Call for Papers
Taming Power in Times of Globalization:
What Role for Human Rights?
Monday, 30 November 2015, and Tuesday, 01 December 2015.
Irish Centre for Human Rights
National University of Ireland Galway
The ways power is exercised today at the global level seems to be qualitatively different, demanding new responses from international law and other relevant disciplines. In particular, it seems that today the exercise of power at the global level is less controllable, less subject to restraints and checks than some decades ago. Global governance, international or global constitutionalism, legal pluralism are terms indicating some of the ways developed in the scholarship to comprehend, analyse and respond to challenges posed by the contemporary forms of exercise of power at the global level.
CALL FOR PAPERS
The ninth annual meeting of the Felician Ethics Conference will be held at the Rutherford Campus of Felician College
223 Montross Ave
Rutherford, NJ 07070
on Saturday, April 25, 2015, 9 am – 6 pm
James Stacey Taylor (The College of New Jersey)
“Markets in Political Votes: A Moral Defense”
Submissions on any topic in moral and political philosophy are welcome, not exceeding 25 minutes’ presentation time (approximately 3,000 words). Please send submissions via email in format suitable for blind review by March 1, 2015 to: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Call For Papers
“Giving for Global Poverty Relief: Ethical and Empirical Dimensions”
Stanford University, April 8th-9th, 2015
The Stanford Center on Philanthropy and Civil Society
The McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society, Stanford University
Peter Singer (Princeton University and University of Melbourne)
It is widely acknowledged that global poverty is a matter of great moral concern, and that efforts to alleviate it ought to be pursued. But there is a great deal of disagreement about a range of ethical and empirical issues concerning aid. The purpose of this conference is to explore these issues and to foster ongoing discussion and collaboration.
The American Section of the International Association for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (AMINTAPHIL) will award prizes to four early career scholars who submit the best papers for the World Congress of the International Society for the Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy (IVR), to be held in Washington, D.C., from 27 July to 1 August in 2015. The writer of each winning paper will receive a $750 cash award. For the purpose of this prize competition, an ‘early career scholar’ includes any scholar who doesn’t currently (in AY 2014/15) hold a tenured position.
Those who wish to apply for the prize should submit a paper, prepared for anonymous review, of no more than 5500 words along with an abstract of no more than 400 words to the Executive Director, Ann Cudd. Applicants should also submit their 400 word abstracts to the IVR program committee: email@example.com. Applicants must be members of AMINTAPHIL to be eligible for the award. Membership rates currently begin at $30, for a two-year term. You may join AMINTAHIL here.
I am genuinely, truly honored by Harry Brighouse’s comments on the last chapter of my book. Brighouse is one of philosophy’s great theorists of education, and I learned a lot from his remarks. Brighouse’s core worry is that my chapter on religion and public education really has very little to say about the interests of children. And isn’t that an odd oversight on my part?
If I were in the business of offering a general account of the justification of educational institutions, then that would be a severe problem. But given the issues I’m focused on, I think things are more complicated. For starters, within public reason, when we speak of the public justification of laws, it is hard to know how to fit children into that scheme in any direct way. What are children’s’ reasons? And how do we publicly justify law to them?
I disagree with a good deal in Chapter 7 of Kevin’s book. In fact, I am extremely sympathetic with the overall project of de-privatizing religious reasons: like Kevin I want a liberalism, and more importantly a polity, in which faith traditions engage and are engaged, in politics on a basis of mutual respect. So the disagreement came as a relief, because there is nothing worse than being assigned commentary on something you agree with. Tthe kind of schooling system I would like to see is considerably different both from the one he rejects and the one he defends in very brief sketch form. This has the inconvenient consequence that engaging and explaining every disagreement would take many more pages than a blog post bears; the reader will be relieved that I am restricting myself to a couple of thousand words, and am willing to take the risk of being misunderstood (and to subject Kevin to that risk – so, if something I attribute to him seems in any way wrong, please assume the error is mine not his!!).
American public schooling is currently arranged roughly as follows: every child is required to have some formal schooling up to age 16 or 18 (depending on the state), and common schools which purportedly promote a common civic identity are provided free at the point of delivery.  Parents can legally refrain from sending their children to such schools, and send them, instead, to private schools which are very lightly regulated, and are permitted to foster sectarian identities (in practice the vast majority of children in private schools attend religious schools); they can also provide homeschooling which is, in most states, even more lightly regulated than private schooling.