The Brooks Blog

New British Academy fellows

2008-07-18T18:54:00.000+01:00

. . . with thanks to Brian Leiter for his post. There are only a couple in the fields of philosophy, and politics: Iain McLean and Roger Scruton. "Corresponding fellows" include Martha C. Nussbaum and Bas C. van Fraassen. The full list can be found here.

Thoughts for the week

2008-07-18T13:54:00.000+01:00

One of the most enjoyable parts of the UK's Times Higher Education is its back page. Here we are led into the fictitious world of the University of Poppleton, created by Laurie Taylor. At Poppleton, the worst excesses of modern university life unfold in comic detail.

Each week, the "Head of Personal Development" at this fake university offers the "thought for the week" and I'll begin noting these each week from now on. Some gems from past weeks include:

"We must view young people not as empty bottles to be filled but as candles to be lit."

"There are no speed limits on the road to excellence."

"Success comes in cans, failure in can'ts."

"Knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit. Wisdom is not putting them in a fruit salad."

"What if the hokey cokey is really what it's all about?"

Hilarious!

Even more on claims of grade inflation at UK universities

2008-07-18T13:27:00.000+01:00

. . . can be found here. As I have noted before, I believe the way forward will be to move closer to the US grade point average model.

Conference: Celebrating the Career of G. A. Cohen

2008-07-18T13:24:00.000+01:00

Rescuing Justice and Equality: Celebrating the Career of G.A. Cohen

On January 23-24 2009, with the generous support of Philosophy and Public Affairs, the Centre for the Study of Social Justice will be hosting a conference to celebrate the career of G.A. Cohen, who is retiring after 23 years as Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory.

Over the two days there will be eight papers covering various themes raised by Professor Cohen’s contribution to the field, each given, and commented on, by a colleague, friend, and/or former student.

The full list of confirmed speakers is:
• Professor Richard Arneson (UC San Diego)
• Dr Paula Casal (University of Reading)
• Professor Joshua Cohen (Stanford University)
• Professor Gerald Dworkin (UC Davis)
• Professor David Estlund (Brown University)
• Professor Cecile Fabre (University of Edinburgh)
• Professor David Miller (University of Oxford)
• Professor Michael Otsuka (University College London)
• Professor Joseph Raz (University of Oxford)
• Professor John Roemer (Yale University)
• Professor Tim Scanlon (Harvard University)
• Professor Seana Shiffrin (UC Los Angeles)
• Professor Hillel Steiner (University of Manchester)
• Professor Wayne Sumner (University of Toronto)
• Professor Philippe Van Parijs (Université Catholique de Louvain)
• Professor Andrew Williams (University of Warwick)
There is no conference fee but places for the conference are limited. Please register your interest by emailing Kate Candy: kate.candy@politics.ox.ac.uk. Please state your name, title and affiliation in the email.

Further information will be posted online at http://social-justice.politics.ox.ac.uk/events/Cohen/index.asp
as soon as it is available.

Sigrun Svavrsdottir on "The Virtue of Practical Rationality"

2008-07-18T13:21:00.000+01:00

. . . can be found here, from the latest issue of Philosophy & Phenomenological Research (subscribers only).

Al Gore challenges the US to give up oil

2008-07-18T13:17:00.001+01:00

Details are here. A great idea, but in a decade?

Entrance tests are becoming more common at UK universities

2008-07-17T15:15:00.000+01:00

. . . but generally only in certain subjects. (Details here.) Whereas in the United States, it is common for all students earning a diploma to have had several classes in literature, mathematics, science, and so on this is not the case in the UK where there are no diplomas and students have far more freedom to choose which subjects they will study (and which subjects they will not study).

Will the UK change? There seem to be several small steps towards accepting the US model, if only by default. Liberal arts programmes are rare here, if they can be found at all. Most students will predominantly study just a single subject at university, although there are increasing moves to make programmes more interdisciplinary. Furthermore, with growing disastifaction on A-level results, increasing fees, and now more frequent entrance tests, I would be surprised if developments did not continue on for the next ten years moving far more in the direction of how the US handles secondary and higher education, albeit I also believe most students in the UK will continue to study on Single Honours programmes. Just a hunch . . . . . .

