|
A series of public lectures sponsored by the Center for Values and Social Policy in the Department of Philosophy, CU-Boulder. These lectures are funded through the generosity of The Collins Foundation.
Unless otherwise noted, all talks run from 7:30 to 9:00 p.m. in the Old Main Chapel, on the CU Boulder campus. All lectures are free and intended for the public. Contact Emma Kobil with any questions.
Spring 2010 Schedule
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
"What Is Wrong with the World, and Who Is to Blame?"
Michael Tooley (University of Colorado)
The list of things that are wrong with the world would be a very long one indeed. I shall argue, however, that most of the world’s ills have their source in three related things: irrational beliefs, the absence of a capacity for critical thought, and a general unwillingness to think seriously about important matters.
If this is right, who is to blame? The obvious answer is that educators are to blame. It would be difficult initially, however, to make the needed changes at the primary and secondary school levels because of the control that communities and politicians exercise over the schools. The universities, however, are not generally subject to such control, and their failure to develop in students a strong capacity for critical thought, to provide students with crucial information, and to encourage them very strongly to think seriously about fundamental beliefs and values, is unacceptable.
7:30 to 9:00 p.m. in the Old Main Chapel. Free and open to the public.
more Think! talks to come ... check back soon ...
Fall 2009 Schedule
Tuesday, October 20
"It Shouldn't Happen to a Dog, or a Chicken: Why You Shouldn't Eat Meat"
Alastair Norcross (University of Colorado)
If someone were to torture dogs just for human pleasure, we would be outraged (remember Michael Vick?), and rightly so. But every year in the US alone billions of animals suffer horribly while being intensively reared for human consumption. Given the easy availability of cheap vegetarian foods, eating meat is no more essential to human well-being than is attendance at dog-fighting events. Why think it's acceptable to do to chickens, pigs, and veal calves what would be unconscionable to do to dogs?
7:30 to 9:00 p.m. in the Old Main Chapel. Free and open to the public.
Tuesday, October 6
"America’s Crumbling Economy"
Michael Huemer (University of Colorado)
What just happened to America's economy? What caused the housing bubble, and what should we do, as individuals and as a society, to prevent similar occurrences in the future? Will the government's stimulus measures help, or only make things worse? What lies ahead for the U.S. economy? Philosophy professor Michael Huemer will discuss these and other questions this Tuesday evening.
7:30 to 9:00 p.m. in the Old Main Chapel. Free and open to the public
Thursday, August 6
"Abortion and Personal Identity"
Don Marquis (University of Kansas)
5:30 - 7:00 pm, Humanities 1B50. Free and open to the public.
Abstract: Abortion is presumptively seriously immoral for the same reason it is wrong to end YOUR life: Ending your life deprives you of the experiences you would have valued had you continued to live. Some have argued that because no fetus is the same person as the adult she would become, an abortion is different from ending the life of an older human being in a morally significant way. I argue that this view is incorrect.
Spring 2009 Schedule
Tuesday, January 27
"Where Is My Mind?"
Rob Rupert (CU-Boulder)
7:30 - 9:00 pm, Old Main Chapel, Free and open to the public.
This lecture critically evaluates the view that the mind extends into the environment. Recent decades have seen an explosion of scientific research on the mind. Much of this work emphasizes the environment's active role in human problem-solving. What does the success of such research tell us about the mind? Do external contributors to problem-solving partly constitute the human mind? Is, for instance, my computer's hard drive part of me? Some philosophers and cognitive scientists say 'yes', and we shall try to understand and evaluate the reasons offered in support of this revolutionary claim.
Monday, March 2
"Making a Virtue of Selfishness? A Debate about Ayn Rand's Ethics"
Onkar Ghate (Ayn Rand Institute) and Michael Huemer (CU-Boulder)
7:30 - 9:00 pm, Old Main Chapel, Free and open to the public
Dr. Onkar Ghate: "Ayn Rand challenges the idea, dominant in the West since Christianity, that morality consists of commandments. Even though this conception of morality has often been secularized, its essence has remained:
the source of morality is something external to the self, to which the self owes obedience. In sharp contrast, Rand correctly argues that the nature and purpose of morality is to teach one how to achieve one's self-interest."
