« Tokyo impressions | Main | Outliers »
Why do ethicists write such long papers?
I found this fascinating:
If indeed my observation that ethicists hardly write short papers is correct, this might say something problematic about us. For example, that we are less sure of ourselves than other philosophers, and thus feel that we have to go on and on. Or that there is a pro-length bias in the guidance we give to our students; or in accepting ethics papers for publication. Or that the subject makes people feel that they always have to (pretend to) be very serious, because morality is such a grave topic. Or even that ethicists simply tend to have less fun. A while ago Mike Otsuka posted here asking about funny titles for ethics papers, and we all found it hard to find examples.
OK people, the challenge is upon you: what are some funny titles for possible ethics papers? All of my thoughts in this direction are non-funny, such as "A Good Start," or "Here's Why None of My Papers Have an Abstract."
For the pointer I thank Saul Smilansky.
Posted by Tyler Cowen on May 19, 2008 at 01:39 PM in Philosophy | Permalink
Comments
Ethics: An Exercise in Common Sense
Posted by: Lisa at May 19, 2008 2:17:41 PM
Chicken, Pork, or Beef? -- The Ethics of Entree Selection
Posted by: John at May 19, 2008 2:18:33 PM
"Plagiarize me"
Posted by: Al at May 19, 2008 2:26:40 PM
jesus did it for the chicks, you should too!
Posted by: flo at May 19, 2008 2:29:44 PM
Rape and plunder with finess!
Posted by: Matt at May 19, 2008 2:34:11 PM
Why do you ask, is it un-ethical to waste reader time?
Posted by: Floccina at May 19, 2008 2:51:59 PM
What's the best way to skin a cat? -- The Ethics of animal treatment.
Thou shalt not codify ethical prescriptions: against the appeal to moral authority
"I seduced your sister for the greater good," and other problems with moral subjectivism
It is kinda hard.
Posted by: mk at May 19, 2008 2:54:24 PM
Obstrethics: The obstructionist ethics of women and misspellings
Posted by: Samson at May 19, 2008 3:27:46 PM
The good, the bad, and the ugly: does morality make you more attractive?
Posted by: zbicyclist at May 19, 2008 3:47:20 PM
Free Will-y
Posted by: JaeTex at May 19, 2008 3:51:37 PM
"Bullshit: Ethical or Unethical? The View From a Superfluous Academic Department"
"Take this Job and shove it: Ethics in the Bible"
Posted by: 8 at May 19, 2008 3:53:03 PM
Are ethical people worried about ethics?
Boomerange ethics
My competitor is unethical ethics
Congressional ethics
CNBC guest ethics
CNBC host ethics
CNBC ethics
Change ethics
Straight talk ethics
You say you're ethical, I wonder
Carnival of ethics
NY Times Ethics
WSJ Editorial Page Ethics
Rev. Wright's ethics
Clintonian Ethics
Academic ethics
Posted by: Another skeptic at May 19, 2008 4:12:05 PM
--Hostage to Principles: Studies in Law Enforcement
--The Underestimated Perks of an Unexamined Life: Weblogs, Social Networking, and the Stuff People Should Keep to Themselves
--Snitches and Saints: an Examination of the Ethical Aspects of the Prisonners' Dilemma
--Lies, Damned Lies, and the Ethics of Lying (Mark Twain rip-off)
--What's Posterity Ever Done for Me?: Global Warming and its Ethical Considerations (Groucho Marx rip-off)
--Moral Probing: Are Alien Abductions Ethical?
--A Critique of Stoicism: Haven't We Suffered Enough?
Posted by: Garrett Schmitt at May 19, 2008 5:03:28 PM
Bioethics and cloning, and cloning, and cloning...
Posted by: Al at May 19, 2008 5:16:00 PM
The following is a title of an actual essay the I co-authored, we thought our title amusing:
"Corporate Social Responsibility: An Exercise in Misology"
Posted by: indiana jim at May 19, 2008 5:35:12 PM
There's already a meta-ethical paper called "Consequentialise This". Sunstein cites it in his paper on whether the death penalty is obligatory.
Posted by: TGGP at May 19, 2008 5:51:35 PM
"The N-Agent Problem of Farting in the Elevator: An Equilibrium Analysis"
Posted by: anon at May 19, 2008 6:00:58 PM
"Seeing the world through Rawls colored glasses"
Posted by: calibear at May 19, 2008 7:22:53 PM
"I'm Very Important So It's OK: How Wealth and Power Erode Ethics"
Posted by: mikesdak at May 19, 2008 7:41:53 PM
Meat Or Murder? The Ethics Of Cannibalism.
Posted by: Mike at May 19, 2008 7:43:39 PM
I've been receiving regular notices for this upcoming philosophy/ethics conference at the University of York, and it seems to me to capture everything that is wrong with the field: A complete failure to grasp the hilarity of the conference title. Among the topics to be discussed:
# The nature of death.
# Definitions and criteria.
# Human, animal and plant death.
# The irreversibility of death.
# Death, the mind and the brain.
# Posthumous harms.
# Death and non-existence.
# Issues concerning personhood.
# Death’s badness.
Death's badness?? DO TELL!!
http://www.open.ac.uk/Arts/death/
Posted by: andrew potter at May 19, 2008 7:51:49 PM
Stanley Cavell in a few places in Conditions Handsome and Unhandsome remarks that Emerson, and in the 20th Century Heidegger and Wittgenstein after him, did not see a separate field called moral philosophy. Their philosophy itself, in its concern with the ordinary, covered moral philosophy as well.
