Uncertainty, politicization, and the need for specialized knowledge all threaten our ability to competently weigh evidence and reasons. What can we do when we are in no position to judge?
The WHO has moved away from including origin in the naming convention for diseases, and they've done so for good reasons.
What might justify an organization or government's wielding of exclusionary power? What does it mean to be removed from the conversation?
Individual incentives are at odds with collective rationality. How might models like the Prisoner's Dilemma illuminate our current predicament?
The value of the impeachment hearings extends well beyond the immediate political horizon. It is not a tool in service of a particular end, but a communicative symbol to the world.
What might be the moral implications of our notation choices in academic research? Could the ongoing debate over footnotes or endnotes be a moral debate?
The vast difference in states' standards for homeschooling raises troubling questions about children's growth and their prospects of ever developing real autonomy. It also casts doubt on the legitimacy of home-based learning.
How should we understand the relation between law and morality? And what might this answer mean for human rights?
Disagreement about our moral duties and obligations is inevitable. But this does not show that morality is a matter of opinion or that ethics is subjective.
Mill endorsed free and open debate as a machine capable of refining and reinforcing truth. There were, however, limits. On his view, political correctness is not a restriction of free speech but a basic tenet.