Dr. Michael Huemer: "Ayn Rand champions an excessively egoistic ethic, one in which individuals must place themselves before everyone and everything else. This ethic can lead one to hurt, exploit, or simply ignore the needs of others, when it suits one's own interests to do so. Rand's ethic of selfishness clashes with the moral sense of philosophers, spiritual leaders, and ordinary people the world over. These people are not all wrong -- Ayn Rand is wrong."
Link to mp3: selfish.mp3
Tuesday, April 14
"Freedom in the Making of Peace "
Ajume WIngo (CU-Boulder)
Why is virulent conflict such a fixture of life in most of the developing world? Why is it that in the wake of bloody conflicts, people in the developing world look not to justice (as in the Western world) but to reconciliation as a way forward to peaceful coexistence? Dr. Ajume Wingo argues that the conflicts we find in Africa and the Middle East do not imply that ethnic, cultural, political, religious, and cultural differences between parties there are necessarily deeper or more passionate than those found between groups in Western Europe or North America. Why, and how, different societies respond to deep differences between individuals and groups holds the key to understanding the bloodletting conflicts we see in different societies around the world today. He also will examine Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy's recent proposal for a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to address the misdeeds of the Bush administration.
7:30 - 9:00 pm, Old Main Chapel, Free and open to the public.
Fall 2008 Schedule
Tuesday, October 7
"What's Wrong with Racial Profiling"
David Boonin (CU-Boulder)
Racial profiling is a policy that takes race (or perceived race) into account when determining which people should be investigated, or how thoroughly they should be investigated, in the attempt to reduce crime. Polls consistently show that most Americans, all across the political spectrum, find it objectionable. But while it seems clear to many people that racial profiling is wrong, Dr. Boonin will argue that it is surprisingly difficult to say just what, precisely, is wrong with it.
7:30-9:00 p.m., Old Main Chapel, Free and open to the public.
Tuesday, October 28
"An Athiest Defends Intelligent Design"
Bradley Monton (CU-Boulder)
The doctrine of intelligent design has been maligned by atheists, but even though I'm an atheist, I'm of the opinion that the arguments for intelligent design are stronger than most realize. After trying to figure out what the doctrine of intelligent design actually is, I'll argue that it's legitimate to view intelligent design as science, that there are somewhat plausible arguments for the existence of a cosmic designer, and that intelligent design should be taught in public school science classes.
7:30-9:00 p.m., Old Main Chapel, Free and open to the public.
Link to mp3: id.mp3
Tuesday, November 18
"Why You Don't Have to Love Nature to Be Green"
Ben Hale (CU-Boulder)
7:30-9:00 p.m., Old Main Chapel, Free and open to the public.
For many years running, the clarion call of environmentalism has been to extol the virtues of nature, to carry on about the magnificence of mountains and polar bears. Nature's preciousness has been trumpeted by almost all of the luminaries in the environmental movement. And yet, this sentimental refrain doesn't resonate with the millions of people who simply don't find nature all that compelling. In this talk, I'll side with the challenger. I'll argue that though you wouldn't know it by asking your environmentalist
friends, you don't have to love nature to be green.
Spring 2008 Schedule
Thursday, February 21st
"Why No One Needs to Fear Going to Hell"
Wes Morriston (CU-Boulder)
In June 2007, the Gallup Poll reported that eighty six percent of Americans believe in God, and that sixty nine percent believe in hell. Dr. Morriston will argue that if you believe in God, you probably should not believe in hell -- at least not if you think that God is very good and hell is a very bad place to be. Along the way, he'll be taking a critical look at one popular attempt to explain why a just and loving God would allow many people to spend eternity in hell -- an application of the so-called free will defense to the special case of hell.
7:30-9:00 p.m., Old Main Chapel, Free and open to the public.
Click here for an audio recording of this event.
Click here for Professor Morriston's slides from this lecture.
Thursday, March 6th
"Two Cheers for Affirmative Action"
David Boonin (CU-Boulder)
People on both sides of the affirmative action debate tend to agree that the issue is a matter of justice. Defenders of the practice maintain that affirmative action is morally required while opponents maintain that it is morally prohibited. One side thinks it's wrong to practice affirmative action, in other words, while the other side thinks it's wrong not to do so. In this talk, Professor Boonin will critically examine a number of arguments that have been given for and against affirmative action and will argue that both sides are wrong.
