SWIP-NYC Colloquium

The SWIP-NYC Colloquium showcases work by women philosophers in all areas of philosophy. Usually, there are one or two regular colloquia per semester plus a special colloquium in the spring featuring the winner(s) of our annual SWIP-NYC Graduate Student Essay Prize.

Spring 2025

Friday, April 11, 3:30-5:30 pm, Frances Kamm (Rutgers), “Non-Consequentialism and Climate Change’

Abstract: This paper considers one attempt to develop a “non-consequentialist, person-regarding” ethic for climate change and examines how non-consequentialist the ethic is. For example, does it take account of a moral distinction between harming and not aiding that non-consequentialism typically emphasizes? What role do rights play in the ethic and is it non-consequentialist if it determines what rights to sacrifice in conflict situations based on the seriousness of the interests they protect? Does the view succeed in establishing an unending chain of intergenerational obligations based on person-affecting considerations, thus avoiding moral problems raised by the Non-Identity Problem?

Fall 2024

Friday, September 20, 3:30-5:30 pm, Juliana Bidadanure (NYU), “Understanding Demonization.” The talk will be in room 202 of the NYU philosophy department at 5 Washington Place, NYC.

Abstract: Demonization is commonly defined as the act of portraying individuals as wicked threats to the community. Although the term is widely used in public discourse, it is undertheorized and not well regimented. Social scientists don’t pay much attention to the concept, preferring overlapping notions like stigmatization, scapegoating, and stereotyping, as well as populism, propaganda, and polarization. While these concepts somewhat overlap with demonization, none of them are suitable replacements. My contention is that demonization is a distinctive practice associated with a delineable social function. Its unique quality is that it targets the  moral character of the demonized. I propose to understand demonization as a social practice in which A portrays B as (i) distinctly, intrinsically, and often entirely, bad and as (ii) constituting an immense peril to A’s core values and/or existence. I refer to (i) as moral othering and (ii) as moral panic and identify several faces of demonization.