Search Results for:
deferring
20 April, 2021
Richard Arneson: Should we reward the deserving? Some puzzles

Richard Arneson: Should we reward the deserving? Some puzzles

Do plausible fundamental principles of justice incorporate the idea of rewarding the deserving? Utilitarianism is famously indifferent between a world in which saints fare badly and scoundrels fare we

Read more
21 January, 2021

Richard Arneson: Should we reward the deserving? Some puzzles

Richard Arneson is a political philosopher with a special interest in theories of social justice.  AbstractDo plausible fundamental principles of justice incorporate the idea of rewarding the deserving?

Read more
26 November, 2024

Why Morality and Other Forms of Normativity are Sometimes Dramatically Directly Collectively Self-Defeating

Arbetsrapport 2024:3Del av Studies in the Ethics of Coordination and Climate Change Abstract In a prisoner’s dilemma, if everyone follows the strategy of self-interest, then everyone is certain to be wo

Type of publication: Working papers | Budolfson, Mark |
Read more
06 April, 2018

Non Ideal Social Ontology III

By 'non-ideal social ontology', we have in mind social ontology that starts with difficult, complicated cases of immediate importance to social theory, rather than starting from simplified or abstractOur thinking is that just as critical philosophers of race such as Charles Mills have made a case for the importance of non-ideal political philosophy, non-ideal social ontology could play an important role in advancing emancipatory social theory. 09.00 Welcome 09.15–10.30 Robin Zheng (Yale-NUS College) “Responding to Bias: Oughts, Ideals, and Appraisals” 11.00–12.15 Åsa Burman (Stockholm University & Institute for Futures Studies) ”Collective responsibility for implicit bias” 12.15–13.30 Lunch 13.30–14.45 Katharina Berndt Rasmussen (Institute for Futures Studies) ”Implicit bias and discrimination” 15.15–16.30 Alex Madva (California State Polytechnic University), ”Responsibility for Interpreting Implicit Bias” 19.00 Workshop dinner 09.00–10.15 Rebecca Mason (University of San Francisco) ”Oppression and Incredulity” 10.30–11.45 Johan Brännmark (Malmö University) ”Institutions, Ideology, and Non-Ideal Social Ontology” 11.45–13.15 Lunch 13.15–14.30 Staffan Carlshamre (Stockholm University) ”Natural kinds, social kinds, mixed kinds” 14.45–16.00 Katharine Jenkins (University of Nottingham) ”Sex and gender, grounding and anchoring” Organized by Åsa Burman & Katharina Berndt Rasmussen. Sponsored by Jane and Dan Olsson Foundation, Institute for Futures Studies, and the Department of Philosophy, Stockholm University Questions? Please contact:

Read more
22 October, 2013

Debating demography

This week the newspaper Upsala Nya Tidning published an article by Joakim Palme, former CEO at the Institute, on how we can meet the challenge of an ageing population. Educating young people is necess

Read more
30 October, 2017

Arne Jarrick & Maria Wallenberg Bondesson: The cultural dynamics of law-making – A world history

Prof. Arne Jarrick and PhD. Maria Wallenberg Bondesson, Centre for the study of Cultural Evolution at Stockholm University and Institute for Futures Studies.ABSTRACTOur presentation gives significant hig

Read more
20 November, 2018

Against lifetime QALY prioritarianism

Journal of Medical Ethics 44: 109-113. doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2017-104250 Abstract Lifetime quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) prioritarianism has recently been defended as a reasonable specification o

Type of publication: Journal articles | Herlitz, Anders
Read more
20 November, 2018

Comparativism and the Grounds for Person-Centered Care and Shared Decision Making

Journal of clinical ethics 28(4): 269-278. Abstract This article provides a new argument and a new value-theoretical ground for person-centered care and shared decision making that ascribes to it the rol

Type of publication: Journal articles | Herlitz, Anders
Read more
25 March, 2021

Different Populations Agree on Which Moral Arguments Underlie Which Opinions

Frontiers in Psychology AbstractPeople often justify their moral opinions by referring to larger moral concerns (e. g., “It isunfairif homosexuals are not allowed to marry!” vs. “Letting homosexuals matraditions!”). Is there a general agreement about what concerns apply to different moral opinions? We used surveys in the United States and the United Kingdom to measure the perceived applicability of eight concerns (harm, violence, fairness, liberty, authority, ingroup, purity, and governmental overreach) to a wide range of moral opinions. Within countries, argument applicability scores were largely similar whether they were calculated among women or men, among young or old, among liberals or conservatives, or among people with or without higher education. Thus, the applicability of a given moral concern to a specific opinion can be viewed as an objective quality of the opinion, largely independent of the population in which it is measured. Finally, we used similar surveys in Israel and Brazil to establish that this independence of populations also extended to populations in different countries. However, the extent to which this holds across cultures beyond those included in the current study is still an open question.

Type of publication: Journal articles | Vartanova, Irina , & Isabela Hazin Eriksson, Kimmo , & Isabela Hazin Strimling, Pontus , & Isabela Hazin
Read more
12 December, 2014

Human enhancement and technological uncertainty

Defending the dissertation Human enhancement and technological uncertainty. Essays on the promise and peril of emerging technology by Karim Jebari. Dissertation in Philosophy at KTH in Stockholm. Opponent

Defending the dissertation Human enhancement and technological uncertainty. Essays on the promise and peril of emerging technology by Karim Jebari.
Read more