Aaron Shepherd

The relation between insurrectionist ethics and Christian theologies of liberation has been largely unexplored. In this chapter, I argue that “theologizing” insurrectionist ethics is in fact vital to this moral philosophy’s bearing fruit in liberatory praxis. I begin by discussing Harris’s reading of David Walker, then review other related figures, centering the religious dimensions of their insurrectionist project. While acknowledging that Christianity is by no means the sole vehicle of an insurrectionist ethos, I contend that such an ethos wants a religious aspect, if it is to achieve its intended aims. At the same time, interpreting the inter-American tradition of liberation theology through the lens of insurrectionist ethics clarifies that tradition’s central claims and their implications for action. In turn, the continuity of ends and means between insurrectionist ethics and liberation theologians provides common ground upon which to foster activist coalitions.

This paper follows a trend in engineering ethics away from universal moral theories towards more contingent/contextual approaches such as pragmatist and care ethics. These methodological considerations are treated in the context of the Volkswagen Diesel Emissions scandal as a case study in the “paradox of loyalty,”. Building upon a combined pragmatist-care ethics approach, the article outlines an “ethics of commitment,” inspired by the moral philosophy of Josiah Royce. The ethics of commitment locates the site of moral value in an individual’s “commitment to a cause,” where a “cause” refers to a purposive community of persons oriented by a shared end or ideal. The ethics of commitment improves upon a pragmatist-care ethics in two notable ways: first, addressing the problem of determining wrongdoing via pragmatist ethics, and second, by emphasizing the costly nature of moral action as a critical part of ethical deliberation, rather than appealing to empathy or moral sentiment. This process—described metaphorically as “centrifugal commitment”—remains contingent and fallible, but in a way that does justice to the broad scope of moral responsibility incumbent upon engineers.

This book presents a pragmatic response to arguments against religion made by the New Atheism movement. The author argues that analytic and empirical philosophies of religion--the mainstream approaches in contemporary philosophy of religion--are methodologically unequipped to address the "Threefold Challenge" made by popular New Atheist thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Daniel Dennett. The book has three primary motivations. First, it provides an interpretation of the New Atheist movement that treats their claims as philosophical arguments and not just rhetorical exercises or demagoguery. Second, it assesses and responds to these claims by elaborating four distinct contemporary philosophical perspectives-- analytic philosophy, empirical philosophy, continental philosophy, and pragmatism--as well as contextualizing these perspectives in the history of the philosophy of religion. Finally, the book offers a metaphilosophical critique, returning again and again to the question of method. In the end, the author settles upon a modified version of pragmatism that he concludes is best suited for articulating the terms and stakes of the God Debate. Challenging the New Atheismwill be of interest to scholars and students of American philosophy and philosophy of religion.

Josiah Royce’s philosophical interest in religion can be traced to his earliest days, when hymn singing and reading the Bible were constant practices in the fervently evangelical household of Josiah, Sr., and Sarah Royce in Grass Valley, California.1 Royce’s mother, Sarah, in particular, was a profound influence. She burned with the Holy Spirit, sparked by the fire-and-brimstone revivalism of the Second Great Awakening in New England, where she grew up. Educated at Phipps Union Female Seminary in Albion, New York, Mrs. Royce treasured the scriptures, and was an elegant and thorough interpreter of them for Josiah and his three sisters.In spite of his delight in the reading and study of scripture at home, young..

on the morning of friday, 6 March 2020, an "Author Meets Critics" session took place in the Sor Juana room of the Hacienda Santa Clara to discuss Marilyn Fischer's Jane Addams's Evolutionary Theorizing. Chaired by Barbara Lowe, the dialogue yielded opportunities to both praise Fischer's scholarship and reassess the nature and meaning of Jane Addams's canonical work of American philosophy, Democracy and Social Ethics. The discussion proved significant enough that the editors of The Pluralist sought to reproduce it in these pages.In Jane Addams's Evolutionary Theorizing, Fischer provides an "archaeological" and "architectural" treatment of DSE, delving into the source material: Addams's own lectures...

John Dewey’s role as a “public philosopher” is well-documented; his political activism, however, has not received much attention from philosophers. While Dewey is well remembered as a philosopher who escaped the walls of the academy to speak to and write for general audiences, he also lent his name, status, and intellectual energy to political organizations and movements in American politics. In the first part of the paper, I provide an introduction to Dewey’s activism and its relation to the philosophical project of “democratization.” I consider present-day parallels between Dewey’s diagnosis of America’s political problems and the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, as well as the structural and methodological challenges facing a Deweyan progressive politics. I conclude by advocating for a new conception of “public pragmatism” that reflects lessons learned and contemporary conditions for political activism by philosophers seeking to follow in Dewey’s footsteps.

The philosophical career of Josiah Royce is defined in part by his relationship with G. H. Howison. Biographically speaking, this assertion recalls the mythic tale of how Royce received his appointment at Harvard after James “forgot” about Howison.2 Philosophically speaking, however, Howison’s interchange with Royce concerning his philosophical conception of God in the 1895 debate held at Berkeley was a crucial intersection of these two philosophers that set the directions for their future work. It was a chance for Howison to “get it on,” in the words of John McDermott,3 with Royce, in a philosophical bout for the championship title of American Idealism. Royce welcomed the opportunity to return to his alma mater...