This Wednesday, 8 September, from 5-6.30pm in ib3.307 the Deakin Philosophical Society will wrap up its discussion of designer babies and biotechnology with a chapter from Francis Fukuyama’s Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution. In the chapter in question Fukuyama makes the case for regulation of gene technology. Hard copies are available on my office door, ic1.211. The chapter is also available online at www.deakinphilosophicalsociety.com/texts/fukuyama/posthuman.pdf

Fukuyama, F (2002), ‘The Political Control of Biotechnology’, in Our Posthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution, Picador, New York, pp. 181-94.

Dr Liezl van Zyl
Virtue and Right: The Plight of the Non-Virtuous
Thursday 16 September from 3-4.20pm in c2.05 (ArtsEd meeting room), Burwood and videolinked to jb2.107, Waurn Ponds

Dr Liezl van Zyl, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy and Religious Studies at The University of Waikato, New Zealand, will give the next in our series of special presentations. Dr Van Zyl’s presentation is entitled Virtue and Right: The Plight of the Non-Virtuous and will take place on Thursday 16 September from 3-4.20pm in c2.05 (ArtsEd meeting room), Burwood and videolinked to jb2.107, Waurn Ponds. Here is an abstract:

Virtue ethicists have long been under pressure to show that, despite its focus on character, it is able to provide an account of right action. In response to this, Aristotelian virtue ethicists – most notably Rosalind Hursthouse – have defined an act as right if and only if it is what a virtuous agent would characteristically do in the circumstances. In this paper I discuss two closely related objections to this criterion, both of which relate to the actions of the non-virtuous. The first is that virtue ethics fails to provide correct action guidance and assessment in cases that involve non-virtuous agents, for in some cases a non-virtuous agent should not do what a virtuous person would characteristically do. A second objection is that virtue ethics altogether fails to provide action guidance and evaluation whenever the agent, through previous wrongdoing, finds herself in circumstances in which a virtuous person cannot be.

Dr van Zyl’s aim is to defend Hursthouse’s account of right action against these objections. She will do so by first drawing attention to the different senses in which the concept ‘right action’ can be used, namely as referring to(a) the act that ought to be done and (b) a good or excellent action. Where (a) is the relevant sense of right action when seeking action guidance, (b) is relevant when assessing an action. Dr Liezl van Zyl will then argue that if we understand ‘right action’ in the second sense, then Hursthouse’s criterion does allow us to accurately assess the actions performed by non-virtuous agents. Finally, when it comes to providing action guidance, Dr Liezl van Zyl agree that the criterion is inadequate, but argue that this problem can be avoided by viewing it solely as a means of action assessment while turning to the virtue- and vice-rules (v-rules) for action guidance.

Dr van Zyl’s main research interests are virtue ethics and applied ethics, and her focus is on questions that arise when trying to apply virtue ethics. She is the author of Death and Compassion: A virtue-ethical approach to euthanasia (Ashgate, 2000), as well as numerous journal articles.

Dr van Zyl’s presentation is hosted by the Philosophy program in the School of International and Political Studies, the Alfred Deakin Institute and the Deakin Philosophical Society.

Kind Regards,

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

Designer Babies, Week 2
Why We Should Select the Best Children
Wednesday 1 September from 5-6.30pm in ib3.307

This Wednesday, 1 September, from 5-6.30pm in ib3.307 the Deakin Philosophical Society will continue the discussion on designer babies. Last week Jason Bishop introduced us to the science of, and raised the central ethical questions surrounding, genetic testing and modification. This week we’ll look at an argument why parents ‘should select embryos or fetuses which are most likely to have the best life, based on available genetic information’. Julian Savulescu, an Australian philosopher who was at the time Director of the ethics program at The Murdoch Children’s Research Institute at The Royal Children’s Hospital, made the argument in his 2001 article in Bioethics entitled, ‘Procreative Beneficence: Why We Should Select the Best Children’ (vol. 15, no. 5/6, pp. 413-26). A copy of that article is available online at www.deakinphilosophicalsociety.com/texts/savulescu/procreativebeneficence.pdf. Hard copies will be available on the door of my office, ic1.211, from Tuesday morning. Here is the abstract:

Eugenic selection of embryos is now possible by employing in vitro
fertilization (IVF) and preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). While
PGD is currently being employed for the purposes of detecting chromosomal
abnormalities or inherited genetic abnormalities, it could in principle be
used to test any genetic trait such as hair colour or eye colour.

Genetic research is rapidly progressing into the genetic basis of complex
traits like intelligence and a gene has been identified for criminal
behaviour in one family. Once the decision to have IVF is made, PGD has
few `costs’ to couples, and people would be more inclined to use it to select
less serious medical traits, such as a lower risk of developing Alzheimer
Disease, or even for non-medical traits. PGD has already been used to
select embryos of a desired gender in the absence of any history of sex-linked
genetic disease.

I will argue that: (1) some non-disease genes affect the likelihood of us
leading the best life; (2) we have a reason to use information which is
available about such genes in our reproductive decision-making; (3)
couples should select embryos or fetuses which are most likely to have the
best life, based on available genetic information, including information
about non-disease genes. I will also argue that we should allow selection
for non-disease genes even if this maintains or increases social inequality.
I will focus on genes for intelligence and sex selection.

I will defend a principle which I call Procreative Beneficence: couples
(or single reproducers) should select the child, of the possible children they
could have, who is expected to have the best life, or at least as good a life as
the others, based on the relevant, available information.

A number of rebuttals appeared in the journal, available online through the Deakin library, for anyone interested in the counterarguments and objections. You can access the journal if you log in via this link to the Deakin library.

Savulescu’s article is lucid and summarises many of the arguments for and against genetic engineering.

Stan van Hooft
Hope and Religion
Thursday 2 September from 3-5pm in ib3.307

In other news, Deakin’s own Stan van Hooft will provide the next in our series of special presentations, this Thursday 2 September from 3-5pm in ib3.307. Associate Professor van Hooft’s presentation will be on the topic of hope and religion:

Hope and hopefulness are ways in which we acknowledge the precariousness of our projects and the vulnerability of our existence. I will introduce the notion of “metaphysical hope” as an expression of eight features of hope and I argue that faith in God is not based upon rational argument or evidence. It is produced by metaphysical hope.

Stan van Hooft’s books include Caring: An Essay in the Philosophy of Ethics (1995), Facts and Values: An Introduction to Critical Thinking for Nurses (1995), Life, Death, and Subjectivity: Moral Sources for Bioethics (2004), Caring about Health (2006), Understanding Virtue Ethics (2006), and Cosmopolitanism: A Philosophy for Global Ethics (2009). He is currently researching issues in global ethics and political philosophy, the concept of caring in contemporary moral theory, and the role of hope in politics and religion.

Stan’s talk is hosted by the Philosophy program in the School of International and Political Studies, the Alfred Deakin Institute and the Deakin Philosophical Society.

Kind Regards,

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

This Wednesday, 25th August the Deakin Philosophical Society will begin looking at bioethics. Jason Bishop will get us underway with his presentation, ‘Designer Babies: An Overview of the Technology and Ethical Implications’. Jason’s presentation begins at 5pm in ib3.307 on the Waurn Ponds campus. The meeting will finish at 6pm this week due to Philosophy Café beginning at 7pm at The Barking Dog hotel.

Dr Matthew Sharpe
Marcus Aurelius – Stoic par excellence
Wednesday 25 August from 7-9pm at The Barking Dog hotel

For this month’s philosophy café Dr Matthew Sharpe, Lecturer in Philosophy and Psychoanalytic Studies at Deakin University, will discuss the Stoicism of Marcus Aurelius. This promises to be an enlightening look at philosophy as a way of life.

Dr Sharpe’s presentation begins at 7pm in The Kennel at The Barking Dog hotel, 126 Pakington st, Geelong West.

Dr Jack Reynolds
Analytic versus Continental: Arguments on the Methods and Value of Philosophy
Thursday 26 August from 3-5pm in ib3.307

This Thursday we also have the next in our series of guest speakers at Deakin University. Jack Reynolds, Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at La Trobe University, will present ‘Analytic versus Continental: Arguments on the Methods and Value of Philosophy’. Dr Reynolds will advance some of the key arguments of his book by the same name.

An article by Dr Reynolds on the analytic-continental divide can be freely accessed online: Reynolds, J 2006, ‘Sadism and Masochism – A Symptomatology of Analytic and Continental Philosophy?’, Parrhesia: A Journal of Critical Philosophy, No. 1, pp. 88-111.

The presentation begins at 3pm in ib3.307 on the Waurn Ponds campus.

Regards,

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

This Wednesday 11 August from 5pm in ib3.307 Professor Renata Salecl will present Tyranny of Choice and the Desire to Control the Future: Subjectivity in Late Capitalism. This presentation is open to the public and will be video-linked to room he3.002 on the Burwood campus.

Renata Salecl is Professor of Law at the London School of Economics and a Senior Researcher in the Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, Slovenia. She also teaches as a Visiting Professor at Cardozo School of Law in New York. She has been Fellow at Wissenschafts Kolleg in Berlin, Visiting Professor of Law at Humbolt University in Berlin, Visiting Humanities Professor at George Washington University in Washington, DC, Visiting Professor at Duke University in Durham, NC, and Fellow at Remarque Institute at NYU.

Her books include On Anxiety, Spoils of Freedom and Perversions of Love and Hate and the edited Sexuations. Her newly published Choice (Profile Books) is a brilliant study of the nature of choice, showing the despair to which limitless freedom can lead. Her work brings together law, criminology and psychoanalysis.

There are a number of Salecl’s publications freely available if you wish to familiarise yourself with her work before Wednesday’s presentation. These are:

Salecl, Renata (2005) ‘Worries in a limitless world’, Cardozo law review, vol. 26, no. 3, from p. 1139

The article has been reproduced here.

There is also a YouTube video, The Paradox of Choice and the audio of a presentation entitled Who Am I For Myself? Anxiety & The Tyranny of Choice.

So, choose!

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

Robert Sinnerbrink
Hollywood in Trouble: David Lynch’s Inland Empire
Wednesday 28 July from 5-7pm in ib3.307

This Wednesday 28 July from 5-7pm in ib3.307 Dr Robert Sinnerbrink (Macquarie University) will present ‘Hollywood in Trouble: David Lynch’s Inland Empire’.

Please note that I listed the wrong date for Dr Sinnerbrink’s presentation in my email last week. The presentation is this Wednesday, not this Thursday.

Just for good measure, you’ll find a good synopsis/analysis of Lynch’s film at http://www.waggish.org/2006/12/28/david-lynchs-inland-empire-hypotheses-and-spoilers/. This should have you primed for Wednesday.

Coming presentation:
Professor Renata Salecl
Tyranny of Choice and the Desire to Control the Future: Subjectivity in Late Capitalism
Wednesday 11 August from 5pm in ib3.307

On Wednesday 11 August from 5pm in ib3.307 Professor Renata Salecl will present Tyranny of Choice and the Desire to Control the Future: Subjectivity in Late Capitalism.

Renata Salecl is Professor of Law at the London School of Economics and a Senior Researcher in the Institute of Criminology at the Faculty of Law in Ljubljana, Slovenia. She also teaches as a Visiting Professor at Cardozo School of Law in New York. She has been Fellow at Wissenschafts Kolleg in Berlin, Visiting Professor of Law at Humbolt University in Berlin, Visiting Humanities Professor at George Washington University in Washington, DC, Visiting Professor at Duke University in Durham, NC, and Fellow at Remarque Institute at NYU.

Her books include On Anxiety, Spoils of Freedom and Perversions of Love and Hate and the edited Sexuations. Her newly published Choice (Profile Books) is a brilliant study of the nature of choice, showing the despair to which limitless freedom can lead. Her work brings together law, criminology and psychoanalysis.

This promises to be another philosophically engaging trimester at Deakin.

Enjoy!

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

Wednesday 21 July from 5-7pm in ib3.307 the Deakin Philosophical Society will screen the first two hours of David Lynch’s Inland Empire in anticipation of Robert Sinnerbrink’s presentation to the DPS on the film next week.

Find a review of the movie here.

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

This Wednesday (May 19) the Deakin Philosophical Society will go a second round on the topic of literature and comedy. Dr Geoff Boucher will defend Northrop Frye’s thesis that comedy, as a literary genre, is defined by reintegration more than humour. We’ll explore this thesis through an excerpt from AC Hamilton’s (1991) Northrop Frye: Anatomy of his criticism (1.5MB).

If you are on campus, hard copies are available at my office (ic1.211), which is in the dungeon of the Arts and Education building.

In other news, The MSCP has released its Winter School program:

The MSCP 2010 Philosophy Winter School
5-23 July
University of Melbourne

Week One (5-9 July)

Andrea León: Lévinas and Derrida: another time at the anarche of subjectivity (11am-1pm)
Mark Hewson: Maurice Blanchot: literature and the ambiguity of the negative (2-4pm)

Week Two (12-16 July)

James Garrett: Heidegger’s Aristotle (11am-1pm)
Martin Black: History of Philosophy II: Plato (2-4pm)

Week Three (19-23 July)

Jon Roffe: Spinoza’s Ethics (11am-1pm)
Dan O’Meara and Cameron Shingleton: Max Weber – Social Philosopher (2-4pm)

Each course consists of 5 x 2-hour seminars.
Fees begin at $80
Enrol now at www.mscp.org.au

The Melbourne School of Continental Philosophy is an independent teaching and research organisation made up of academics and graduates who share the goal of providing philosophy wherever it is needed. The MSCP runs 1-day free workshops in autumn and spring, and teaches a variety of courses at its annual summer and winter schools, and throughout the year in evening classes. Join the MSCP mailing list online to receive updates on mscp and associated philosophical activities. The MSCP is housed by the philosophy department at the University of Melbourne.

