What's the current state of ethical and political philosophy? I'd love to brush up on the current issues being discussed.
should you listen to a police officer aiming a gun at you if you are high on horse tranquilizers and walking toward him with a knife
>>328552
I'm most interested in normative ethics, justice and human rights if that narrows it a little.
>>328560
>human rights
nice meme
There has to be someone who is up to date on the academic literature for these topics
>>328572
Stirner pls go
>>328572
My international law professor is a judge at the Interamerican Court of Human Rights, he voted in favour of the venezuelan government in the case against RCTV, luckily the other judges voted in favor of RCTV and they won.
>>328552
I'm not super up to date on the political philosophy but I know there have been several collections out in recent years on human rights. Routledge released one in the past couple years. As far as normative ethics goes, there's still basically the three main theories (utilitarian, Kantian, virtue ethics) and much of the debates going on relate to specific issues being resolved within those theories themselves. For instance, virtue ethicists have been dealing with how exactly to characterize a trait in a manner which lends itself to empirical study. Virtue theory has actually been gaining some steam outside of virtue ethic itself though. Julia Driver has developed a utilitarian theory of virtue, a lot of Kantians have looked more closely at deontological virtues, virtues in general are a big thing in the literature as well as whether or not character traits are even a thing (John Doris doesn't seem to really think so). Christine Swanton also has a sort of Nietzschean virtue theory. There's also been what I perceive to be attempts to combine various ethical theories into a master theory. Derek Parfit thinks he's done this in "On What Matters," and although Rosalind Hursthouse doesn't do it explicitly, I think her work points toward a theory which could show that the semantics of various theories only indicates the sorts of things those theorists have paid closer attention to but not that they are substantially different from many other theories.
>>329016
Lolwat
What was his rationale?
>>329024
What do you know of justice? Did Rawls and Amartya Sen have the last say on the topic or is it still open to debate?
>>329065
Basically that the case was about freedom of business and not freedom of expression
>>329024
>all these women
>>329132
I'm not very into political philosophy but I would be very surprised if the debate were settled. Michael Sandel is popular, I know. I'm not sure how far he departs from them or if he does since, again, it isn't really my thing.
>>329144
Ethics, especially normative and applied, have more women than other areas of philosophy, virtue ethics/theory in particular. There are boring sociological reasons for that which I could explain, but it's boring.
>>329132
>Rawls
>final say
>literally blown the fuck out by Robert Nozick
>>329170
>Robert Nozick
>Nozick challenged the partial conclusion of John Rawls' Second Principle of Justice of his A Theory of Justice, that "social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are to be of greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society."
Wikipedia doesn't say exactly how he does this.
>>329199
No, but the book does.
Maybe you should read his book Anarchy,State and Utopia.
