Applied Philosophy

ORGANIZERS

VENUE
LECTURERS
LEVEL OF STUDY
ECTS
STUDENT OBLIGATIONS
SCHEDULE

COURSE DESCRIPTION

SUBTOPIC 1

University of Graz Department of Philosophy

University of Zagreb Department of Philosophy at the Center
for Croatian Studies
Center for Advanced Academic Studies Dubrovnik
Harald Stelzer, Dirk Brantl,
Tomislav Janovi, Tomislav Bracanovi
Graduate (also open to PhD students)
5
Attendance, active participation in discussions,
written assignment
May 1: arrival of students and lecturers in Dubrovnik. May 2:
two double sessions. May 3: two double sessions. May 4 and 5:
workshop with 7-8 presentations (90 minutes each). May 6: two
double sessions. May 7: two double sessions. May 8: departure
of students and lecturers.
The course will be divided into four equal parts each being
devoted to a specific subtopic in applied philosophy. The
workshop (Applied Ethics, Political Philosophy and the Threats
to Humanity) to be held on May 4-5 is the integral part of the
course.

The Governance of Climate Engineering [Stelzer]

With little progress on climate change policy and growing global GHG emissions, Climate
Engineering (or Geoengineering) the planetary-scale climate modification aiming at
intentionally counteracting the undesired side effects (global warming) of other human
activities (emitting green house gas (GHG) emissions) is increasingly being considered in
scientific and political circles around the world. The number of publications concerning CE
has increased rapidly and major figures and organizations are now pushing for more research
and preparations for deployment. Despite this increase in interest and recognition CE is still at
an early research and development phase. We are only at the beginning of understanding
possibilities and dangers of CE. As stated by the Royal Society the greatest challenges of CE
may be the social, ethical, legal and political issues associated with governance, rather than
scientific and technical issues (2009: IX). CE signals special issues of political legitimacy,
prompting the need for new or strengthened global norms of justice and community, and
novel institution. Based on the literature I want to develop together with the students a
detailed matrix of governance issues of CE, differentiating between diverse forms of
deployment depending on the agents (unilateral, multilateral, international deployment),
actions (emergency/non-emergency, single/complex, long-term/short-term deployment) and
paths towards deployment (planed or grown into planetary management, silver- bullet,
cocktail or piecemeal CE). These different forms will be analyzed by main governance
challenges of CE such as a) liability and compensation, b) cooperation and control, c) political
legitimacy and public engagement. These governance issues can also be linked to other

important normative questions like the response to uncertainties and risks connected with CE,
our responsibilities to future generations, the tragedy of the commons, moral corruption,
moral hazard and political inertia.
REQUIRED READING:

[1] Blackstock, J.J. et al. (2009). Climate Engineering Responses to Climate Emergencies.
Santa Barbara: Novim. [2] Blackstock, J.J. and Long, J. (2010). The Politics of Geoengineering. Science, Vol.
327, 19 January, 527. [3] Bodansky, D. (1996). May we engineer the climate? Climatic Change 33: 3, 309321.
[4] Corner, A. and Pidgeon, N. (2010). Geoengineering the Climate: the Social and Ethical Implications.
Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, Vol. 52 (No. 1), 2437. [5] Davies, G. (2010)
Geoengineering: A Critique. Climate Law, Vol. 1, Issue 3, 429441. [6] Gardiner, St. (2010). Is arming the
future with geoengineering really the lesser evil? Gardiner, St. et al. (eds.), Climate Ethics: Essential Readings.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 284314. [7] (parts of) Royal Society (2009). Geoengineering the Climate:
Science, Governance and Uncertainty. http://wwww.royalsociety.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10768
[6.6.2012 [8] Svoboda, T., Keller, K. Goes, M. and Tuana, N. (2011). Sulfate Aerosol Geoengineering: The
Question of Justice. Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 25, No. 3, 157179. [9] Victor, D.G.(2008), On the regulation
of geoengineering. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 24, No. 2, 322336. [10] Victor, D.G., et al. (2009):
The Geo-engineering Option. A last resort against global warming? Foreign Affairs 88: 2, 6467. [101 Virgoe, J.
(2009). International governance of a possible geoengineering intervention to combat climate change. Climatic
Change 95, 103119.

SUBTOPIC 2

Ethics and Economics: Foundations and Applications [Brantl]

While the end of the Cold War was celebrated on many fronts as the victory of the Capitalist
system over Communism, the world financial crisis that began in 2007 has caused many
people to question the functionality of the market order on an unprecedented scale. The
emerging criticisms target everything from the foundations of economic thought via
institutionalizations of the market itself to the unconstrained behavior of actors in market
institutions. Starting from foundational questions on the ethical implications of the market
order, we will analyze a number of philosophical perspectives on actors in market contexts. In
doing so, we will not only concentrate on the classical perspectives of corporations as actors
(Corporate Social Responsibility) or leading actors within corporations (Ethics of Business
Administration), but will also include the question of consumer power and responsibility.
Also, and most importantly, we will try to tackle the as yet open question of how these
different actors, all of whom have their place in the economic nexus, interact and how these
interactions affect the respective actors which have heretofore been largely treated in
isolation.
REQUIRED READING:

[1] E. Anderson, Value in Ethics and Economics (1993, chs. to be specified) [2] J.
Meadowcroft, The Ethics of the Market (2005, chs. to be specified) [3] A. Crane, D. Matten, J. Moon,
Stakeholders as citizens? Rethinking rights, participation and democracy, Journal of Business Ethics 53/1
(2004), 107-122 [4] D. Matten, A. Crane, Corporate citizenship: toward an extended theoretical
conceptualization, Academy of Management Review 30/1 (2005), 166-179 [5] G. Palazzo, A.G. Scherer,
Corporate legitimacy as deliberation. A communicative approach, Journal of Business Ethics 66 (2006), 7188. [6] C.R. Boddy, The Corporate Psychopaths Theory of the Global Financial Crisis, Journal of Business
Ethics 102/2 (2011), 255-259.

