A new Director for the Centre

As of July 1, the Centre for Ethics has a new director: Professor Simone Chambers from the Department of Political Science.

head shot 2014

Her bio: Simone Chambers is a Professor of Political Science specializing in Political Theory. She received her BA from McGill University and her MA and PhD from Columbia University. She has been teaching at the University of Toronto since 2002. Her primary areas of scholarship include democratic theory, ethics,secularism, rhetoric, civility and the public sphere. She is presently working on a project entitled An Ethics of Public Discourse.

Maxims and MRIs: Kantian Ethics and Empirical Psychology

Conference program

Friday, May 9

9:30-10:45: Heidi Maibom (University of Cincinnati) “Practical Reason in the Age of Neuroscience”?

11-12:15: Hanno Sauer (Tilburg University) “The Weakest Link. Realism, Debunking, and the Darwinian Dilemma”

1:45-3 Susan Dwyer (University of Maryland) “Is there a Junction for Judgment?”

3:15-4:30 Marijana Vujosevic (University of Groningen) “Conscience as the Specific Rational Deficit of Psychopaths”

4:45-6:00 Pauline Kleingeld (University of Groningen) “Debunking Confabulation: Emotions and the Significance of Empirical Psychology for Kantian Ethics”

Saturday, May 10

10:45-12:00 Joseph Heath (University of Toronto) “Why do People Behave Immorally When Drunk?”

1:45-3 Tom Bates (University of Groningen) “Mixed vs. Moderate Traits: On the Evaluative Status of Empirically Sound Character”

3:15-4:30 Patrick Frierson (Whitman College) “Character in Kant’s Moral Psychology: Responding to the Situationist Challenge”

4:45-6:00 Jeanette Kennett (Macquarie University), “Reactive Attitudes, Reason, and Responsibility”

Next up: Peter Loewen

“Empathy and Political Preferences”

Peter Loewen
Director, Centre for the Study of the United States
Professor, Department of Political Science
University of Toronto

Wednesday, Oct. 30,
12:00 PM – 2:00 PM
Room 200, Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place

Thinking Beyond Distribution conference papers published

The new Journal of Global Ethics is out (here), containing a selection of the papers presented last October at the Centre for Ethics, “Thinking Beyond Distribution” conference, organized by Monique Deveaux and Kathryn Walker.

Introduction
Monique Deveaux and Kathryn Walker

We fight for roses too: time-use and global gender justice
Alison M. Jaggar

Global care ethics: beyond distribution, beyond justice
Fiona Robinson

Is the capability approach a sufficient challenge to distributive accounts of global justice?
Christine Koggel

Ideal theory in an nth-best world: the case of pauper labor
Joseph Heath

Non-domination’s role in the theorizing of global justice
Mira Bachvarova

Postcolonialism and global justice
Margaret Kohn

The sentimentalist paradox; on the normative and visual foundations of humanitarianism
Fuyuki Kurasawa

Place-related attachments and global distributive justice
Margaret Moore

Revising global theories of justice to include public goods
Heather Widdows and Peter G.N. West-Oram

Seminar Talk: Chrisoula Andreou

The Good, the Bad and the Trivial

Chrisoula Andreou,
Department of Philosophy, University of Utah

Monday, Sept. 16, 4-6pm.
Larkin 200

Abstract: Dreadful and dreaded outcomes are sometimes brought about via the accumulation of individually trivial effects. Think about inching toward terrible health or toward an environmental disaster. In some such cases, the outcome comes about through a sequence of actions, each of which is trivial in its impact. Cases of this sort are not only practically challenging, but theoretically challenging as well. They raise puzzling questions about the assessment of conduct. Sometimes each action in an extended sequence of moves can be correctly assessed as permissible (relative to a certain set of concerns) even though the sequence foreseeably leads to an outcome that is unacceptable (relative to the same set of concerns) and even though acceptable outcomes are available.This seems paradoxical. I argue that this (apparent) puzzle glosses over complications associated with action individuation and units of agency. Reflection on these complications makes it clear that in the paradoxical cases there is an accurate way of seeing what is being done at various particular moments that clearly brings out the tight connection between the current action and the non-trivial damage that is to be expected.

God: Impossible or merely Improbable?

God: Impossible or merely Improbable?
A symposium on Colin Howson’s, Objecting to God

Moderator: Donald Ainslie, Toronto

Logic: Colin Howson, Toronto
Medieval: Peter King, Toronto
Political: Joseph Heath, Toronto
Epistemology: Jonathan Weisberg, Toronto

Thursday, Feb. 7, 3:00 PM – 5:00 PM
Room 200, Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place

David Moss on Regulatory Capture

“Preventing Regulatory Capture: Special Interest Influence and How to Limit it”

David A. Moss
John G. McLean Professor of Business Administration
Harvard Business School

January 14, 2013
Please note time change
: 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM
Room 200, Larkin Building
15 Devonshire Place

Abstract:  When markets or regulations fall short of our expectations, observers often point to regulatory capture as a culprit. Unfortunately, regulatory capture is very commonly misdiagnosed and mistreated. Misdiagnosed because the study of regulatory capture, in both academic and policy circles, has grown stale and ever more detached from practice. All too often, observers are quick to see capture as the explanation for almost any regulatory problem, making large-scale inferences about agencies and their cultures without a careful look at the evidence. At the same time, there appears to be a great deal of fatalism – some of it strategic, no doubt – about the impossibility of ameliorating or preventing capture, virtually ensuring that the ailment is mistreated in many cases. Some or even much of this may be the product of highly simplified models – models in which the complete capture of regulators by incumbent firms is all but inevitable. We aspire to improve our understanding of capture, making it more rigorous, more thorough, and more practically useful to those who want to prevent capture. Capture is real and a genuine threat to regulation, we recognize, but regulation is also a fact of modern life, and undoubtedly necessary in some circumstances to protect the public and stave off catastrophe. The critical question is whether capture, where it exists, can be mitigated or prevented. We believe the evidence strongly suggests that the answer is yes, and that better study of regulation and special interest influence can show us how to limit capture and make regulatory governance a more useful tool for accomplishing public ends.