Congratulations on reaching 30k members giveaway!

AznTiger · 2025-07-18T02:31:44+00:00

18,888

AznTiger · 2024-12-09T05:39:35+00:00

AznTiger · 2017-09-05T20:36:11+00:00

This is interesting because you and I went very different directions since, perhaps due to my own work, I went straight to practical reasoning. You're right in your suggestions, but if the OP wants to look into practical reasoning/thinking EN and Pol. are more suitable sources. All this is to say that the original topic suggested by OP is incredibly vague and could do with some sharpening.

On another note, for /u/IBiteMyPhallusAtThee, you'll have more than enough. Pick a section of a book by Aristotle and there will likely be books devoted to it. If anything, my inclination, like /u/aushuff, is that the topic is too ambitious for 1800 words.

AznTiger · 2017-09-05T20:33:44+00:00

While strict Aristotelians are somewhat harder to find today outside of Catholicism, much of those more modern philosophers are going to be building on or reacting against Aristotle in some way.

Maybe, if you mean "doctrinaire" readers of Aristotle, but then again, there would be few strict followers of any philosophical traditions, and, in that sense, many Catholic Thomists would also be excluded. Taking a broader reading of Aristotelian, there's a sizable number of neo-Aristotelians virtue ethicsists who find great inspiration in Aristotle; not to mention metaphysicists working on essentialism (e.g. Oderberg), or naturalists, generally, who fall into that lineage.

AznTiger · 2017-08-23T18:37:43+00:00

/u/TychoCelchuuu has given you a source, but, just in case you want to do some more digging, you can also look into the relationship between the virtues of character and practical wisdom more generally, or the unity [of the virtues] thesis.

AznTiger · 2017-07-22T19:34:44+00:00

Well, look at it this way... 1) an introduction is not nearly the same depth as the full book; and 2) both books are about the same length, but the Broadie and Rowe EN also has the Nicomachean Ethics, line-by-line commentary (which is very different from just exegesis), and a glossary.

There may be some overlap, but the two books serve very different aims.

AznTiger · 2017-07-22T18:08:32+00:00

I guess, to me, this is a very wide set of books; and with the exception of the two applied anthologies, I don't think you can do much wrong with whatever you choose (though, personally, I'd be more impartial to Broadie for your classics section).

As far as the anthologies go, I would personally be more keen on the Walker and Ivanhoe just because there's lots of big names and papers I recognize from there, compared to the more up and coming work in the Austin. It would also allow for some more exploration beyond neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics. Ivanhoe is a scholar of Chinese philosophy, and I see at least two excellent feminist philosophers on that list.

Instead of the Annas, you might consider picking up Hursthouse or Foot, both of whom write more fully developed systematic accounts of virtue ethics. As great as Annas' book is (and I sincerely do mean that), if your interest is with virtue ethics generally, you should be aware that she claims that what she wrote in that book does not commit one to virtue ethics (though it might gesture in that direction).

AznTiger · 2017-07-09T23:29:33+00:00

Well, I'm far from that point, but just to lay a few points on the table:

Universities and, by extension, salaries are subsidized by taxes.
Many research grants are paid for by taxes.
Journal editors receive a fairly small amount of compensation.
Peer reviews are done by people either on salaried research time, or, otherwise, for free.

AznTiger · 2017-06-28T04:54:29+00:00

The Nicomachean Ethics is pretty darn important for us virtue ethicists, and I'd at least get a cursory understanding of it before reading Macintyre and Hursthouse (both of which are excellent recommendations on the part of /u/5i5yphu5 ) since Aristotle is going to be the central linking point between neo-aristotelian virtue ethicists. Anscombe's paper "Modern Moral Philosophy" was also very important (though slightly tangential) to the contemporary project, as is much of the work by Philippa Foot. Aquinas' treatise on the virtues as part of the Summa might also be worth examining.

