Exploitation is, roughly, a practice by which one group of persons benefits from the vulnerability of another group of persons in unfair ways. Examples include sweatshop labour and (arguably) commercial surrogacy. This course aims to clarify the concept of exploitation, distinguish between different kinds of exploitation, discuss specific cases, and determine what makes exploitation wrong (when it is wrong).

This course aims to provide students with a detailed overview of several foundational and methodological issues in the contemporary philosophy of economics. Upon successful completion of the course, students will be able to evaluate central philosophical debates regarding the nature of economic modelling; master terminological and conceptual distinctions concerning individual and strategic rationality; assess the criteria underlying the demarcation of the domain of economics.

The course will consist of a 2-hour lecture, followed by a 2-hour tutorial specifically devoted to critical discussion.

This lecture offers an introduction to some general normative approaches to politics as well as to some key concepts in normative political theory. The former include libertarianism, contract theory, and consequentialism; the latter legitimacy, freedom, equality, and democracy.

The course deals with collective and social aspects of knowledge, belief, justification and decision-making. We shall touch upon three topics: Justification conditions of testimonial belief, judgment aggregation and social epistemic institutions. Some of the questions we will address are:

Under what conditions is somebody’s testimony sufficient to justify your beliefs? What sources are good epistemic sources? How should the various beliefs and desires of individual members of a group (e.g., a scientific committee, business company, or football team) be aggregated to reach a rational decision? How do social epistemic institutions (such as Wikipedia, but also science, education, etc.) influence the beliefs of the people that rely on them?

The seminar will be based on the book: Goldman, A., & Whitcomb, D. (Eds.). (2011). Social epistemology: essential readings. Oxford University Press

This course asks whether, and if so in which sense, logic is a normative science. We consider it to be a bad thing to hold inconsistent beliefs. And, similarly, we criticize others for failing to appreciate the logical consequences of their beliefs. This suggests that logic has a normative role to play in the way we reason and debate. On the other hand, psychological results have shown that ordinary agents systematically fail to comply to certain principles of classical logic. Moreover, it is argued, there are principles of classical logic, such as the Ex Falso Quodlibet, to which ordinary agents not only fail to comply, but also should fail to comply.

So, we ask: Does logic have normative authority over us after all? Do principles of logic tell us what we ought to believe and how we ought to reason? Are principles of logic principles of rationality?

We will investigate the above questions by looking at modern and contemporary articles in the philosophy of logic.