[csaa-forum] 2 Papers by Nathaniel Coleman at USyd - 25 Feb & 1 March‏

[MSCP - James Garrett]

Monday 25th February 2013 
13:00-14:30 
University of Sydney,
Philosophy Common Room 

'A RIGHT TO AVOID BLACKS?' 

(http://www.academia.edu/2572656/A_right_to_avoid_blacks [1])


Nathaniel Adam Tobias Coleman 
http://natcphd.me [2] 
University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor (Doctoral candidate) 
Flinders University of South
Australia (Honorary Visiting Research Fellow) 
University of Sydney
(Research Affiliate) 

You have the right, don't you, to avoid anyone,
for any reason? This is not just a right you enjoy against a law that
forces you to associate with a person you prefer to avoid. On the
contrary, it is also a right you enjoy against social criticism. We
might express your right as the following generalised principle: 

G.
For any person P, and for any person Q, P has the right to avoid Q for
any reason at all. 

The principle seems reasonable enough, doesn't it?
However, from this generalised principle, some people infer a racialised
result. For instance, some people think it follows that,  

R: If P is
racialised-as-white, if Q is racialised-as-black, and if P's reason for
avoiding Q is that P has an unfavourable opinion of 'blacks', then P has
a right to avoid Q. 

The philosopher Michael Levin gives an example of
some people who think we can infer the more specific racialised
principle from the generalised principle. Levin tells us that
'Libertarians will wonder why a right to avoid blacks needs any defense
at all, since it falls under voluntary association [. . .]' (1996: 313).
I presume what Levin's 'Libertarians' mean is that 'a right to avoid
blacks' is justified by some theory of voluntary dissociation. I shall
argue that 'a right to avoid blacks' is not justified (a) by any
contemporary theory of voluntary dissociation or (b) by John Stuart
Mill's classical theory of voluntary dissociation.   

*** 

Friday 1st
March 2013 
10:30-12:00 
University of Sydney, Philosophy Common Room


'WHAT IS WRONG WITH [R.M. HARE'S ARGUMENTS AGAINST] SLAVERY'


Nathaniel Adam Tobias Coleman 
http://natcphd.me [3] 
University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor (Doctoral candidate) 
Flinders University of South
Australia (Honorary Visiting Research Fellow) 
University of Sydney
(Research Affiliate)  

 In his article, _What is Wrong with Slavery_
(http://www.utilitarian.net/hare/by/1979----.pdf [4]), Richard Mervyn
Hare--'the greatest utilitarian of this century' (Crisp 2001) and, from
1966 to 1983, occupant of the White's Chair of Moral Philosophy (which
the University of Oxford describes as 'perhaps the most prestigious
chair of moral philosophy in the world', see http://goo.gl/9dRM9
[5])--advanced a 'landmark' (Darwish 2009: 99), 'enlightening' (Singer
2002: 316), 'decisive...', 'full and persuasive' (Shaw 1999: 122; 1995:
51n19) philosophical argument against slavery.  
 Hare's argument has
been generally accepted by philosophers. This is clear from the fact
that, although it was published in 1979, in an early volume of the
journal _Philosophy & Public Affairs_--which, '[f]or over thirty years',
according to Onora O'Neill, 'has set the standard for combining good
writing, rigorous philosophical argument and serious political and
social engagement'--Hare's article has received no detailed, published,
critical response from another philosopher. S. R. L. Clark (1985) is
critical, but superficial; Rawls (1994) is superficial and unpublished.
I plan to publish just such a detailed critical response.  
 My critical
response will be detailed, in that it will carefully distinguish among,
and respond separately to, each of the three distinct arguments against
slavery that Hare advances, in his article: 
1. an argument from
disutility: Slavery is wrong, because it produces misery. 
2. an
argument from inconsistency: Slavery is wrong, because it treats
unequally the equal interests of the free and the enslaved person. 
3.
an argument from authority: Slavery is wrong, because R. M. Hare said
so. 

Needless to say, I think that each of Hare's three arguments
fails.

  

Links:
------
[1]
http://www.academia.edu/2572656/A_right_to_avoid_blacks
[2]
http://natcphd.me/
[3] http://natcphd.me/
[4]
http://www.utilitarian.net/hare/by/1979----.pdf
[5] http://goo.gl/9dRM9
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.cdu.edu.au/pipermail/csaa-forum/attachments/20130221/565ac060/attachment.html