Brave New World 2012, the Sixteenth Annual Postgraduate Conference organised under the auspices of the Manchester Centre for Political Theory (MANCEPT), will take place on Wednesday 27th and Thursday 28th June 2012 at the University of Manchester.

We are pleased to announce that our guest speakers this year are:

Richard Arneson (University of California, San Diego)

Charles Larmore (Brown University)

The Brave New World conference series is now established as a leading international forum dedicated exclusively to the discussion of postgraduate research in political theory. The conference offers a great opportunity for postgraduates from many different countries and universities to share experiences, concerns and research interests, to exchange stimulating ideas and to make new friends - all in a financially accessible and highly informal setting. Participants will also have the chance to meet and talk about their work with eminent academics, including members of faculty from the University of Manchester and guest speakers, who will deliver keynote addresses at the event.

Guest speakers in previous years have included Brian Barry, Simon Caney, G.A. Cohen, Roger Crisp, Cecile Fabre, Jerry Gaus, Peter Jones, Chandran Kukathas, Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Susan Mendus, David Miller, Onora O’Neill, Michael Otsuka, Bhikhu Parekh, Carole Pateman, Anne Phillips, Thomas Pogge, Joseph Raz, Andrea Sangiovanni, Quentin Skinner, Adam Swift, Philippe Van Parijs, Leif Wenar, Andrew Williams, and Jonathan Wolff.

Papers focusing on any area of political theory or political philosophy are welcome. If you would like to present a paper then please send a 300-word, anonymised abstract (including the title of the paper) to Brave.New.World@manchester.ac.uk no later than 9th April 2012. Please also include in your email your name and institutional affiliation. Please note that the conference is self-financed and participants are responsible for seeking their own funding. For further details please contact us at Brave.New.World@manchester.ac.uk

March 2-3, 2012
Howard Baker Center for Public Policy
Animals, Ethics and Law Symposium
Speakers and Titles:

• Colin Allen
  Indiana Philosophy, Cognitive Science
  Ethics, Law and the Science of Fish Welfare
• Taimie Bryant
  UCLA Law
  Animal Law and Virtue Ethics
• David DeGrazia
  George Washington University Philosophy
  The Question of Animal Suffering
• David Favre
  Michigan State Law
  Respectful Use: An ethical construct for lawful interactions with animals
• Rebecca Huss
  Valparaiso Law
  The Intersection of Legal Issues Involving Animals and Gerontology
• Clare Palmer
  Texas A&M Philosophy
  What (if anything) Do We Owe Wild Animals?
• Nick Robinson (keynote)
  Pace, Law, and Yale, Forestry and Environmental Studies
  The Legal Principle of Resilience: A guiding norm for life in our anthropocene epoch

Matthew Noah Smith has written the following open letter from the faculty of US universities and colleges to to their chancellors and presidents regarding the use of violence against student protesters. If you would like to add your name to the letter, please email Matthew at matthew.noah.smith [at] yale.edu

Open Letter to Chancellors and Presidents of American Universities and Colleges From Your Faculty

We have witnessed, over the past two months, police departments using significant amounts of force against individuals peacefully participating in the Occupy movement. But during the week of November 13 – November 19, there was an astonishing escalation of the violence used by municipal police departments against non-violent protesters.

We hoped that even as politicians and municipal police violently responded to the Occupy movement, college and university campuses would remain safe locations for non-violent political dissent. But that has not been the case. In fact, universities and colleges appear to be using the same tactics in their interactions with unarmed, non-violent members of the university community as we have seen municipal police use against the broader Occupy movement.

In particular, we are concerned with the actions by police associated with two University of California campuses. At UC Berkeley, police beat faculty and students who were peacefully attempting to establish an Occupy camp on Sproul Plaza. At UC Davis, police casually pepper sprayed protesting students who were peacefully sitting with their arms linked. The message sent by university officials is clear: if you engage in non-violent political protest on the university campus, you run the risk of being assaulted by university police.

We condemn this and any deployment of violence by university officials against members of the university community who are non-violently expressing their political views.

We condemn university officials using violence or the threat of violence in order to limit political dissent to the narrow confines of print and university-sanctioned events.

We condemn university officials using violence and the threat of violence to prevent members of the university community from peacefully assembling.

For more than three generations, American university and college campuses have been crucial locations in which inspiring and important political activity has occurred. From the founding of SNCC at Shaw University and the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in the 1960’s, to the divestment movements across American college campuses in the 1980s, to the establishment of student labor alliances in the 1990’s, American college campuses have pulsed with hopeful and positive forms of dissent and visions of alternatives. This admirable tradition is being threatened by the use of violence by university officials against their own students and faculty who are acting within this tradition.

