BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//CEPPA - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:CEPPA
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://ceppa.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for CEPPA
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Europe/London
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20220327T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20221030T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20230326T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20231029T010000
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
TZOFFSETFROM:+0000
TZOFFSETTO:+0100
TZNAME:BST
DTSTART:20240331T010000
END:DAYLIGHT
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0100
TZOFFSETTO:+0000
TZNAME:GMT
DTSTART:20241027T010000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20231012T143000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20231012T153000
DTSTAMP:20260515T031645
CREATED:20230907T100146Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231010T142205Z
UID:10000426-1697121000-1697124600@ceppa.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk
SUMMARY:Moral Philosophy Reading Group
DESCRIPTION:Location: Edgecliffe G03 and Teams \nThis week we’ll be discussing ‘Physician-Assisted Suicide: Two Moral Arguments’ by Judith Jarvis Thomson. \nContact: ceppadirector@st-andrews.ac.uk
URL:https://ceppa.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/event/moral-philosophy-reading-group-6-2023-09-21-2023-10-12/
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20231012T160000
DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20231012T173000
DTSTAMP:20260515T031645
CREATED:20231002T145119Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20231010T142023Z
UID:10000435-1697126400-1697131800@ceppa.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk
SUMMARY:CEPPA Talk (In person) - Joel Joseph (St Andrews)
DESCRIPTION:Title: Eliminative Harming without Intentions \nLocation: Edgecliffe G03 \nAbstract: Consider the following pair of cases  \nRoughshod. You are driving to the hospital for an emergency life-saving operation. If you do not make it in time\, you will die. However\, Victim is lying in the only road that will get you there in time. Although Victim is not physically obstructing your path\, they are too heavy for you to move aside. You can therefore save yourself only by driving over Victim en route to the hospital\, thereby killing her.  \nObstruction. The case is similar to Roughshod. However\, this time you cannot simply drive over Victim on your way to the hospital. This is because her presence in the road is physically obstructing your path. You can therefore save yourself only by getting out of your car and detonating a bomb next to Victim that will blow her to smithereens\, thereby clearing the road ahead.  \nIt seems impermissible to kill Victim in either case. However\, many find it intuitively plausible that killing Victim in Obstruction is harder to justify killing than it is in Roughshod. The Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) is the only discussed explanation of the moral difference between these two cases. However\, many non-consequentialists find DDE implausible.  \nIn this paper\, I argue that we can distinguish morally between Roughshod and Obstruction without appealing to DDE. I first argue that DDE does not get to the heart of the intuitive moral difference between Roughshod and Obstruction. I then offer an alternative explanation of the moral difference between Roughshod and Obstruction that is extensionally superior to DDE. Finally\, I argue that endorsing my account over DDE is not only theoretically significant\, but that it also has implications for the morality of abortion that differ importantly from DDE. 
URL:https://ceppa.wp.st-andrews.ac.uk/event/ceppa-talk-in-person-joel-joseph-st-andrews/
CATEGORIES:CEPPA Talk
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR