Mass incarceration in the United States of America, Palestine/Israel in a renewed war since October 7, 2023, and displacement of the underclass in nation-states throughout the planet—these are moral situations of group conflicts and catastrophes at national and international levels. These three situations are our main practical points of reflection for moral inquiry and criticism. We discuss these three moral situations of group conflict and catastrophes in the context of critical pragmatism, largely following and analyzing the moral philosophy of critical (...) pragmatist Alain LeRoy Locke (1885—1954). There is also an emphasis on the moral imperative against necro-being—experiencing living death and being prevented, especially by social conditions, from leading good lives. Necro-being should be eradicated in all its forms. Racism explains the experience of destruction in our lives when race is invoked in its most pernicious forms. Racism is a type of necro-being. Universal human liberation from necro-being is a laudable goal every nation on the planet should pursue. (shrink)

In this paper, I consider Brandon Carey’s account of misinformation and raise two counterexamples against it. I argue that while Carey’s account is an improvement on prior accounts of misinformation, it still fails. While I am unsure how exactly to rectify this failure, I argue that a correct account of misinformation needs both a tighter connection between misinformation and its negative epistemic impacts and some limiting condition concerning the venue/context in which misinformation is presented.

Is moral responsibility the same in all contexts? Is it acceptable for our practices of holding responsible to ignore the reality of trauma, inequality, and oppression? Hundreds of philosophers, drawing on P. F. Strawson’s 1962 essay, “Freedom and Resentment,” have argued for accounts of moral responsibility that would, at least implicitly, answer these questions in the affirmative. Yet these affirmative answers are not, I shall argue, Strawson’s view. Strawson argues for a real-world approach to moral responsibility, a facet of his (...) work that should be acknowledged. That facet should also be extended, using insights from feminist philosophers, philosophers of race, and social and political philosophers. The reinterpretation of Strawson I discuss here makes better sense of moral responsibility, and also supports the improvement of our practices in assigning moral responsibility. We can’t understand the nature and limits of our moral demands—demands on ourselves and others—while ignoring the actual conditions in which those demands are deployed. (shrink)

This paper’s main aim is to illuminate how climate activism—which seeks to address the collective existential crisis that is climate change—uniquely intersects with the individual existential crisis that is one’s own death. Addressing climate change seems to minimally require more cooperation and less environmentally unfriendly behavior. However, in virtue of the way discussions on climate change can make nature’s vulnerability—and, relatedly, our own mortality—psychologically salient, climate discourse is capable of engendering existential anxiety. This poses problems for climate activism, as attenuating (...) existential anxiety often relies on forms of self-esteem striving capable of undermining cooperation and exacerbating environmentally unfriendly behavior. I take these problems to have implications for a certain style of discourse made famous by Greta Thunberg: climate shaming. Because of shame’s potential to induce moral maturation/motivational revision, some take climate shaming to be a justified strategy for promoting climate activism. Yet empirical research suggests that climate shaming may often catalyze various self-esteem striving behaviors that lead to the exact opposite of climate shaming’s intended effect(s). In my view, this is because of climate shaming’s problematic potential to engender existential anxiety. If so, climate activists have good reason to abandon the climate shaming strategy. (shrink)

Can agents be duty-bound towards ends that are infeasible? Some scholars have endorsed a “feasibility constraint” on justice and answered that we cannot be duty-bound to bring about the infeasible. In this paper, I question whether the feasibility constraint on justice should still be endorsed and whether we are duty-bound to pursue some aims regardless of this constraint. I ask: Can an ethical agent be duty-bound to work towards bringing about a state of affairs that is desirable but infeasible? I (...) consider the climate crisis: climate justice may require us to work towards ends that may be infeasible, such as maintaining global climate warming below 1.5°C or mitigating climate change in a way that treats all people affected fairly. I argue that we may be duty-bound or obliged to work towards some desirable goals when faced with the infeasible and conclude that we should reject feasibility constraints on climate justice. (shrink)