We therefore call on chancellors and presidents of universities and colleges throughout the United States to declare publicly that their campuses are Safe Protest Zones, where nonviolent, public political dissent and protest will be protected by university police and will never be attacked by the university police.

We call on these chancellors and presidents to commit publicly to making their campuses safe locations for peaceful public assembly.

We call on these chancellors and presidents to institute immediately policies that reflect these commitments, and to instruct their police and security forces that they must abide by these policies.

We believe that this action is necessary for the protection of one of the principal virtues of our higher education system, namely that it is an environment that cultivates an active and engaged political imagination.

We call on the leaders of America’s universities and colleges to stand with us.

For the seventh year running, Res Publica will be awarding a prize for the best paper submitted by a current postgraduate student in 2011.  This may be in any area of moral, legal, social or political philosophy. Entries should conform to the normal requirements for submissions - please see the website address below for details. 

All entries must be received by 15 October 2011, with the winner to be announced early in 2012  The winner will receive £100 and a year’s subscription to the journal.  The winning essay will be published in Volume 18 (2012).

Previous winners:
Alexandra Couto, ‘Privacy and Justification’ 12.3 (2006)
Alasdair Cochrane, ‘Animal Rights and Animal Experiments: An Interest-Based Approach’ 13.3 (2007)
Göran Duus-Otterström, ‘Betting Against Hard Determinism’ (14.3, 2008)
Seth Lazar, ‘The Nature and Disvalue of Injury’ (15.3, 2009)
Guy Sela, ‘Moral Luck and Liability Lotteries’ (16.3, 2010)
Christopher Nathan, ‘Need there be a Defence of Equality’ (forthcoming: 17.3, 2011)
The prize will be judged by a panel of referees, along with the journal editors.

Entries should be submitted via the journal’s submission website - www.editorialmanager.com/resp/ - and labelled PG Essay Prize.

There is more information on Res Publica on the Springer website at: www.springer.com/11158

Or contact, the co-editors:
Sune Laegaard     laegaard@ruc.dk
Jonathan Seglow  j.seglow@rhul.ac.uk

Suppose an academic were to (a) succumb to Apple’s marketing prowess and (b) invest a great deal of time and energy researching/discovering the best ways to make use of his/her new iPad 2, what would be the most valuable information s/he would learn, particularly regarding which apps to get?

I’m primarily interested in using the iPad to read and take notes on books and journal articles, and take it that iAnnotate is (one of) the best apps for that. But I’m also interested in suggestions about the iPad’s capabilities that are not so obvious, i.e., things someone who doesn’t have much time for (b) wouldn’t even think to look for.

It’s no doubt impossible to sum up the problems facing women in academia in general and philosophy in particular in any neat way, but the experiences recorded on WIILTBAWIP? strike me as essential reading for anyone thinking about this issue.

(See also a short article in The Philosophers’ Magazine about women in philosophy.)

I have been delighted to see such strong support across political and disciplinary divides for this proposal. Let us hope the AHRC takes notice and removes this language from its funding documentation.

Alumni and others concerned by this are encouraged to write emails to this address: savekeelephilosophy@groups.facebook.com

The JMP normally reviews papers in 6-8 weeks or less. Our acceptance rate is under 8%. We are a quarterly journal of philosophy publishing volume 8 in 2011. For more information, visit our homepage: http://www.brill.nl/jmp

July 4-15, 2011 Budapest, Hungary;
Faculty:

• Peter Vallentyne, University of Missouri-Columbia, Department ofPhilosophy, Columbia, USA;
• Andrew Williams, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Catalan Institute of Researchand Advanced Studies, Barcelona, Spain;
• Matthew Clayton, University of Warwick, Department of Politics and International Studies, Coventry, UK;
• Greg Bognar, New York University, NYU Center for Bioethics, NewYork, USA;
• Janos Kis, Central European University, Department of Political Science, Budapest, Hungary;
• Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Aarhus Universitat, Institut for Statskundskab, Århus C, Denmark;

Course Directors:

• Andres Moles, Central European University, Departments of Political Science and Philosophy, Budapest, Hungary.
• Zoltan Miklosi, Central European University, Department of Political Science, Budapest, Hungary

The problem of justice occupies a special place in contemporary political philosophy. In the words of its most influential figure, Rawls, “justice is the first virtue of social institutions”. That view seems to be shared by a majority of authors and theories. However, there is no comparable agreement regarding what justice demands, from whom and to whom. These questions have utmost relevance for political philosophers. However, their importance spills over to other disciplines. Given that many choices policy makers make are distributive in nature, it is not surprising that issues of justice appear in many other spheres. In addition to dealing with purely theoretical issues, the course will revise some contexts which raise important questions about justice: education, healthcare, environmental issues, taxation. Applications are invited from graduate students, postdocs, young faculty in Philosophy, Political Science, Public Policy, Law and Economics, familiar with Anglo-American political theory, especially with theories of justice.