SUBTOPIC 3

Logic and Ethics of Collective Action [Janovi]

Being social creatures, we all take part in various forms of collective actions with different
types of consequences occurring at different levels from individual to collective to global.
Some of our participations in joint undertakings are willed, others unwilled; some of their
consequences are intended, others unintended; some are harmful, other beneficial; some
instances of harm can be attributed to specific persons as directly causally responsible, others
cannot; some rouse issues of individual (distributive), others of collective (non-distributive)

responsibility. The most discussed examples of morally significant consequences of collective

actions are those expressed at a global level: increase of economic inequality and/or poverty,
climate change, loss of natural and cultural diversity, mass atrocities and genocide. Of course,
not all collective actions have such far-reaching outcomes; some less dramatic cases are not
less interesting (not only from a theoretical point of view). The purpose of this session of the
Applied Philosophy course is (1) to outline a general conceptual framework in which all such
issues can be analyzed and discussed; and (2) to apply this framework to some actual and
controversial cases of collective actions with morally significant consequences. Crucial
concepts and distinctions include: behavior explanations and their social role, individual vs.
joint (collective) actions, individual vs. collective ends, participatory intention, collective
intentionality, group agents, aggregate groups vs. jointly acting groups, institutional actions
and institutional agents, spatial and temporal horizon of joint action, individual vs. collective
responsibility, complicity, joint criminal enterprise.
REQUIRED READING:

[1] J. Feinberg, Collective Responsibility, The Journal of Philosophy 65 (1968):674-88.

[2] M. Gilbert, Collective Action, in: T. OConnor and C. Sandis (eds.) A Companion to the Philosophy of
Action (Wiley-Blackwell, 2010), pp. 67-73. [3] J. Searle, Collective Intentions and Actions, in: P. Cohen, J.
Morgan, and M. Pollack (eds.) Intentions in Communication (MIT 1990), pp. 401-415. [4] J. Elster, Explaining
Social Behavior: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences (Cambridge University Press 2007, chapters 24,
25). [5] C. Kutz, Complicity: Ethics and Law for a Collective Age. (Cambridge University Press 2000, selected
chapters). [6] S. Miller 2001. Social Action: A Teleological Account (Cambridge University Press 2001, selected
chapters). [7] C. List and P. Pettit, Group Agency: The Possibility, Design, and Status of Corporate Agents
(Oxford University Press 2011, selected chapters). [8] T. Isaacs, Moral Responsibility in Collective Contexts
(Oxford University Press 2011, selected chapters). [9] L. May, War Crimes and Just War (Cambridge University
Press 2007, selected chapters). [10] M. Drumbl, Collective Violence and Individual Punishment: The
Criminality of Mass Atrocity, Northwestern University Law Review, 99 (Winter 2005): 539-610. [11] M. Osiel
2009. Making Sense of Mass Atrocity (Cambridge University Press 2007, selected chapters).

SUBTOPIC 4

Multiculturalism and Bioethics [Bracanovi]

Many authors claim that bioethics should make a cultural or empirical turn and abandon
its search for universal ethical principles that will guide concrete bioethical decisions. The
rationale behind this claim is that universalist moral theories (e.g. utilitarianism or
deontology) do not recognize or tend to oversimplify the diversity of moral views entertained
by real people in the real world, but also that taking culturally informed moral beliefs
seriously might help bioethicists enrich and improve their own decision making capacities.
Within this subtopic, after presenting the basic arguments for and against cultural bioethics,
the following issues will be discussed: descriptive and normative approaches to bioethics,
similarities and differences between ethical relativism and cultural bioethics, scientific and
metaphysical assumptions in bioethics, informed consent and patient autonomy within various
cultural traditions, culture and conscientious objection, immoral consequences of respect for
cultural diversity, clash between rational and cultural beliefs in bioethics.
REQUIRED READING:

[1] S. L. Darwall, Theories of ethics, in R. G. Frey and C. H. Wellman (eds.),

ACompanion to Applied Ethics (Blackwell 2003), pp. 17-37 [2] M. P. Battin, Bioethics, in R. G. Frey and C.
H. Wellman (eds.), A Companion to Applied Ethics (Blackwell 2003), pp. 295-312. [3] R. F. Card, Is there no
alternative? Conscientious objection by medical students, Journal of Medical Ethics 38 (2012): 602-604 [4] K.
Kipnis, Quality care and the wounds of diversity, in T. A. Mappes and D. DeGrazia (eds.), Biomedical Ethics
(New York: McGraw Hill 2005), pp. 127-131 [5] R. Macklin, Ethical relativism in a multicultural society, in
T. A. Mappes and D. DeGrazia (eds.), Biomedical Ethics (New York: McGraw Hill 2005), pp. 118-127 [6] J.
Savulescu, Conscientious objection in medicine, British Medical Journal 332 (2006): 294-297.