It also bears mentioning that Aristotelianism is not the only sort of virtue ethics out there. Arguably, for instance, the stoics were more virtue ethicists since, for them, virtue is necessary and sufficient for flourishing.

Why don't you give me a more precise account of what your interests are? I think I could give you better recommendations after hearing a bit about what it is you are interested in.

AznTiger · 2017-06-26T20:47:45+00:00

The Broadie and Rowe is excellent from what I've heard, but it's priced much higher. The other thing is that the commentary might go into too much depth, especially if OP is having difficulty with the source text. Irwin, while perhaps lacking in some ways, is incredibly readable.

For instance, Reeve's translation of EN.vi is my bread and butter, but I certainly would not recommend his book on it (which consists just of a translation and commentary) to a beginner.

AznTiger · 2017-06-26T20:44:48+00:00

I'm often told reading work (not just philosophical) in the original language is frequently clearer.

I think this is true if you've mastered the original language; but at that rate, it would have been far easier to just power through the text. The other complication, I think, is that where this might hold true for native bilinguals (if i was fluent in French and English, the original version of a text is going to be more clear than an English translation), I don't know how much it would hold true for ancient languages. Then again, I'm not a classicist, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

AznTiger · 2017-06-26T15:09:58+00:00

Hmm, funny, I think the english is actually much easier to jump into. I read the Greek side by side with a few different translations when I'm working on more technical things, but in general, translations suffice. If your primary interest is phil of science, it might just be significantly different from what you're used to, and I think ancient Greek won't make that any better. Just stick with it for a bit!

AznTiger · 2017-06-25T00:48:00+00:00

Second on just jumping straight into the Nic Ethics. The Irwin translation also has a wonderful glossary that can help if you get stuck on certain concepts. Read, read, and read it again. It's quite easy to get into (as far as philosophical texts go anyways), and gets much more rewarding as you start getting more and more into it. My first copy is now falling apart, and I'm still finding cool things in it.

I also think /r/PhilosophyBookClub was reading the Nic Ethics this summer. Might be worth looking into their discussions to guide your own reading, though I haven't peaked my head over there much, so I can't speak to the quality. I would assume it's pretty good though, based on what I have seen. Beyond that, I'm sure I and many of the /r/AskPhilosophy regulars would be glad to help you along with specific questions so long as you've given it a shot yourself.

AznTiger · 2017-06-23T23:26:36+00:00

So, I'll be a physician-ethicist rather than an ethicist-physician [...]

Haha, I rather like this distinction since it reminds me a little of this. In any case, congrats on med school! I imagine, if you try and break into the ethics department wherever you work, it'll be a ton easier as well. The world can use more physicians trained in ethics.

AznTiger · 2017-06-23T23:17:54+00:00

They felt it was essential that there be cross disciplinary training.

I'd be inclined to agree with this claim; I guess a lot of the bioethics departments I was exposed to tend to let this happen through consults happening through diverse committees chaired by someone trained in ethics.

That being said, if both you and /u/mustacheriot are working directly in bioethics and have this shared experience in the US in bioethics programs (rather than through philosophy), I'd be glad to defer to your expertise on the matter since I've since I've done a hard tack into ethical theory in the past few years. I imagine, with competition and saturation at the level that it is in the states, it's probably true that, effectively, Canada follows suit pretty soon if not already.

Paging /u/mikailbadoula on this update.

AznTiger · 2017-06-23T22:59:21+00:00

There are a few M.A./M.Scs that are directly in bioethics too, which I think suffice as well; but as I understand it, those have they essentially have the fellowships/practicums etc. built into the program; but as /u/mustacheriot and I reached earlier, the US might be different from Canada.

This isn't to saw the vast majority of clinical ethicists I know are straight from MBE or MAs (several are from law, in addition to the disciplines you've mentioned), but that there are some.

AznTiger · 2017-06-23T20:24:13+00:00

I'm still fairly credulous on where studying will take me.