Americans live shorter lives than virtually all other developed countries

2008-07-17T15:02:00.000+01:00

Details here.

The UK has a new university: Glyndwr University

2008-07-15T17:55:00.000+01:00

Details here.

More on the House of Lords

2008-07-15T11:20:00.000+01:00

Following on from my post just yesterday, we have learned more now about the government's planned reforms for the House of Lords. These plans include: (1) reducing the number of Lords from over 700 to no more than 450, (2) all hereditary peers -- there are currently 92 -- would be abolished, (3) about 80% of all Lords would be elected, (4) the only unelected Lords would come from the Anglican Church, and (5) Lords would serve a maximum of 12-15 years.

I do not have a view on how many (or how few) Lords there should be, although I am pleased to see that hereditary peers will come to an end if this bill is passed. What has always struck me as the great strength of the Lords is the quality and breadth of experience, not birthrights. These reforms seem perfectly sensible. I am less favourable of setting a maximum period of service and would prefer if Lords continued to sit indefinitely, not unlike a judge. However, I could be persuaded of the need to bring new people and ideas in a bit more frequently, especially if the number of Lords will be reduced.

All that said, I do object to the rest of the proposals. For example, if the Lords will almost become a 100% elected chamber, then why should those unelected come from the Anglican church alone? I cannot understand why the Lords reforms do not include a substantial reform of the unelected leaders of the Anglican church presence as well. In modern Britain, there are a great many people of different faiths. Why prioritize one over the other? (The reply may be that there is a state religion --- yet I cannot see why this should remain the case today in multicultural, religiously diverse modern Britain.) If it is important to include members of different faith groups, then which do we include? What about humanist and atheist groups?

I oppose the inclusion of any particular religious community's leaders as Lords in the House of Lords. It is not always clear who should be included and how many should be included. Moreover, it strikes me as highly unfair --- even where there is a state religion --- that one religious group would have such priority over all others. Finally, if all Lords should be elected, then let us elect the Bishops as well: why treat them differently?

My strongest opposition remains to electing the Lords. Some argue that the "mandate" of the House of Lords is somehow weakened because it is an unelected chamber. This is hogwash. The judge is appointed and unelected, yet clearly has a mandate to act within specific parameters and not infrequently finding those unappointed and elected in breach of the law. No one speaks of judges needing a stronger "mandate" and I cannot see why the case is any different with the Lords. One might reply that, well, the Lords are different as most are not judges (such as the Law Lords) and Lords are involved in legislating. My response is, again, the Lords can be outvoted by the House of Commons and this is the difference. We need never fear the unelected dominating our politics, but we can benefit from experience, wisdom, and the long term interests of the country more firmly at heart.

The trial by jury has often been referred to as a mini-Parliament. Nothing could be more correct. The jury always has the final say, but the judge ensures the fairness of the trial and his or her counsel can be invaluable help to the jury in its search for a verdict. Ending unelected Lords is akin to removing the judge from the jury trial. And it should be avoided, if possible.

Gerry Hough on "A Dilemma for Sinnott-Armstrong's Moderate Pyrrhonian Moral Scepticism"

2008-07-15T11:11:00.000+01:00

. . . can be found here, in the Philosophical Quarterly (subscribers only). An abstract:

"In order for us to have epistemic justification, Sinnott-Armstrong believes we do not have to be able to rule out all sceptical hypotheses. He suggests that it is sufficient if we have 'modestly justified beliefs', i.e., if our evidence rules out all non-sceptical alternatives. I argue that modest justification is not sufficient for epistemic justification. Either modest justification is independent of our ability to rule out sceptical hypotheses, but is not a kind of epistemic justification, or else modest justification is a kind of epistemic justification, but is not truly independent of our ability to rule out sceptical hypotheses."

Are half of all US mortgages in trouble?

2008-07-15T11:08:00.000+01:00

See here, with worrying possible implications for the world economy.

Beyond Borders: Philosophers' Carnival

2008-07-14T12:46:00.000+01:00

Beyond Borders: Philosophers' Carnival

The Philosophers' Carnival

2008-07-14T12:44:00.000+01:00

. . . can be found here, at the exciting new Beyond Borders blog.

Should we elect all members of the House of Lords?