The alternative arrangement, with a separate field, gives you moralizing.
Levinas (Totality and Infinity) puts ethics ahead of ontology, saying the latter comes from the former.
Posted by: Ron Hardin at May 19, 2008 8:08:24 PM
Banana peeling: a slippery slope. Is littering OK if it's organic, biodegradable littering?
Kvetch me if you can: How much can you ethically complain before you become worse than the original problem?
Death and Texas: Is the death penalty more justifiable in a cowboy culture?
Posted by: ZBicyclist at May 19, 2008 9:33:08 PM
"Rawls-colored glasses." That is awesome, Calibear. I am so using that!
Posted by: JW at May 19, 2008 10:20:39 PM
"For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?"
Mr. Bennet, in (Jane Austen's) *Pride and Prejudice*
And them moral philosophers also do cartoons! Enjoy:
http://chaospet.com/2007/10/08/47-crime-and-prepunishment/
And in case you want to broaden your mind (even more):
http://www.amazon.com/10-Moral-Paradoxes-Ten-More/dp/140516087X/sr=1-2/qid=1
Posted by: Saul Smilansky at May 19, 2008 11:29:11 PM
I've always thought the etymology of Nozick was fascinating:
nozick, n. (from nostrum + physick) Political snake oil, a patent medicine, esp. a cathartic or purgative. "Waste not logick, not yet strong physick, on the Leviathan; serve it nozick, and stand back." - Hobbes.
Posted by: Rue Des Quatre Vents at May 20, 2008 12:39:57 AM
Bros Before Hoes?
Parsing A Deontological Dilemma
Posted by: MJK at May 20, 2008 1:00:37 AM
Three piglets and the big bad wolf.
Posted by: at May 20, 2008 1:59:01 AM
They write such long papers because they have nothing to say. If they tried to trim their papers down, they would become empty.
Posted by: Russell Nelson at May 20, 2008 2:36:45 AM
I am Marginally Ethical. Are You?
Posted by: Anand at May 20, 2008 8:56:10 AM
Me & Ms Jones : A study of feminine influences on ethical decision making in the Whitehouse
A pain in the neck: Dracula - Ethical dilemmas when dealing with minority demands
Mr. Bernanke builds his dream house: Ethical influences on the subprime crisis
Posted by: Nick L at May 20, 2008 11:01:14 AM
I'm not an ethic(ist but I've tried my hand at writing graduate-level ethics papers. Consider me "semi-pro," emphasis on the semi.)
One reason ethics papers are long is an utter lack of agreement on method. Therefore the number of controversial claims that must be defended is very, very high. Showing concern for every possible criticism--or even explaining why a possible criticism is not worthy of concern--is considered both "good form" and de rigeur.
I am not going to say that prolixity is a good thing. But perhaps it is a necessary evil?
And remember: good philosopher will never use words to try to obscure her meaning.
Posted by: ck at May 20, 2008 12:03:17 PM
Here is a title of an article that appeared in the Journal of Business Ethics in 1995 that was authored by M. Starik:
"Should Trees have Managerial Standing? Toward Stakeholder Status for Non-human Nature"
Sadly, I'm not joking, this is a real title.
Posted by: indiana jim at May 20, 2008 2:13:42 PM
I knew a philosophy grad student who wanted to write an article entitled:
"F*ck the Poor: On the Possibility of Sexual Charity"
Posted by: Blackadder at May 20, 2008 2:55:22 PM
This is silly. Ethics papers are no longer than papers in any other area of philosophy (with maybe an exception for some formal logic, or the papers in Analysis, or whatever). And bioethics papers are notably shorter.
Anyway, there are already tons of funny ethics titles out there:
Kant not Cant (Bernstein)
Killing Babies is not always Wrong (Singer)
In Defense of Cannibalism (Routley/Sylvan)
So Maybe Its Wrong, Should we "do" anything about it (Murray)
What is wrong with sycophancy? (Baxi)
And funny non-ethics titles (just for fun):
"There's Something About Mary" (Himma, in response to Jackson's knowledge argument)
"What is it like to by boring and myopic?" (Atkins, in response to Nagel's "What is it like to be a bat?")
"Where Tickle Defense Goes Wrong" (Eells)
"Sinning Against Frege" (Burge, it's a pun)
Posted by: Phil Grad Student at May 20, 2008 3:58:29 PM
Aristotilitarianism: when the greatest good is less good
Lying to Homicidal Maniacs - those who can, do; those who Kant, snitch
Posted by: unspammable at May 21, 2008 12:29:02 AM
Tyler:
One has already been written, a monograph titled: "On Bullshit." Simply brilliant.
Posted by: bingo at May 21, 2008 3:24:55 PM