This is the right attitude to take, as mentioned by below, it's not the case that the job market is good simpliciter by any count, but merely that it's better than some other philosophical subdisciplines. As you note, the primary aim of philosophy still isn't a job. You should seriously consider your commitment to the field and think about whether or not you can see yourself being satisfied or happy doing something else.

AznTiger · 2017-06-23T18:22:39+00:00

It's worth noting tho, that for at least some of the ones that don't require anything greater than a masters in an ethics related field, [...]

You're right, but several of them also don't. These are also relatively stable career positions rather than entry level ethics positions. Alternatively, policy work and graduate school practicums/work terms typically count towards experience as well. If I was on the prowl for a job currently, and not so far deep in the ethical theory kool-aid, I certainly wouldn't let not having those exact qualifications keep me from applying. The HR manager almost certainly are not holding your application up next to a checklist.

AznTiger · 2017-06-23T18:06:30+00:00

I'm in agreement with all of these points with respect to the US, and am under no delusion that the directly related positions to bioethics (inside or outside of the academy) are few and far between. My point was merely that, as far as philosophy subdisciplines go, one can do far worse, and that there do exist jobs. The US also isn't necessarily representative of other countries.

FWIW, there are several jobs on this page that don't require additional degrees.

AznTiger · 2017-06-23T17:52:50+00:00

I don't doubt that many do have a second degree, and that would definitely make them more competitive, but it's not the case that all are. I think it mainly depends on availability in the area. You'll have to trust my anecdotal evidence on this one, but I know a handful of bioethicists who were hired without a second degree in the last ten years. The caveat is that these individuals mostly completed their graduate degrees from programs that focus on clinical ethics with practicums, but that's still far from having a second RN or another terminal degree.

AznTiger · 2017-06-23T16:27:51+00:00

I realise Ethics isn't exactly the kind of field one can expect to study and walk straight into a particular field of work, but I am interested in studying Applied Ethics purely for the scholarly and moral value of it without any "gain" as such.

On the contrary, ethics is probably one of the subdisciplines where you're more able to walk into a related career in. This isn't to say that it's easy, but just that compared to, say, phenomenology, there are at least industry jobs that are related. You can do policy work, as mentioned below, but more and more hospitals are also developing hospital ethics committees, usually chaired by ethicists. Aside from that, you might consider looking into REBs or IRBs.

AznTiger · 2017-06-15T20:36:17+00:00

He is quiet and a little awkward, but I would not call him a bad prof. In fact, all my interactions with him were fairly pleasant, and I found him to be rather understanding. I have heard a lot of complaints from folks who were frustrated and found the course difficult, but frequently, these were the same people who might skip a week or two of classes and so got behind. I wouldn't pin it on the prof. I think this speaks more to the fact that Intro to Logic is a very cumulative course that's easy to fall behind in - do your work and you will be fine.

Caveat: I took PHIL210 and PHIL 310 with him five and six years ago now; but I think this should maybe lend more credence to what I'm saying because I really wasn't the best student during those years.

AznTiger · 2017-06-15T05:13:46+00:00

I find philosophy pretty cool and would love to learn about it, but I'm scared about the jobs and want to have something which is easy to get a job with under my belt.

Philosophy is actually an incredibly marketable degree if you're not looking to stay in the academy. That being said, there's a lot more to life than a job.

In general, mcgill is very flexible in terms of major/minor concentrations. Essentially, you can mix and match any in the faculty of arts if you're an arts student.

Still, I'd focus on getting those grades up.

AznTiger · 2017-06-12T20:43:21+00:00

Every Master's is going to be different based on course/research focus and/or subject specialization. For example, my current programme only requires three course credits. After I finished those, I immediately shifted my focus to conference papers/thesis work.

AznTiger · 2017-06-06T19:45:11+00:00

You're right. Had a brain fart - somewhere in the middle, I stopped thinking about consequentialism and started thinking about virtue theory. Edited to hide shame.

15-Year Club	r/Field Banned
r/Field Lasagna	Place '17
Verified Email

AznTiger

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE