Our researchers will be speaking at these forthcoming conferences and events. Follow the links for further information, including how to attend where conferences are open for booking. We have recently begun to podcast our special lectures.
Thursday September 17, 12.30 - 2.00 p.m.
Reckless Caution: The Perils of Judicial Minimalism
Tara Smith, Department of Philosophy, University of Texas at Austin
Venue: Seminar Room 1, Old Indian Institute, 34 Broad Street Oxford OX1 3B
Judicial Minimalism is the view that judges decide cases properly to the extent that they minimize their own imprint on the law by meticulously assessing one case at a time, ruling on narrow and shallow grounds, eschewing broader theories, and altering entrenched legal practices only incrementally. Minimalism's increasing popularity across the political spectrum, being embraced by advocates of both right-wing and left-wing ideologies, is touted as a sign of its appropriate value-neutrality.
This paper argues that, in fact, that sought-after neutrality is untenable. While others have objected to some of Minimalism's specific tenets, critics have missed its more fundamental failing: it is an incoherent concept. On analysis, Minimalism's several planks and rationales are mutually contradictory and, correspondingly, offer conflicting guidance to judges. Thus the reason that Minimalism can appeal to people of such disparate substantive views is that in practice, it is merely a placeholder invoked to sanction a grab-bag of desiderata rather than a method of decision-making that offers genuine guidance.
Monday September 21, 4.30 p.m. - 5.30 p.m.
What has Athens to do with the Galapagos? or Why the Concept of ‘Human Nature’ has nothing to fear from Evolutionary Biology (and vice-versa)
Jason G. Rheins, University of Pennsylvania
Venue: Meeting Room, 2nd Floor, Littlegate House, 16/ 17 St Ebbe's St, OX1 1PT
All welcome. Please press buzzer 8 when you arrive
Several prominent philosophers of science including Philip Kitcher and John Dupré have made the case that the conceptions of “human nature” used by perfectionist or essentialist ethical theories including Aristotelianism and contemporary Virtue Ethics are incompatible with any modern, biologically informed understanding of species. Identifying the fact that heritable variations within a population are a necessary ingredient for selection, evolutionary biology is adduced to refute the traditional conception of species as natural kinds carved out by their members’ common possession of a unique and identical distinguishing characteristic, i.e. a real essence or universal such as rationality forHomo sapiens. Ergo, the idea that human beings constitute a species in virtue of mutual possession of rationality or any other essential attributes is to be rejected. Thus we should also reject any theory of the human good that depends on the attribution of such essential characteristics to our species in order to enumerate a set of excellences, ends, virtues, etc. that will be universally necessary for any human being to cultivate or pursue in order for him or her to flourish. Such arguments only prove that traditional, metaphysically essentialist conceptions of kinds cannot cope with the differences we find even in the essential attributes of theirs members. However, I present an alternative approach to species that regards them as concepts rather than natural kinds and which accommodates claims about essential features or the basic, shared natures of their members (e.g. human nature) without positing “real essences” or moderate realists’ universals for them. I defend this conception of what species are against rival views popular among biologists and/or philosophers of biology that also would run counter to this way of defending the idea of a human nature. I conclude that a basic human nature is in no way incompatible with modern biology, especially evolutionary biology, given a proper view of what species and their essences or natures are.
Wednesday September 23
Seminar: Autonomy in the Biomedical Context
Venue: Sala de conferencias de la facultad de CC Economicas y Empresariales, Campus de Cantoblanco, 28049 Madrid
Julian Savulescu will present 'The Limits of Autonomy in the Biomedical Context
4 October 2009, 4.45
Unfit For Life: Genetically Enhance Humanity or Face Extinction
Lecture: The Festival of Dangerous Ideas
Venue: Drama Theatre, Sydney Opera House
In a letter to his friend and mentor Joseph Hooker, Darwin wrote 'What a book a Devil's Chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horridly cruel works of nature!' Human beings have the biology of Pleistocene man, that of a hunter-gather. I will examine the nature of human beings as products of evolution and identify moral limitations in human nature. I will examine the implications of our limited altruism, co-operation and ability to take account of the future consequences of our actions in a world of advanced technology and liberal democracy. I will argue that our biology and psychology are unfit for the kind of society we live in.
If we are to avoid technological disaster, we must either alter our political institutions, severely restrain our technology or change our nature. Or face annihilation by our own design.
22 October 2009, 5:30-7:00p.m.
St Cross Special Ethics Seminar: "Religion, Public Reason and the Liberal State"
Venue: St Cross Room, St Cross College
Professor Tony Coady (CAPPE, Melbourne) will present the first in a series of two lectures on religion as part of the regular St Cross Special Ethics Seminar. All welcome but please email in advance. All seminar participants are also invited to attend an informal pay as you go dinner after the seminar.
Biomedical science is increasingly yielding technologies that can be used to enhance the capacities of healthy people, as well as to treat disease. This two-day workshop will aim to advance the debate on the ethics of human enhancement byconsidering:
(1) What enhancements are likely to become possible?; (2) What enhancements will be ethically permissible?
(3) What enhancements should be legally permitted?;
(4) What criteria should be used to answer 2 and 3?
THE PROGRAMME WILL INCLUDE SESSIONS ON:
Enhancement in sport;
Life extension;
Neuro-enhancement;
Enhancement in general
AND PRESENTATIONS BY, AMONG OTHERS:
Eric Juengst (Case Western);
Paul Root Wolpe (Emory);
Hank Greely (Stanford);
John Harris (Manchester);
Tom Murray (The Hastings Center);
Julian Savulescu (Oxford);
Alexandre Mauron (Geneva)
TO ATTEND THE EVENT,
you are kindly requested to fill in the registration form and to send it back to the Brocher Foundation by mail, e-mail or fax before 5 October 2009. Places are limited and will be allocated on a first come first served basis.
3 December 2009, 7.00 p.m.
Ethics Film Club
Venue: TBC
This regular series of film screening and discussion is open to all, but primarily aimed at students. At these termly events, a thought-provoking film with a bioethics theme is shown, and after a brief introduction by Professor Savulescu, the floor is open for discussion. Wine and light refreshments are provided. All are welcome, no need to book.
The Mechanisms of Self-Control: Lessons from Addiction
Philosophy, Neuroscience and Psychology
May 13-14 2010, University of Oxford
Loss of control over some aspects of behavior is usually held to be a defining feature of addiction. But the loss of control envisaged is somewhat mysterious. The series of actions in which addicts engage in order to procure and consume their drug is not reflexive; can it nevertheless be properly seen as uncontrolled? What mechanisms are impaired in the addict’s behavior, and how can those impairments illuminate normal agency? This conference will bring together leading thinkers in neuroscience, psychology, psychiatry and philosophy to explore and advance our understanding of the mechanisms of self-control and the way in which they are weakened in addiction.
Main Speakers:
George Ainslie (Coatesville Veterans Affairs Medical Center); Kent Berridge (Michigan University); Nomy Arpaly (Brown Univeristy).
; Richard Holton (MIT); Mark Muraven (SUNY Albany); Steve Pearce (Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Mental Health Trust); Hanna Pickard (All Souls College, Oxford); Walter Sinnott-Armstrong (Dartmouth College); Gideon Yaffe (University of Southern California).
This is a preliminary announcement. Further details, including discussants, costs and venue will become available closer to the time of the conference.
November
2010 Uehiro Lectures
Modes of responsibility
Professor Masaki Ichinose,
University of Tokyo
In these lectures, I will discuss criminal responsibility from a philosophical point of view (including some Japanese perspectives). I will scrutinize these issues by distinguishing three perspectives on criminal responsibility, namely, that of the “victim”, “offender”, and “punishment”. My aim in discussing the issue of victims is to raise and analyse a question of who constitutes a victim, particularly in the case of homicide. This question is examined by confronting a contemporary problem in the metaphysics of death, that is, whether dead people could suffer harm or not. Secondly, I will investigate how to estimate, as far as is scientifically possible, how responsible an offender is for their offence. This problem would be tackled by considering the notion of mens rea, taking into account the contemporary debates on free will and neuroethics. In considering this issue, I intend to adopt a probabilistic approach and propose concepts of “degrees of freedom and responsibility”. Thirdly, I will discuss the new and traditional problem of how to justify a system of punishment. In particular, my focus here is upon the issue of capital punishment and the concept of restorative justice (notwithstanding the fact that capital punishment has been abolished in the UK). My approach to this issue might be called “impossibilism” rather than retentionism or abolitionism. These three topics which I will consider roughly correspond to three basic modal concepts, namely, “actuality”, “possibility”, and “necessity (i.e. normativity)” respectively, so I have called these lectures “Modes of Responsibility”.
Biography
ICHINOSE Masaki.
Professor at The University of Tokyo. His main research interests are causation, probability, and the concept of person. Publications include in 1997, ‘The Rise of Person-Knowledge Theory: The Moment of John Locke’ published by The University of Tokyo Press (in Japanese) and in 2001, The Labyrinth of Cause and Effect’ published by Keiso publishing company (in Japanese) and in 2006, ‘The Labyrinth of Cause and Reason: The Philosophy of "Because"’ published by Keiso publishing company (in Japanese). In 1998 he won the Watsuji Tetsuro Prize of Culture and the Nakamura Hajime Prize. Publications in English