Application deadline: 1st March, 2011. For further academic information on the course and on eligibility criteria and funding options please visit: http://www.summer.ceu.hu/justice. CEU Summer University* P.O.Box: Budapest 5, P.f.: 1082, H-1245((36 1)327 3811, Fax: (36-1) 327-3124

Faculty:

• Peter Vallentyne, University of Missouri-Columbia, Department of Philosophy, Columbia, USA
• Andrew Williams, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Catalan Institute of Research and Advanced Studies, Barcelona, Spain
• Matthew Clayton, University of Warwick, Department of Politics and International Studies, Coventry, UK
• Greg Bognar, New York University, NYU Center for Bioethics, New York, USA
• Janos Kis, Central European University, Department of Political Science, Budapest. Hungary
• Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, Aarhus Universitat, Institut for Statskundskab, Århus C, Denmark

Course Directors:

• Andres Moles, Central European University, Departments of Political Science and Philosophy, Budapest, Hungary
• Zoltan Miklosi, Central European University, Department of Political Science, Budapest, Hungary

The problem of justice occupies a special place in contemporary political philosophy. In the words of its most influential figure, Rawls, “justice is the first virtue of social institutions”. That view seems to be shared by a majority of authors and theories. However, there is no comparable agreement regarding what justice demands, from whom and to whom. These questions have utmost relevance for political philosophers. However, their importance spill over other disciplines. Given that many choices policy makers make are distributive in nature, it is not surprising that issues of justice appear in many other spheres. In addition to dealing with purely theoretical issues, the course will revise some contexts which raise important questions about justice: education, health care, environmental issues, taxation.

(more…)

I am now beginning work on “How to Peer Review” which will address substantive, practical advice on how to best conduct reviews of journal articles and book proposals. This seems to be the new area where good information is lacking.

A question then for readers: what advice should be offered? All comments will be gratefully acknowledged in the final piece.

Please post all comments here so that they may all be in one place, as this announcent will be posted widely (as I think the issue is highly important and I am keen to canvass opinions from as many as possible).

Res Publica: A Journal of Moral, Legal and Social Philosophy

For the sixth year running, Res Publica (the journal of the Association for Legal and Social Philosophy) will be awarding a prize for the best paper submitted by a current postgraduate student in 2010.  This may be in any area falling within the journal’s aims and scope, described below.  Entries should conform to the normal requirements for submissions - please see the website address below for details.

All entries must be received by 1 October 2010, with the winner to be announced in January 2011.  The winner will receive £100 and a year’s subscription to the journal.  The winning essay will be published in Volume 17 (2011).

Previous winners:
Alexandra Couto, ‘Privacy and Justification’ 12.3 (2006)
Alasdair Cochrane, ‘Animal Rights and Animal Experiments: An Interest-Based Approach’ 13.3 (2007)
Göran Duus-Otterström, ‘Betting Against Hard Determinism’ (14.3, 2008)
Seth Lazar, ‘The Nature and Disvalue of Injury’ (15.3, 2009)
Guy Sela, ‘Moral Luck and Liability Lotteries’ (forthcoming: 16.3, 2010)

The prize will be judged by a panel of referees, along with the journal editors.

Entries should be submitted via the journal’s website -
www.editorialmanager.com/resp - and labelled Postgraduate Essay Prize.

There is more information about Res Publica at www.springer.com/11158.  Or please contact the co-editors:

Gideon Calder - Email: Gideon.Calder@newport.ac.uk

Jonathan Seglow - Email: j.seglow@rhul.ac.uk

ARTICLES

William Sin, ‘Trivial Sacrifices, Great Demands’, pp. 3-15

Lina Papadaki, ‘What is Objectification?’ pp. 16-36

M. B. E. Smith, ‘Does Humanity Share a Common Moral Faculty?’ pp. 37-53

Jonathan Seglow, ‘Associative Duties and Global Justice’, pp. 54-73

Miriam Ronzoni, ‘Constructivism and Practical Reason: On Intersubjectivity, Abstraction, and Judgment’, pp. 74-104

Kenneth R. Westphal, ‘From “Convention” to “Ethical Life”: Hume’s Theory of Justice in Post-Kantian Perspective’, pp. 105-32

REVIEW ARTICLE

Wim de Muijnck, ‘Thinking about Normativity: Ralph Wedgwood on “Ought”‘, pp. 133-44

BOOK REVIEWS

Clare Chambers on Gender, Class, and Freedom in Modern Political Theory, pp. 145-47

Anca Gheaus on Disadvantage, pp. 148-50

Paul Bou-Habib on Climate Change, Justice, and Future Generations, pp. 151-53

All issues of the Journal of Moral Philosophy are available on Swetswise here and IngentaConnect here.

