID:20261024T115259Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Zurich LOCATION:Basel\, Switzerland DESCRIPTION:Parenthood \;remains \;a deeply gendered social institution\, while at the same time undergoing \;significant change \;and innovation. New debates around parental leave are challenging traditional divisions of care\; the social meaning of fatherhood is changing\; reproductive technologies are challenging established understandings of the biological and social foundations of parenthood\; and new forms of family life are creating ways of raising children beyond traditional gender roles \;
The relationship between parenthood and gender is therefore an area of significant political tension\, but it also raises deeper philosophical questions that remain to be addressed. This conference aims to bring together current philosophical perspectives on parenthood and gender\, addressing both foundational questions and more practical and applied issues. \;
Contact: gscope.committee@gmail.com
\nThe intention of this conference is to offer a space to think critically about pressing questions to do with the interrelated concepts of interdisciplinarity and education. These questions might include: what is the purpose of education\, how can educational aims best be achieved\, what counts as knowledge\, what counts as teaching\, where do the boundaries of individual academic disciplines (as well as the academic/non-academic distinction) serve as a barrier or limitation\, and how can these boundaries be addressed.
ORGANIZER;CN=Fiona Tuschling Brady: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115043Z DTSTART;TZID=America/Chicago:20270205T090000 DTEND;TZID=America/Chicago:20270206T170000 SUMMARY:Bioethics and the Border 2027: Contested Spaces UID:20261024T115301Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:America/Chicago LOCATION:Edinburg\, United States DESCRIPTION:Call for Abstracts
\nBioethics and the Border 2027
\nThe University of Texas\, Rio Grande Valley
\nFebruary 5-6\, 2027 | Edinburg\, Texas (and online)
\nTheme: Contested Spaces
\nThe Bioethics MS and Department of Philosophy at the University of Texas\, Rio Grande Valley invites submissions for the 2027 Bioethics and the Border Graduate Conference\, to be held February 5-6\, 2027. This first annual conference explores the ethical challenges and opportunities that emerge in border contexts\, broadly construed to include geographic\, legal\, political\, cultural\, social\, technological\, and conceptual spaces.
\nEach year the conference will examine a different aspect of bioethics and the border. The 2027 theme\, &ldquo\;Contested Spaces\,&rdquo\; invites participants to consider places\, practices\, identities and institutions where competing values\, interests and claims create ethical tensions. These include but are not limited to geographical\, legal\, and political borders\, healthcare settings\, research environments\, public health systems\, digital spaces\, and communities experiencing social and political marginalization.
\nWe welcome submissions for both in-person and online presentationsfrom graduate students across disciplines such as bioethics\, philosophy\, medicine\, nursing\, public health\, law\, anthropology\, sociology\, the life sciences and related fields.
\nSubmission Guidelines
\nAuthors should submit an abstract of 300-500 words describing the work they wish to present at the conference\, including original research andworks in progress.
\nPlease include:
\nThe conference is committed to increasing accessibility and welcomes both in-person and online presentation. All talks will take place in Central Time (USA).
\nSubmission Information: Via google forms: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSft_vz3867ltdojencJrXmcfa2mKB2PRIBwYHGjyRT7FlaX5w/viewform?usp=preview \;
\nImportant Dates:
\nFor questions please contact:hannah.allen@utrgv.edu \;
ORGANIZER;CN=Hannah Allen;CN=Ian Werkheiser;CN=Ioan Muntean;CN=Gregory Gilson;CN=Stephen Smith: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115043Z DTSTART;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20270217T090000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/Vienna:20270219T170000 SUMMARY:Artificial Companionship as Communication Infrastructure UID:20261024T115302Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Europe/Vienna LOCATION:Doktor-Ignaz-Seipel-Platz 2\, Vienna\, Austria\, 1010 DESCRIPTION:Call for Papers: Artificial Companionship as Communication Infrastructure
\nVienna\, 17&ndash\;19 February 2027
Conference language: German
Submission deadline: 15 September 2026
Generative AI systems are increasingly used not merely as tools but addressed as advisers\, tutors\, confidants\, companions\, or communicative counterparts. This raises philosophical and ethical questions concerning agency\, responsibility\, trust\, autonomy\, attribution\, and changing human&ndash\;technology relations.
\nThe 2027 Annual Conference of the German-speaking \;Network Media Ethics (Netzwerk Medienethik)\, entitled
\n&ldquo\;Artificial Companionship als Kommunikationsinfrastruktur &ndash\; Medienethische Implikationen von KI-Partnerschaft und Ö\;ffentlichkeit&rdquo\;
\ninvites philosophical\, ethical\, and interdisciplinary contributions addressing topics such as:
\n&ndash\; philosophical and ethical concepts of artificial companionship
&ndash\; human&ndash\;AI relations and philosophy of technology
&ndash\; agency\, attribution\, and responsibility
&ndash\; trust\, autonomy\, dependency\, and epistemic authority
&ndash\; anthropomorphism\, personhood\, and the status of artificial counterparts
&ndash\; social and communicative roles of generative AI
&ndash\; media ethics\, AI ethics\, and digital anthropology
&ndash\; implications of AI companionship for communication and the public sphere
The conference welcomes theoretical and empirical papers as well as panels and interactive formats.
\nPlease note: The conference language is German. Submissions should therefore be suitable for presentation and discussion in German.
\nConference: \;17&ndash\;19 February 2027
Venue: \;Austrian Academy of Sciences and University of Vienna\, Vienna
Abstract: \;approx. 4\,000 characters including spaces
Submission deadline: \;15 September 2026
Conference website: \;https://www.netzwerk-medienethik.de/jahrestagung/artificial-companionship/
Call for Papers (PDF): \;https://www.netzwerk-medienethik.de/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/CFP-nme2027.pdf
Submission via ConfTool: \;https://www.conftool.net/medienethik2027/
Contact: \;tobias.eberwein@oeaw.ac.at
Rural contexts present unique challenges for medical research and practice &ndash\; and thus\, unique challenges for biomedical ethics.
\nThe 2nd East Tennessee Rural Biomedical Ethics Conference will be held on Saturday\, February 20th\, 2027 via Zoom. The event will be co-hosted by the Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies and the Center for Rural Health and Research at East Tennessee State University. \;
\nThe conference invites abstract submissions on any topics broadly related to rural medical ethics\, including any social-epistemic issues related to rural medicine or any issues related to public health policies that impact rural populations. \;
\nExample topics may include but are not limited to: issues related to the social determinants of health in rural contexts\, resource allocation\, access to services\, clinical considerations about confidentiality\, familiarity\, and blurrerd professional-personal boundaries\, cultural and social issues related to stigma and stereotype and related instances of epistemic injustice\, the uniqueness of rural medicine\, harm reduction\, public policy challenges\, issues disproportionately impacting rural populations\, e.g.\, drug abuse\, deaths of despair\, home healthcare\, or topics on community-based or resilience-based research or any other areas related to rural health and healthcare. Interdisciplinary and case-study approaches are also welcome.
\nTo apply\, please submit an abstract of 400-500 words along with name\, email\, affiliation information\, and confirmation of willingness to participate in the entire conference (9am-3pm) to \;EastTNRuralBiomedEthicsConf@gmail.com by \;January 9th\, 2027. Notices will be sent out no later than January 12th. Presenters will be given 30 minutes to present followed by a 15-minute Q&\;A.
\nFor inquires\, please email either \;EastTNRuralBiomedEthicsConf@gmail.com \;or duea01@etsu.edu.
ORGANIZER;CN=Austin Due: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTAMP:20261024T115043Z DTSTART;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20270224T090000 DTEND;TZID=Australia/Melbourne:20270226T170000 SUMMARY:Conference for Asia Pacific Psychedelic Science UID:20261024T115304Z-iCalPlugin-Grails@philevents-web-8d97778f4-7v9xz TZID:Australia/Melbourne LOCATION:Melbourne\, Australia DESCRIPTION:Australia is at the centre of this shift. In 2020\, Monash University established the country's first dedicated psychedelic research lab. In 2023\, the Therapeutic Goods Administration created a regulated pathway for authorised psychiatrists to prescribe MDMA and psilocybin\, making Australia one of the first countries to formalise clinical access to psychedelic-assisted therapy outside of clinical trials.
\nMultiple groups across the Asia-Pacific are now conducting world-first and world-class psychedelic research\, assessing implementation in real-world clinics\, asking questions across a diverse array of disciplines\, manufacturing psychedelic compounds in novel ways\, shaping novel policy\, and developing psychedelic practice.
\nCAPS27 builds on that foundation. It's a forum for researchers\, clinicians\, policymakers\, ethicists\, cultural scholars\, educators\, industry leaders\, and funders to meet\, share evidence\, build collaborations\, and advance the field together.
ORGANIZER: METHOD:PUBLISH END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR