Event Categories: BSPS Choice Group Conjectures and Refutations Popper Seminar Sigma Club
Past Events › Choice Group
Events List Navigation
Choice Group Seminar by Erica Yu (Erasmus Institute) and Adam Wingårdh (LSE Philosophy)
Erica Yu (Erasmus Institute): 'From Signed Orders to Committee Rankings' Abstract: Given a set of candidates for a committee tasked with representing a population in collective deliberations and decisions, individuals not only have preferences for some candidates over others, but also preferences for a candidate’s inclusion or exclusion in the committee. In addition, the approvals and disapprovals of…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Brian Mcelwee (University of Southampton): ‘The Variability of Moral Demands’
Abstract: Two common thoughts about morality appear to pull us in opposite directions. On the one hand, we may conceive of morality as a common set of rules that equally bind every person. Unlike matters of personal vocation, individual ideals, idiosyncratic tastes and preferences, all of which seem to give reasons to some agents but not others, we tend to conceive…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Benjamin Ferguson (The University of Warwick) and Roberto Veneziani (Queen Mary University of London): ‘What Exploitation Is’
Abstract: We adopt an experimental approach to gauge the philosophers’ view of what exploitation is. Our experimental design does not test existing theories of exploitation. Rather, it focuses on more fundamental properties that are the building blocks for these theories. We find, first, that exploitation is not a vacuous concept: not all economic interactions are deemed exploitative. Second, contrary to several…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Alex Gregory (University of Southampton): ‘Structural Rationality in Desire’
Abstract: Can desires be irrational? This paper focuses on the possibility that desires can be irrational in virtue of failing to cohere with other mental states of the person in question (including their other desires). Recent literature on structural irrationality has largely neglected structural requirements on desire, and this paper aims to remedy this neglect, not only to inform that literature,…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Brad Hooker (University of Reading): ‘Fittingness and Well-Being’
Abstract: This paper focuses on non-instrumental values that constitute positive contributions to well-being. The paper asks whether the things that constitute contributions to a person’s well-being involve relations of fittingness. Section 1 of the paper briefly considers the desire-fulfilment theory of well-being and its implications for whether the fittingness of attitudes (including emotions, desires, and beliefs) is a prudential good. Section…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Richard Bradley (LSE): ‘Chance, Fairness and Dynamic Consistency’
Abstract: Discussion of the relationship between dynamic consistency and the Sure-thing principle has figured prominently in recent debate over the rationality of the kind of ambiguity aversion some display in the Ellsberg paradox; less so in the literature on the preference for fairness postulated by Diamond (1967). Yet both are instances of a preference for randomisation (respectively over events/states and over…
Find out more »Choice Group by Giacomo Giannini (Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf): ‘Essential Dependence is not Fundamentality Inducing’
Abstract: It is commonly thought that there is a very tight connection between essence, metaphysical dependence, and fundamentality. This often results in the endorsement of a principle linking Essence To Dependence (Fine 1994; Lowe 2006; Correia 2005; Koslicki 2012; Tahko and Lowe 2020) (ETD) x essentially depends on y iff y appears in x’s essence. And a principle linking Dependence To…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Lukas Beck (LSE) and Marcel Jahn (Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin): ‘What is a Normative Model? Taking Justification Seriously’
Abstract: In recent years, several authors have highlighted that models play an important but underappreciated role in ethics and other “normative disciplines.” In these fields, models serve, inter alia, as devices for characterizing, testing, and justifying normative claims. In short, they play quite diverse roles in normative inquiry. However, philosophers concerned with the use of models in normative inquiry have…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Silvia Milano (LMU Munich/University of Exeter): ‘Recommender systems and epistemic polarisation’
Abstract: Recommender systems increasingly serve as essential tools to navigate vast expenses of information. Yet, their proliferation in our everyday lives has raised concern over their potential magnification of social polarisation through the creation of echo chambers and filter bubbles, the exact nature and influence of which has been controversial. If, when, and how recommender systems affect polarization remains an open…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Richard Holton (University of Cambridge): ‘Frustration, Temptation, and the Different Faces of Commitment’
Abstract: Most philosophical discussions of self-control have focused on temptation: on what is needed to resist giving in to appealing alternatives. In contrast a body of work in neuroscience has focussed on when foragers give up on an existing task, and start looking for alternatives. It might seem that that these are just two sides of the same coin: to give…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Kirstine La Cour (UCL) and Arlene Lo (LSE): TBD
Abstract and title coming soon... Kirstine La Cour is a Post Graduate Teaching Assistant at UCL. Arlene Lo is a PhD student at the LSE Department of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method. This event will take place in person on LSE’s campus. However, those unable to attend in person will have the option of taking part online. To join online just…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Cristian Larroulet Philippi (University of Cambridge): ‘Credences, values, and real-world policymaking: Assessing the Bayesian picture of scientific advice’
Abstract: The argument from inductive risk (AIR) is commonly understood to imply that scientific advice necessarily involves non-epistemic values. Richard Jeffrey (1956) famously articulated not only an internal critique to AIR, but also (though more tentatively than current proponents) an alternative picture of scientific advice, which we call “the Bayesian picture of scientific advice”. The Bayesian picture contends that binary cognitive…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Henrik Kugelberg (LSE): ‘Responsibility for algorithmic injustice’
Abstract: Algorithmic systems often produce unjust outputs. However, there is widespread disagreement over how this injustice should be understood, conceptualised, and measured. There is also disagreement over what kind of responsibility is appropriate for addressing the wrongs. This paper examines two prominent accounts for analysing algorithmic injustices: the local distributive model and the structural injustice framework. The former focuses on developing…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Daniel Guillery (LSE): ‘Transport, movement, and equality: Private property and the justifiability of road systems’
Abstract: Roads (understood broadly as the public strips of land between parcels of private property that allow for the circulation of people and goods) are central to our ability to move from place to place. They are also highly dangerous and unequal places: the risks associated with travel through these spaces are substantial and usually very unequally distributed (as are the…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Zhongwei Xu (LSE Philosophy) and Vita Kudryavtseva (LSE Philosophy)
Different location! SAL G.03. Campus map: https://www.lse.ac.uk/lse-information/campus-map Zhongwei Xu (LSE Philosophy): The Weight of Evidence, Counterfactual Resilience & Epistemic Luck Abstract: It has been well-established in the literature that credence backed by weightier evidence is more resilient to learning new evidence in the future. In this paper, I show that such credence is also more resilient counterfactually. It would have changed…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Mike Otsuka (Rutgers University): ‘Equal chances versus equal outcomes: when are lotteries fair and justified?’
Abstract: According to one potent challenge to the value and fairness of distribution by lot, the lottery chance of receiving a good is lacking in value or otherwise insignificant or irrelevant in comparison with actually receiving the good. To meet this challenge, I show in Section I that the far greater significance of receiving all of an undivided good needn’t undermine…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Darren Bradley (University of Leeds): ‘How to Lose Your Memory Without Losing Your Money: Shifty Epistemology and Dutch Strategies’
Abstract: An objection to shifty epistemologies such as subject-sensitive invariantism is that it predicts that agents are susceptible to guaranteed losses. Bob Beddor (2021) argues that these guaranteed losses are not a symptom of irrationality, on the grounds that forgetful agents are susceptible to guaranteed losses without being irrational. I agree that forgetful agents are susceptible to guaranteed losses without being…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Anna Alexandrova (University of Cambridge): ‘Are thick concepts admissible in science?’
Abstract: Some concepts - wellbeing, sustainability, resilience, inequality, mental health, even infrastructure – presuppose a value judgment. Philosophers call them thick for that reason. There is a lot of important knowledge to be had about phenomena denoted by thick concepts. But how should researchers handle them? I evaluate three options and articulate the underlying principles for choosing between them. The bottom…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar by Nick Baigent (LSE): ‘An Introduction to Signed Preferences’
Abstract: From a ranking of mutually compatible alternatives, how might a ranking of subsets of alternatives be obtained? This is the extension problem, introduced into choice theory by Kannai & Peleg (1982). Interpretations include ranking committees, including legislatures, obtained from a ranking of possible committee members; and similarly ranking possible work teams, wines for a wine tasting, collections in a gallery/museum…
Find out more »Choice Group Seminar PhD edition
Kangyu Wang (LSE) & Paul Forrester (Yale): 'Investment returns, risk appetites, luck egalitarianism, and the put seller of the last resort' Abstract: Financial markets serve the rich far better than the poor. A common view is that since investors voluntarily make their choices, they cannot complain about the results. In philosophical terms (Dworkin 1981, 2011), the divergence of returns comes…
Find out more »