Regards,

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

Dark Knights: Exploring the Deceptive Heroics of Philosopher Kings, Princes and Übermenschen
Dr Kim Huynh, Lecturer in Political Science and International Relations
Australian National University
Wednesday, May 12 from 4pm in ib3.307

This Wednesday the Deakin Philosophical Society weekly meeting will be tranformed into a free film night followed by a guest presentation by Dr Kim Huynh from ANU. There will be a screening of Batman: The Dark Knight from 4pm in ib3.307 (the regular meeting time and place), followed at 6.35pm by Dr Huynh’s presentation: ‘Dark Knights: Exploring the Deceptive Heroics of Philosopher Kings, Princes and Übermenschen’. Here is a summary of Dr Huynh’s presentation:

Plato’s philosopher kings, Machiavelli’s prince and Nietzsche’s Übermensch (Over-man) are among the most infamous figures in Western political philosophy. Their shady reputations grow in large part out of a shared willingness to deceive. Philosopher kings deceive in order to maintain stability and virtue within the polis. From this perspective, society is underpinned by certain myths which, while not technically true, have nonetheless become imperative for people to prosper. Nietzsche’s Übermensch has also dispensed with comforting illusions, particularly of a religious nature. However, the Übermensch has an ambivalent relationship with truth. While believing that the vast majority of people are incapable or unwilling to grasp the ultimate vacuousness of human existence, the Übermensch retains an impish desire to puncture orthodoxies and thereby toy with the prospect of social disintegration. Machiavelli’s prince asserts that the ultimate amorality of politics makes it necessary for the prince to act immorally. The prince must lie and deceive in order to secure stability and glory for the city-state. Indeed, the honesty and virtue of all citizens rest on his capacity to be mendacious and cruel. This paper compares and contrasts these alluring figures in the context of contemporary Australian politics (including case studies of John Howard, Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd) and popular culture (concentrating on the Hollywood action blockbuster Batman: The Dark Knight). By bringing together and analysing these individuals, ideas, stories and events, the paper considers the value of truth and honesty in politics.

This is a free public event.

Guests are quite welcome to arrive at 6.35pm for Dr Huynh’s presentation.

If you have any questions, send me a reply email.

Regards,

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.

Following our discussion of Hamlet and tragedy, this week the Deakin Philosophical Society will discuss comedy. Matthew Sharpe will lead the discussion.

The meeting will be based around two readings. The first is an excerpt from Alenka Zupančič’s (2007, pp. 200-211 inclusive) The Odd One In: On Comedy; the second is a paper by Matt and serves an as introduction to what Zupančič is talking about, and the position from which she is speaking. In his presentation, Matt will also link up some of this material to other attempts to understand comedy.

The title of the Zupančič excerpt translates from the German as (approximately) ‘Where is the phallus going in today’s times?’

Regards,

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society

Jason Freddi, PhD candidate at Melbourne University, will be on the Waurn Ponds campus this Wednesday guest lecturing for the Philosophy, Freud and Reason unit. I thought I’d take advantage of Jason’s presence and invite him to present at the Philosophical Society on Shakespeare, the subject of his PhD. Jason kindly accepted and will discuss Shakespeare and tragedy at this week’s meeting, (tomorrow)Wednesday, April 28 from 4-5.30pm in ib3.307. In particular, Jason will address the question ‘What makes Hamlet a tragedy?’

You can access the reading that will form the backbone of Jason’s presentation at http://deakinphilosophicalsociety.com/texts/nuttall/shakespearethethinker.pdf. It is an excerpt from AD Nuttall’s (2007) Shakespeare the thinker. There are no page numbers on the PDF file, but the pages are in order and run from 192-205 inclusive.

Philosophy Café
Marie Kuchenmeister OAM
A Philosophy of meaningful employment: adults with special needs
Wednesday, April 28
7-9pm at The Barking Dog hotel

Philosophy café is also on this Wednesday from 7pm at The Barking Dog hotel, 126 Pakington st Geelong West. This month Marie Kuchenmeister OAM will present ‘A Philosophy of meaningful employment: adults with special needs’

Philosophy Café is a free public event sponsored by Deakin University’s School of International and Political Studies.

Regards,

Dylan Nickelson,
President, Deakin Philosophical Society.