On the occasion of the strike in November-December 2019, Liam Shields wrote a post To Strike or Disrupt on whether or not people on research leave should go on strike, since their withdrawing of their labour does not cause much disruption to normal proceedings.
Liam argued that on the basis of the principle of maximising disruption, these people should, rather than work to contract and donate their salary to the fighting fund, which enables colleagues in precarious positions to go on strike.
On the occasion of the upcoming strike (February-March 2020), it seemed appropriate to me to recall Liam's argument and to flesh out some implications and worries a bit further.
You can read my full post on Justice Everywhere.
Can we solve the dilemma between pursuing personal projects and the demands of morality by limiting the scope of morality?
In this post for Justice Everywhere, I engaging with some of the fascinating ideas discussed by Samuel Scheffler in his 1986 article Morality’s demands and their limits and his 1992 book Human morality. His observations and questions do not seem to leave me at peace and require much further reflection.
Pursuing our personal, valuable projects often conflicts with requirements of morality. One way to solve this dilemma is to limit the scope of morality by excluding certain areas of life or activities from moral assessment and holding that moral demands do not apply to them. I argue, building on Scheffler's diagnosis, that such strategies remain unsuccessful. Morality appears to be pervasive. It pervades all areas of life. So we have to look elsewhere to solve the dilemma - by evaluating acts, their impacts, theor context, alternatives, and the agents involved.
Please visit Justice Everywhere to read the full post.