Suggested readings, 11 October 2020

Here are some interesting articles I've read over the past week that I think are worth checking out.

Joe O'Connor, “A four-day week is not a luxury - it is an essential step forward.” 4 Oct, Business Post.

"Numerous academic studies, including from John Pencavel of Stanford University in 2014, have shown that there is no correlation between working long hours and greater productivity."

Richard Roberts and Seán O’Neill McPartlin, “The risks of a Covid-19 human challenge trial are significant, but entirely justified.” 6 Oct, Daily Telegraph.

"The risks of a Covid-19 challenge trial, though significant, are justified. It is decidedly positive that scientists are taking up the offers of volunteers to conduct these trials."

Fareed Zakaria, “The pandemic upended the present. But it’s given us a chance to remake the future.” 6 Oct, Washington Post.

"We could continue with business as usual and risk cascading crises from climate change and new pandemics. Or we could get serious about a more sustainable strategy for growth. We could turn inward and embrace nationalism and self-interest, or we could view these challenges -- which cross all borders -- as a spur to global cooperation and action. We have many futures in front of us."

Peter Singer, “To Lock Down or Not to Lock Down?” 7 Oct, Project Syndicate.

Philosopher Peter Singer looks at the arguments for and against strict lockdowns.

Ralph Leonard, “Is dating discrimination?” 7 Oct, UnHerd.

"Without the freedom to choose who you date, the modern achievements of personal autonomy and individual liberty are negated."

Joakim Book, “Nothing Is More Responsible for the Good Old Days Than a Bad Memory.” 7 Oct, Human Progress.

"We are overwhelmed by the latest terrible news broadcast on television. But, well-informed people should be guided by facts, not misplaced nostalgia for the past that never was."

Comments

Should We Use Neuroenhancement Drugs to Improve Relationships?

A version of this article was printed in Humanism Ireland , July-August, Vol. 147 (2014) L ove, it is fair to say, is probably the strongest emotion we can experience. It can come in many different forms: love of one’s parent, sibling, or child. Though most people consider romantic relationships—which include companionship, sexual passion, intimacy, warmth, procreation and child-rearing—as the most significant component of one’s life; and it is probably the thing we find discussed more than anything else in novels, films and music. Committed romantic relationships tend to occur within the institution of marriage—something that is ubiquitous to most, if not all, cultures. Indeed, relationships today, which are primarily love-driven, are not just confined to marriages, as many couples sustain relationships outside of wedlock. Being in a love-driven relationship is considered important for most people, as it contributes to happiness—something we a...

Is Adult Incest Wrong?

An version of this article was printed in Humanism Ireland , March-April, Vol. 151 (2015) Incest is something most people find morally objectionable and it's one of the most common of all cultural taboos. The British Medical Association’s Complete Family Health Encyclopaedia (1990) defines incest as “ intercourse between close relatives,” that usually includes “intercourse with a parent, a son or daughter, a brother or sister, an uncle or aunt, a nephew or niece, a grandparent or grandchild.” The Oxford English Dictionary ’s definition is a little broader: it doesn’t confine incest to just intercourse, but to “sexual relations between people classified as being too closely related to marry each other.” Most countries have some kind of law against incest—though consensual adult incest is not a crime in France, Spain, Russia the Netherlands, and a host of countries in South America. In England and Wales, however, t he Sexual Offences Act 2003 ...

Intuitions and Ethics

A version of this article was printed in Humanism Ireland , May-June, Vol. 146 (2014) The notion that our moral intuitions possess epistemic authority has been associated with a number of philosophers within the canon of Western thought. Roughly speaking, these thinkers have argued that our intuitions have recourse to a unique authority of perception that yields special access to a sphere of moral legitimacy. Others, however, have claimed that our intuitions are incredibly diverse and often conflict with each other—for example, your intuition says assisted suicide is morally permissible and my intuition says it’s wrong. But it seems the two contrasting intuitions cannot both be right. At the same time, most of us think our own moral intuitions are right : they do not seem inconsistent to us, and we have a strong sense to believe them. Accordingly, they strike us as correct. Undoubtedly, moral intuitions can be shaped by our particular culture, environment or co...

Nothing as It Seems

Search This Blog