Top News, Articles, and Interviews in Philosophy

What Makes Your Papers Worth Reading?

Philosophy News image
Given how many academic papers are out there, it would be useful to have more filtering and discovery mechanisms for helping us to find the ones we might be most interested in.  One thing that could help is if authors themselves offered a concise 'overview' of what they think makes their various papers worth reading (when they are).  Many of us already list our papers on our websites, but (i) standard academic abstracts rarely do a good job of explaining why a paper is worth reading, and (ii) who reads academic websites anyway?  So I'm going to take a stab at doing this in a blog post, and invite others to follow suit (whether on Facebook or wherever you like: feel free to additionally post your response in the comments here, especially if your research interests overlap with mine at all). What lessons from your work do you wish were more widely appreciated?Ordered by how much I happen to like each paper today:(1) Value Receptacles (Noûs, 2015) argues that (i) the "separateness of persons" is best understood in terms of fungibility, and (ii) by recognizing each person as being of distinct (yet comparable) intrinsic value, utilitarianism can appropriately avoid treating people fungibly, and hence avoid any "separateness of persons" objection that's worth worrying about.  This is important because the SOP objection is a standard reason for rejecting aggregative consequentialism.  This paper shows (I believe decisively) that such moves are a mistake: contra Voorhoeve and others, respect for the separateness of persons provides no reason whatsoever to incorporate any kind of "non-aggregative perspective" into our moral theories.(See also my response to Lazar's objections.  I should probably turn that post into a proper follow-up paper someday.)(2) Deontic Pluralism and the Right Amount of Good (forthcoming in The Oxford Handbook of Consequentialism). As previously summarized here, this paper argues that the debate. . .

Continue reading . . .

News source: Philosophy, et cetera

blog comments powered by Disqus