|
A new 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. Questions? Contact Diana Hsieh at Diana.Hsieh@colorado.edu.
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
Past THINK! Talks
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.
|