7:30-9:00 p.m., Old Main Chapel, Free and open to the public.
Thursday, April 24th
"Is Virtue Only a Means to Happiness? An Analysis of Virtue and Happiness in Ayn Rand's Writings"
Neera Badhwar (University of Oklahoma)
In Ayn Rand's ethics, as presented in her fiction and philosophic works, what is the ultimate value and what is its relationship to virtue? Professor Badhwar will argue that Rand's views on these topics are inconsistent, but that the dominant view in her fiction is that the ultimate value is happiness, understood as eudaimonia (rather than life), and that virtue is partly constitutive of happiness (rather than merely a means to it). This dominant view is also the true view. Along the way, she will also examine Rand's view of the emotions and compare her ethical views with Aristotle's.
7:30-9:00 p.m., Old Main Chapel, Free and open to the public.
Fall 2007 Schedule
Thursday, September 13th
"The Search for Extraterrestrials: What is Life?"
Carol Cleland (CU-Boulder)
Abstract:
Many scientists and lay persons assume that the search for extraterrestrial life requires a definition of "life." I argue that this is a mistake. What is needed to answer the scientific question "what is life?" is not a definition but a general theory of living systems, which we currently lack.
In the absence of such a theory, we are in a position analogous to someone from the seventeenth century trying to define "water" before the advent of molecular theory. No analysis of the seventeenth century concept of water could have revealed that water is H20. Yet this is what is required to answer the question "what is water?" The upshot is that it is a mistake to design instrument packages for detecting extraterrestrial life around a specific definition of "life." But this seems to result in a dilemma: If we don't have a definition of "life" to guide the design of biological instrument packages, how will we recognize truly alien life if we find it?
I discuss a strategy for circumventing this problem.
Public Lecture: Claudia Mills (CU-Boulder)
Thursday, October 11th
8:00 to 9:30 p.m. in the Old Main Chapel
"Honor Thy Mother and Father. But Why? "
Public Lecture: Simon Sparks (Oglethorpe University)
Thursday, November 8th
8:00 to 9:30 p.m. in the Old Main Chapel
"What Counts As Art?"
Spring 2007 Schedule
Tuesday, January 23rd
"Dangerous Professors and Academic Freedom"
Alison Jaggar (CU-Boulder)
Abstract:
This talk offers an account of academic freedom. By way of context, it begins with a brief history of challenges to academic freedom at the University of Colorado and then turns to the following questions. Who enjoys academic freedom and which of their activities does it protect? What is the relationship of academic freedom to constitutionally and internationally protected civil liberties? From whom or what does academic freedom provide protection? Is academic freedom compatible with public accountability? What are the rationales for academic freedom?
Tuesday, March 13th
"Justice in War: A Debate "
Yaron Brook (Ayn Rand Institute) and Martin Cook (US Air Force Academy)
Note: This event will be held in the Wittemyer Courtroom in the Wolf Law Building, here), at the usual time of 8 to 9:30 p.m.
Dr. Martin Cook (abstract & bio)
For centuries the "just war tradition" has provided a moral framework for assessing the justification for the use of military force and also the methods for its application. The "sole remaining superpower" status of the United States, coupled with the exigencies of the "war on terror" (or "the long war") raise questions about the continued applicability of that tradition. Dr. Cook will examine this question and note areas where existing just war standards (especially as codified in International Law) are challenged by this new strategic environment.
Dr. Martin L. Cook is Professor of Philosophy and Deputy Department Head at the United States Air Force Academy. He has lectured widely in the United States to military and civilian audiences, as well as delivered invited lectures to the military educational institutions of the United Kingdom, Ecuador, Norway, Singapore, and Australia. His most recent book is The Moral Warrior: Ethics and Service in the US Military.
Dr. Yaron Brook (abstract & bio)
America's failed "War on Terrorism" is the result, not of any practical inability to defeat the Islamic Totalitarian movement and its state sponsors, but its leaders' moral unwillingness to wage all-out war in self-defense. American leaders accept the altruistic code of "Just War Theory," which demands that a nation follow self-sacrificial restrictions for the sake of its enemies and their supporters. Dr. Brook will advocate an alternative theory of war based on Ayn Rand's ethics of rational egoism, arguing that a government is right to go to war whenever the rights of its citizens are threatened by a foreign aggressor and to do anything necessary to defeat the enemy and return to normal life.