Subscription information can be found on our Brill website here.

Please direct all enquiries regarding article or discussion submissions to the Editor, Thom Brooks (Newcastle).

Please direct all enquiries regarding review articles and books for review to the Reviews Editor, Christian Miller (Wake Forest).

Volume 6, Number 4 (2009)ARTICLES

Ty Landrum, ‘Persons as Objects of Love’, pp. 417-39

Elizabeth Tropman, ‘Renewing Moral Intuitionism’, pp. 440-63

David Alm, ‘Deontological Restrictions and the Good/Bad Asymmetry’, pp. 464-81

Carl Knight, ‘Egalitarian Justice and Valuational Judgment’, pp. 482-98

Geoffrey Scarre, ‘The “Banality of Good”?’ pp. 499-519

REVIEW ARTICLE

Sean Coyle, ‘The Ideality of Law’, pp. 521-34

BOOK REVIEWS

Stefan Bird-Pollan on The Founding Act of Modern Ethical Life: Hegel’s Critique of Kant’s Moral and Political Philosophy by Ideo Geiger, pp. 535-37

Justin Jeffrey on A Theory of Virtue: Excellence in Being for the Good by R. M. Adams, pp. 538-40

Adam Rawlings on Reasons and the Good by Roger Crisp, pp. 541-43

BOOKS RECEIVED

REFEREES FOR VOLUME 6

All issues of the Journal of Moral Philosophy are available on Swetswise here and IngentaConnect here.

Subscription information can be found on our Brill website here: http://www.brill.nl/jmp

Please direct all enquiries regarding article or discussion submissions to the Editor, Thom Brooks (Newcastle).

Please direct all enquiries regarding review articles and books for review to the Reviews Editor, Fabian Freyenhagen (Essex).

Veniamin Zatsepin

University of Melbourne, Faculty of Education

Table of Contents - Part 2:

Personality types as the elements of anthroposystem

What is human nature?

Where is the concept of evil human nature from?

Afterword

Acknowledgments

References

Personality types as elements of the anthroposystem

The anthroposystem and the social system are two aspects of the same developed human society. Both of them represent humankind as a single whole and both of them are organized and structured. But their structural and organizational elements, and consequently the objects of their attention, are different. The social system’s constructive elements are social institutions, each performing their specific functions of maintaining and regulating economic, political, legal, moral and other relations. The anthroposystem’s “cells”, the “points of references”, are informal social-psychological groups of personality types. The anthroposystem and social system are closely tangled, so these two systems influence each other, but at the same time they still remain relatively independent.

(more…)

Veniamin Zatsepin

University of Melbourne, Faculty of Education

Table of Contents - Part 1:

Preface

Creation of the concept of the social system

The social system in Marxist philosophy

Post-Marxist concepts of the social systems

Testing the social system theories

Into the fabric of social institutes

The basic personality types

Psychopath (sociopath)

Authoritarian personality

Machiavellian personality

“Technocratic”, “practical” or “hoarding” personality

Amiable, friendly or agreeable personality

Altruistic personality

Creative personality

Part 2:

Personality types as the elements of anthroposystem

What is human nature?

Where is the concept of evil human nature from?

Afterword

Acknowledgments

References

Preface

It has always made me feel uneasy reading or hearing someone trying to explain people’s inhumane acts, and even brutish violence, by recourse to the concept of “human nature”. On this explanation, there are really only two possibilities: either one is a criminal (or at least a potential criminal) or one is simply not a human being. At the same time, I still find it bewildering that our primeval ancestors, the illiterate people of the stone and bronze ages (and our contemporaries, the Aborigines of Australia and the Americas), while poorly versed in the theory of nature’s laws, knew and expressed in their everyday lives closer kinship with nature than do even the most educated of us today. Their attitude to each and every part of nature was more humane and respectful than that of the majority of our contemporaries, despite the fact that these people burned trees for fire and killed animals for food. So what has happened to modern people, to society? Does civilization, indeed, spoil us? Why have we been breaking our contracts or mutual understanding with the animate natural world? What has been pitting us against each other and why do we degrade and eliminate other people? Is it true that mankind is a malignant tumor of the body that is earth? Are we, human beings, indeed evil from our very childhood? And who and what exactly are ‘we’?

These are the questions that the following discussion is concerned with.

(more…)