2008-07-14T11:57:00.001+01:00

The Government will soon submit a proposal to do just this, with plans to enact this proposal --- if signed into law --- after the next general election.

The House of Lords is a curious institution. Membership had long been largely inherited, although this is being phased out. Today, new members are appointed to life terms, with a substantial number of Anglican Bishops. (There are no seats set aside for any other religious groups.)

The House of Lords largely serves as a counterweight to the House of Commons, although the "lower" house (of the Commons) can overturn (by supermajority vote) the decisions of the "upper" house (of the Lords). Prime Ministers had originally been selected from the House of Lords and, thus, were not popularly elected. Moreover, the House of Lords also includes the Law Lords, whose constitutional place is not unlike US Supreme Court judges except that they also sit in the legislative body, the House of Lords. (Thus, the separation of powers in this and other cases is not clear.)

Whenever I discuss the House of Lords with friends and colleagues in the US, they are almost always surprised to learn that such a legislative body exists. It strikes many that there is so much about the institution that is objectionable. How is it, I am asked, that the UK can ever tolerate an unelected upper house of their Parliament?

I will be disappointed to see all the proposed reforms passed. In my view, one major reason to keep the House of Lords largely as it is composed now is simply because it works. It is perhaps surprising to those outside the UK to learn that the House of Lords has played a crucial and positive role in protecting civil liberties over the last decade especially. The fact that the House of Lords often seems to work so well is that its members can have the long-term interests of the country in mind, rather than newspaper headlines or general elections. Moreover, those that have been appointed represent special expertise across a range of subjects. For example, current Lords include Baroness (Onora) O'Neill, Lord (Bhikhu) Parekh, and Lord (Raymond) Plant. (For details on how to become a Lord, see here.)

A further reason I believe the House of Lords should be retained is because it strikes the correct balance between the elected and the experts. As I have argued before (here) and (here), it is right that those popularly elected can overturn the decisions of the unelected. However, it is also best that governing brings together those with special expertise to help popularly elected politicians rule best.

It is often said that the jury trial is like a mini-Parliament: nothing could be more true. The jury always have the final say on all decisions, but their verdict is informed by the good counsel offered to them by the unelected judge, selected for his or her because of his or her legal expertise. To follow this analogy, the House of Lords is like the wise judge offering its advice when appropriate to the jurors, the House of Commons. The Commons may accept or reject this advice, but the two most often work together in tandem. That this system works is clear from the history of this peculiar institution and the sound decisions it most often reaches, not least post-9/11.

My strong support for the House of Lords is not a support of all features of this institution. For example, I would strongly support not only the end of inherited peerages, but also the end of giving seats to members of the Anglican church only. (Whether it is preferable to distribute the seats to leaders of more religious groups or reserve no seats I put to the side for now.)

All institutions require some reform from time to time. That said, I do hope that the reform of the House of Lords is not as radical as has been proposed and that the distinctive constitutional role it has played in British history and politics preserved for the benefit of us all.

UPDATE: I have posted on more recent developments above here.

Free education for those serving in the UK armed forces

2008-07-14T11:56:00.000+01:00

Details here.

From the annals of the obvious: get more sleep to boost memory

2008-07-14T11:49:00.000+01:00

. . . as if we were surprised to learn that working on too little sleep made no difference to memory recall. (Details here.)

Of local interest: Congrats to the class of '08!

2008-07-11T10:26:00.000+01:00

I would like to congratulate the class of '08 undergraduate students in Politics and joint honours programmes with Politics ahead of congregations later today. I hope you enjoy the ceremony --- and that the rain stops soon!

BREAKING NEWS: the Journal of Moral Philosophy

2008-07-10T17:16:00.001+01:00

BREAKING NEWS: the Journal of Moral Philosophy

Today, we have learned the news that the Journal of Moral Philosophy will be a quarterly publication from 2009. This is a major change that I have been hoping to achieve for some time. The JMP was launched in April 2004 and since this time we have published three issues per year. I am particularly delighted that we will be able to publish accepted work more quickly and provide more articles, review articles, discussion pieces, and book reviews to our readers.

At present, the JMP continues to be strong. We receive over 120 submissions per year minimum and our acceptance rate remains 10%. The majority of papers accepted are accepted after revisions. We currently use three referees for submissions and more than 80% of submissions are reviewed in two months or less.

The latest issue of the Journal of Moral Philosophy is now available. Please note that we have moved to Brill and our new website can be found here. (Our previously site with SAGE Publications is here.) All issues of the JMP can be downloaded from IngentaConnect here.

The contents are as follows:

JOURNAL OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY:
An International Journal of Moral, Political, and Legal Philosophy

(ISSN 1740-4681)

Volume 5, Number 1 (2008)

ARTICLES

Henry S. Richardson, 'Our Call: The Constitutive Importance of the People's Judgment', pp. 3-29.

Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen, 'Publicity and Egalitarian Justice', pp. 30-49.

Timothy Hall, 'Doing Harm, Allowing Harm, and Denying Resources', pp. 50-76.

Candace L. Upton, 'Virtue Ethics, Character, and Normative Receptivity', pp. 77-95.

Peter Dietsch, 'Distributive Lessons from Division of Labour', pp. 96-117.

Reginald Williams, 'Morality and Privilege', pp. 118-35.

REVIEW ARTICLE

Yoon Choi, 'Revisiting Kant's Ethics: Two Challenges to the Status Quo', pp. 137-49.

BOOK REVIEWS

Alasdair MacIntyre on Value and Context: The Nature of Moral and Political Knowledge, pp.
151-4.

Asger Sorensen on GE Moore's Ethcs: Good as Intrinsic Value, pp. 155-8.

Daniel Elstein on Value, Reality, and Desire, pp. 159-61.

Philip Cook on Moral Skepticisms, pp. 162-5.

Daniel Watts on Kierkegaard's Concept of Despair, pp. 166-8.

David B. Resnik on Stakes and Kidneys: Why Markets in Human Body Parts are Morally Imperative, pp. 169-70.

BOOKS RECEIVED (pp. 171-5).

All issues of the Journal of Moral Philosophy are available on 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, Fabian Freyenhagen (Essex).

The APA Philosophy and Law Newsletter

2008-07-10T12:50:00.000+01:00

. . . is available here. This edition is a special tribute to the work of Peter French.

JOB: Knightbridge Professorship of Philosophy, Cambridge

2008-07-10T12:49:00.000+01:00

Details here.

Joseph Carens on "The Rights of Irregular Migrants"

2008-07-10T12:41:00.000+01:00

. . . can be found here, at Ethics and International Affairs. An abstract:

This article considers the question of what legal rights should be possessed by those who reside and work in a democratic state without the legal authorization of the state, given the background assumption that the state is morally entitled to exclude such migrants. I argue that irregular migrants are morally entitled to a wide range of legal rights, including basic human and civil rights, but also rights to wages, workplace protections, and even rights to public education for their children. In order for these rights to be realized in practice, I argue, states ought to create a firewall between those charged with protecting and enforcing these rights and those charged with enforcing immigration laws.

This article is followed by an excellent symposium, including a paper by David Miller.

James Pattison on "Just War Theory and the Privatization of Military Force"

2008-07-10T12:39:00.000+01:00

. . . can be found here, at Ethics and International Affairs. An abstract:

The use of private military companies (PMCs) has become increasingly prevalent, with such firms as Blackwater, MPRI, and DynCorp taking over a growing number of roles traditionally performed by the regular military. This article uses the framework of just war theory (JWT) to consider the central normative issues raised by this privatization of military force. In particular, I first examine the claim that private contractors are inappropriate actors to wage war because they contravene the JWT principle of right intention.

The next section asserts that the use of PMCs is largely consistent with the application of the principle of legitimate authority but undermines two of its central rationales.

In the third section, I apply the jus in bello principle of discrimination to PMC personnel. Overall, I argue that JWT needs to be updated and extended to respond to the issues raised by the privatization of military force.

Hubert Dreyfus on Heidegger

2008-07-10T10:27:00.000+01:00

Outstanding podcasts, available here.

British universities and demographics

2008-07-10T10:18:00.000+01:00

The BBC reports here on increasing concerns by some vice chancellors about the ever shrinking number of 18-20 year olds predicted for the UK over the next two decades.