Dr. Yaron Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. A former finance professor, he has published in academic as well as popular publications. In addition to his frequent interviews by the media, he lectures on Objectivism, business ethics, and foreign policy at college campuses and for corporations across America and throughout the world. He is the co-author of "'Just War Theory' vs. American Self-Defense" published in The Objective Standard, Spring 2006.
Tuesday, April 3rd
Michael Tooley (CU-Boulder)
TBA
Fall 2006
Thursday, October 5th, 2006
“Why Johnny Can’t Think or Distinguish Right from Wrong”
Brad Thompson (Clemson)
Abstract
What’s wrong with America’s adolescent boys? Why are they so angry, and why are they committing mass murder in America's government schools? How are we to understand and explain what happened at Columbine high school?
In this lecture, C. Bradley Thompson rejects the leading theories of conservatives and liberals and instead advances a radical proposition—that the cause of America’s epidemic of school shootings is to be found in the schools themselves. He argues that the root cause for all these shootings might very well be found in the destruction of the minds and souls of America's young people by an education establishment bent on using our children as guinea pigs for their bizarre experiments in schooling.
C. Bradley Thompson is the BB&T Research Professor at Clemson University and the Executive Director of the Clemson Institute for the Study of Capitalism.
Thursday, November 16th, 2006
“What We Owe to Animals: A Debate”
David Barnett and Robert Hanna (CU-Boulder)
David Barnett (abstract)
People who take the interests of men more seriously than those of women are sexists. People who take the interests of whites more seriously than those of blacks are racists. And people who take the interests of humans more seriously than those of non-humans are speciesists. Today sexism and racism are generally considered immoral. Speciesism, however, continues to be seen as morally acceptable. Most people believe, for instance, that it is more important to prevent humans from experiencing pain than to prevent pigs, chickens, and cows from experiencing pain. Following the lead of Peter Singer, I will argue that speciesism, like sexism and racism, is immoral. If my argument is sound, then we need to reevaluate our treatment of non-human animals, including such practices as factory farming and animal experimentation.
Robert Hanna (abstract)
My argument aims to establish three theses. The first thesis is that
there is good reason to believe that the pain of human or nonhuman animals that are persons in the moral sense, especially insofar as that pain is experienced as suffering, is substantially more morally significant than the pain of any species of animals that are not persons.
This is what I call the Moral Comparison Principle. The Moral Comparison Principle and the argument that supports it jointly entail my second thesis, the Killing-or-Using Principle, which says that
it is morally permissible to kill or use, with some amount of pain, nonhuman animals that are not persons, although the amount of pain inflicted for those purposes should be strictly minimized and it is also impermissible to torture them.
Consistently with both the Moral Comparison Principle and the Killing-or-Using Principle, I think that it is also plausible to assert the following thesis:
by means of an extension of our other-directed moral feelings, we can collectively agree to treat select groups of nonpersons temporarily or permanently as if they were persons.
This is what I will call Associate Membership in the Kingdom of Ends. The conjunction of these three theses is what I will call the Person-Based Theory of the morality of our treatment of nonhuman animals.
Thursday, December 7th, 2006
“Integral Ecology”
Michael Zimmerman (CU/Boulder)
Abstract
Drawing on the theoretical work of Ken Wilber, Michael E. Zimmerman outlines the principles of integral ecology, a multi-perspectival approach to characterizing and proposing solutions to environmental problems. Integral ecology emphasizes that natural science is crucial for understanding environmental problems, but so are the humanities, social sciences, arts, and other domains of inquiry. Many human-caused environmental problems arise from cultural attitudes and social practices that lie beyond the purview of the natural sciences. While welcoming insight from the perspectives of all pertinent stakeholders and investigators, integral ecology also emphasizes that some perspectives are better - that is, more comprehensive, inclusive, integrative - than others. With co-author Sean Esbjörn-Hargens, Professor Zimmerman is completing a book on this topic, Integral Ecology: Uniting Multiple Perspectives on the Natural World.
|
