Philosopher’s Carnival #83

Welcome to the 83rd philosophers carnival–a collection of the the best recent philosophy post from around the web who’s hosts do a minimal amount of self-promotion.


A question of moral language: James Garvey asks “What does the phase ’100% ethically traded coffee’ mean when used by Starbucks?”

Crazy metaphysics and morality: Richard Chappell discusses whether modal realism makes morality pointless. As he explains in his comments section:

the particular multiverse hypothesis I have in mind is the claim that every possible cosmos is realized exactly once. It’s not a matter of “causation”, exactly, but if it’s necessarily the case that exactly one Richard-counterpart will kick a puppy, then note the following two implications:

(i) If I kick the puppy, my counterpart won’t.

(ii) If I don’t kick the puppy, my counterpart will.

Moral concepts: A friendly reminder that humans are part of nature from Greta Christina.

*History of Philosophy*

Neitzche and morality. One of most detailed discussion in this carnival, by Michael Drake of Strange Doctrines. And there’s a part II, if you need more.

Peter Smith re-reads Russell on the nature of numbers and finds it less impressive than he remembers.


Even more detailed than Michael Drake’s post is Kenny Pearce on composition. He concludes: “Composition, then, is the relation that holds between a composite object and its parts. In order to enter into this relation, the object and its parts must be distinct. No object composes itself.” No part II, though.

This three-week period in God: Jason Zarri tries to explain how God can explain order in the universe.


Calling all math people: Enigman reads philosophy of physics, asks if the maths work out on some speculations.

Finally, this is in the categora of PSA, but consciousness online is still looking for submissions.

That’s all for this carnival. The next one will be hosted by Aaron Weingott. See you then.g

Leave a comment


Trackbacks and Pingbacks: