REPOSTING
After Keith DeRose’s recent post on the apparent end of The Philosopher’s Annual, Brian Weatherson suggested that some blogs, such as PEA Soup, might help take over their task (see this Certain Doubts post for more discussion). For various reasons, we’re not quite prepared to attempt to come up with the 10 best articles of the year, or even the 10 best ethics articles, but we do like the ideas of providing recommendations for good reading and recognizing quality work.
Accordingly, we thought it appropriate to solicit nominations for a new feature: PEA Soup’s Notable Ethics Articles 2005-2006. (The last PA was apparently 2003, and we will miss ’04, but because of the lag time at some journals, it seems appropriate to have it cover the two most recent years.) Again, this is not an attempt to divine the "best" ethics articles for these two years, but merely to recognize and recommend articles that PEA Soup participants find notable. Note that "PEA Soup participants" should be construed broadly. Even if you’re just a reader who’s been lurking out there, you are welcome to nominate.
So, please post, in the comments section here, your favorite articles in ethics (broadly construed) for 2005-2006. In order to keep this list relatively selective, please limit yourself to two nominations total. Also, please post your references in the following manner, in order to keep things manageable: Author, Article Title, Journal Title, Volume, Year, Pages. Comments will close January 31.
Congratulations in advance to everyone who makes the list!
-The Editors
Well, you did say lurkers were allowed to post. At least they can recommend Pea Soupers without the charge of “log rolling”:
David Sobel, ‘Pain for Objectivists: the Case of Matters of Mere Taste’, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 8, 2005, 437-457;
Edward Harcourt, ‘Quasi-Realism and Ethical Appearances’, Mind, 114, 2005, 249-275.
I’m not sure I like the term “lurker.” How about “interested spectator”?
If articles contributed to books count (do they?):
Ralph Wedgwood, “The Meaning of ‘Ought,'” Oxford Studies in Metaethics, vol. 1, 2006, 127-160.
My two favourite articles from these two years are Niko Kolodny’s ‘Why Be Rational?’ that was in Mind and Jamie Dreier’s ‘Metaethics and the Problem of Creeping Minimalism’ in Philososophical Perspectives (not sure about the year of the latter 2004 or 2005? Jamie lists it as 2005 so I go with him).
Should have been more careful. Here they are:
Kolodny, Niko, ‘Why Be Rational?’, Mind, 114, 2005, 509-563.
Dreier, Jamie, ‘Metaethics and the Problem of Creeping Minimalism, Philosophical Perspectives, 18, 2005, 23-44.
If we take ethics somewhat broadly the best ethics paper I read in 2005 was Simon Keller’s “Patriotism as Bad Faith” in Ethics, Vol. 115 Issue 3, April 2005.
Parfit, Derek. ‘Normativity’, in Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.) Oxford studies in metaethics, vol. 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2006, pp. 325-380.
Bostrom, Nick & Toby Ord. ‘The reversal test: eliminating status quo bias in applied ethics‘, Ethics, 2006, Vol. 116, No. 4, pp. 656-680.
I also liked Kolodny’s paper. But since it’s already mentioned, I’ll cast a vote for “The Dif,” by Kadri Vihvelin and Terrance Tomkow, Journal of Philosophy 102(4), 2005, pp. 183-205.
I also liked the Bostrom and Ord, as well as
David Enoch, “Why Idealize?” Ethics 115, 2005, 759-787.
So Jamie’s ‘Creeping Minimalism’ paper went into print in November 2004 – you can read all about it in a discussion thread on Thoughts, Arguments, and Rants from December 2004. Most of the best papers I’ve read in the last two years aren’t in print, yet, but I’d nominate Jamie’s ‘Negation for Expressivists’, instead: Oxford Studies in Metaethics 1: 217-233.