Robert Nozick is most prominently known as the hero of the anti-taxation movement and chief libertarian. However, in his later writings he introduced a rule that could justify estate taxation of up to 100 percent, the subtraction rule. This paper shows that this subtraction rule is not only compatible with the core pillars of his entitlement theory, but also necessary for self-ownership from a strictly libertarian-individualistic point of view. As such, it deals with the compatibility of such estate taxation with (...) the historical non-patternedness of the entitlement theory as well as with the notion of self-ownership as core elements of Nozickian libertarianism. In particular, it is argued that self-ownership requires an intimate bond or explicit consent between the initial creator of an object and the current inheritor because the initial creator has poured a part of herself into the object. Where that explicit or implicit consent is not given, the transgression of the initial creator’s right has to be compensated by the inheritor. That compensation is realized through estate taxation. The subtraction rule could, therefore, help combat the ever-increasing cascading of wealth through generations and provide a useful tool for a more equal distribution of wealth. (shrink)

The field of transitional justice—concerned as it is with the mechanisms of recovery from societal conflict and mass violence—has long found its de facto home in legal theory. While this is in many respects a natural pairing, I argue that just as transitional justice has expanded in scope from the regime-change paradigm to general situations of human rights violations, so too should our conception of it expand from the purely legalistic to the more explicitly ethical. This paper makes the case (...) that while transitional justice remains undertheorized along ethical dimensions, increased attention to both the ethical underpinnings of justice interventions and the ability of ethical work to center the individual experience might go a great distance towards addressing what Pablo de Greiff has identified as three of the chief challenges facing transitional justice today: insufficient attention to context, formulism, and technocratic tendencies. (shrink)

Democracies face an epistemic crisis: incentivizing bullshit. Here “bullshit”—coined by philosopher Harry Frankfurt—means convincing truth-insensitive statements or claims. This paper focuses on several democratic factors that incentivize bullshit: deliberative transparency, epistemic spillover effects, and rational irrationality. These factors pollute the epistemic commons, decrease institutional trust, and enact epistemic injustice. Unfortunately, it is difficult to separate democratic governance from incentivizing bullshit.

What would it mean for the institutions of finance to be democratized? I explore this question from a broadly Rawlsian conception of justice. In the first part of the paper I outline Rawls’s theory of justice. In the second part I briefly review what Rawls had to say about justice in the economic sphere. Notably, he thought that his conception of justice can only be realized in either “Property-Owning Democracy” or “Liberal Socialism.” I briefly explore the nature of these two (...) “regimes,” before turning my attention to the institutions of finance, and in particular banking. In the third part I discuss the role of finance in contemporary liberal democracies, the social and political power that private banks are endowed with in such societies, and what problems this engenders from the perspective of justice. In the fourth part I argue that, among other things, the democratization of finance would entail wide dispersal of power and control over decisions about finance and investment. In the fifth and final part of the paper, I argue that there are reasons to believe that both of Rawls’s just economic regimes would fail with respect to the distribution of power and control in the economy. (shrink)

Ibram X. Kendi’s bestselling book How to be an Antiracist (2019) has been enormously influential and deserves the serious attention it has received. It follows his important historical work Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America (2016), which is much more scholarly and won the National Book Award the year it came out. But these books seem to take for granted a fairly simple version of cultural relativism in ethics that is widely regarded by moral (...) philosophers as seriously defective. I want to take these doubts further and show that cultural relativism is a disastrous theoretical choice for an anti-racist like Kendi to make. In Section I I explain the kind of relativism I have in mind: agent-based, cultural, normative ethical relativism. In Section II, using the two books I have mentioned, I give textual support to my attribution of this kind of relativism to Kendi. In Section III I argue for my theoretical-disaster claim and defend it against some Kendi-inspired criticism. In Section IV I address some serious relativist doubts about ethical universalism, the opposite of relativism. Finally, in Section V I offer some brief concluding remarks. (shrink)