1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology has a new essay on how to write philosophical essays for philosophy courses, by the editors of 1000-Word Philosophy:
Wednesday, January 04, 2023
Thursday, December 08, 2022
2022 Public Philosophy Op-Ed Contest
2022 Public Philosophy Op-Ed Contest
The APA [American Philosophical Assocation] committee on public philosophy sponsors the Public Philosophy Op-Ed Contest for the best opinion-editorials published by philosophers. The goal is to honor up to five standout pieces that successfully blend philosophical argumentation with an op-ed writing style. Winning submissions will call public attention, either directly or indirectly, to the value of philosophical thinking. The pieces will be judged in terms of their success as examples of public philosophy, and should be accessible to the general public, focused on important topics of public concern, and characterized by sound reasoning.
Awardees
2022
Max Khan Hayward (The University of Sheffield), “Eat, Drink, and Be Merry! No, Really.” (The Atlantic, 2021)
Milena Ivanova (The University of Cambridge), “The Beautiful Experiment” (Aeon, 2021)
A. Minh Nguyen (Florida Gulf Coast University), “When Your Daughter Is Told ‘Your Face Is Not American’” (The News-Press, 2021)
Nathan Nobis (Morehouse College) and Jonathan Dudley (Johns Hopkins), “Why the case against abortion is weak, ethically speaking” (Salon, 2021)
Lisa Forsberg (Oxford University) and Anthony Skelton (University of Western Ontario), “3 reasons for making COVID-19 vaccination mandatory for children” (The Conversation, 2021)
Monday, November 28, 2022
The Always More Podcast
On The Always More Podcast, they discuss my Salon article 'When does “life” begin? When it comes to abortion, it depends on what you mean by "life"':
Sunday, November 27, 2022
Extremism and Losing the Ability to Listen
There are many problems associated with extremism.
One is that extremists generally lose the ability to listen to people who disagree with them: they become simply unable to know what other people think.
This is really obvious to people with a philosophical background since philosophy is all about definitions: it's all about how people use words in different ways, how they mean different things using the same words since they have different definitions in mind. That's why one of the most important philosophical questions is, "What do you mean?"
This is especially relevant to ethical topics about abortion, and other topics in bioethics, where many of the key words are used in different ways by different people, resulting in different arguments: e.g, "life" and "alive" have multiple meanings, as do "human," "human being," and related words.
Here are some thoughts about why extremists are unwilling and unable to listen.
Listening to understand requires patience. Extremists have no patience for anyone who disagrees with them.
Listening to understand involves thinking that other people are somewhat rational and that other people's views make some sense, even they are mistaken. But extremists think everyone who disagrees with them is an irrational idiot.
Listening to understand seems to require thinking that you might learn something from other people. But extremists think they know it all, even though they rarely study the issues in fair and balanced ways. They deny the value of expertise and/or mistakenly assume they are experts, when they are not.
Extremists have no motive for listening: you might listen to seek a compromise, or a solution that will acknowledge all important concerns. But extremists have no interest in compromise.
Listening to understand involves recognizing that issues can be complicated, which is why there are different perspectives on them. Extremists deny this: they think the issues are simple and that they are obviously correct.
Extremism typically involves "grandstanding" or showing off in front of your "tribe", to show that you are a true believer to the righteous cause. But listening to people you disagree with is contrary to that: to be in a position to listen to someone -- and for that person to speak in an authentic way -- there has to be some kind of respectful, friendly relationship, even for the moment.
Extremism is bad.
What is extremist anyway?
Spencer Case argues that "a person is an extremist just in case an intense moral conviction blinds her to competing moral considerations, or else makes her unwilling to qualify her beliefs when she should." Since there are moral considerations to understanding views contrary to your own (like what?), the label "extremism" fits here, and extremism can be characterized by the above considerations (and many, many more!).
What are other ways extremism is bad?
What can be done about it?
A related post:
extremism, abortion extremism and losing the ability to listen. #extremism #extremist #abortion #prochoice #prolife #polarization #polarizationisproblematic #ethics #philosophy #criticalthinking #listening #listeningskills@nathan.nobis extremism, abortion extremism and losing the ability to listen. #extremism #extremist #abortion #prochoice #prolife #polarization #polarizationisproblematic #ethics #philosophy #criticalthinking #listening #listeningskills ♬ original sound - Philosophy 101 - Prof. Nobis
Thursday, September 29, 2022
Monday, August 22, 2022
Saturday, August 20, 2022
What is Philosophy?
From 1000-Word Philosophy: An Introductory Anthology.
Author: Thomas Metcalf
Category: Metaphilosophy
Word count: 1000
If you’ve ever wondered whether God exists, whether life has purpose, whether beauty is in the eye of the beholder, what makes actions right or wrong, or whether a law is fair or just, then you’ve thought about philosophy. And these are just a few philosophical topics.
But what is philosophy? The question is itself a philosophical question. This essay surveys some answers.
Friday, July 29, 2022
Tuesday, July 26, 2022
What Should Philosophers Do in Response to Dobbs? A Conversation With Ethicists
I was part of this interview/discussion, posted yesterday, organized and written up by Rachel Robison-Greene, with Jill Delston, Amanda Roth, and Jennifer Scuro, at the APA Blog:
What Should Philosophers Do in Response to Dobbs? A Conversation With Ethicists
Sunday, July 10, 2022
Tuesday, July 05, 2022
Sunday, June 26, 2022
Tuesday, May 31, 2022
Abortion & Ethics Quiz
An Abortion & Ethics Quiz
People often think that they are very knowledgeable about ethical debates about abortion: they believe they deeply understand the arguments and why their arguments are sound and why people who disagree with them are mistaken. This quiz helps test that knowledge.
Also available here.
A “Fair and Balanced” Guide to Productive Deliberation
A post on this on another blog.
A “Fair and Balanced” Guide to Productive Deliberation
Background: people often discuss ethical, social, and political issues with little awareness or understanding of what people who disagree with them think about the issues. This often results in misunderstanding and “straw-personing” other people’s views – seeing them as simplistic and obviously mistaken – when they really might not be. This prevents people from more productively engaging with different points of view. Since we often need to work together to find responses to problems that can work for more than just our own group, the process presented in this handout can help gain us all gain a better understanding of different views, so we might make progress in responding to controversial issues. Here’s the questions and process:
Saturday, May 28, 2022
Yes, all bioethicists should engage abortion ethics, but who would be interested in what they have to say?
Yes, all bioethicists should engage abortion ethics, but who would be interested in what they have to say?
Open peer commentary, now here: (2022) Yes, All Bioethicists Should Engage Abortion Ethics, but Who Would Be Interested in What They Have to Say?, The American Journal of Bioethics, 22:8, 33-36, DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2022.2089274 [PDF of final version here]
1500 words.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)