And it’s out:

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/T/bo12274697.html

If anyone would like a complimentary review copy for potential course adoption, please contact Ryo Yamaguchi (ryamaguchi@press.uchicago.edu).  Comments are certainly welcome!

Next semester, I’m teaching biomedical ethics online, which I have been doing for some years now.  But I’m also excited about a course I haven’t taught before, which is PHIL 6320:  Ethical Theory.  I just finished taking a course on torts law that was fantastic, so I set up this course to explore ethical theory through tort law.  Here’s the syllabus and course description:

Course Description: This course will explore ethical theory through tort law.  We will investigate:  intentional torts, privileges, negligence, causation in fact, proximate cause, defenses, and damages.  In these investigations, our focus will be less on what the law is, than why it is what it is and whether it should be as it is.  Furthermore, we shall consider case-based approaches to moral methodology, as opposed to principle-based approaches or alternatives (e.g., reflective equilibrium).  To put this another way, torts doctrine is largely constructed from the common law, and we can query the advantages and disadvantages of this method.

For anyone interested, please see my new paper, “Torture Warrants, Self-Defense, and Necessity”, Public Affairs Quarterly 25.3 (2011):  217-2405.  Here’s the abstract:

Abstract: This article explores a debate over the legal mechanisms by which interrogational torture could be sanctioned.  Four separate proposals are considered, including:  civil disobedience; torture warrants; self-defense; and necessity.  Civil disobedience does not allow for legalized torture, but may allow for reduced punishments.  Torture warrants contrast with self-defense and necessity in terms of offering ex ante, as opposed to ex post, authorization; arguments for and against either approach are considered.  While there has been some legal scholarship in relation to torture warrants, less has been said about ex post justifications.  This article ultimately defends the appropriateness of the necessity defense for torture, making both the moral and legal case for such a defense.

With Adam Henschke and Nick Evans, I’m editing a book entitled Not Just Wars: Extensions and Alternatives to the Just War Tradition in the 21st Century.  At this early stage, we’re seeking abstracts for proposed papers and will thereafter seek a contract for publication.  If anyone is interested in submitting, the CfA is available here.  And, from that CfA, the project description is as follows:

The Just War tradition has an enduring, if troubled legacy. In recent years, this legacy has been challenged not just by the two opposing radical views of political realism and pacifism, but by critics whose allegiance is often much closer to that of the Just War tradition itself.  These critics have targeted the conceptual foundations of the tradition; its legitimacy in modern conflicts between non-state and state actors; challenges to the ability of Just War theories to meet the modern facts of changing states, international law, and novel technology. On top of this are changes to military doctrine, as professional armies expand their mandate to now frequently act as peacekeepers, “international law enforcement,” and even aid workers.

We are pleased to release a call for abstracts for a volume intended to draw together these alternatives and extensions to the Just War tradition into a single volume. This volume seeks to divide this set of challenges into thematic categories, to better outline the changing landscape of the Just War tradition. The motivating idea and common thread that will carry through the collection  is to engage in a process of reflective equilibrium where the various authors will not only present some element in the Just War tradition to see how it applies to modern warfare, but how the facts about modern warfare can and ought to bear upon/change different elements in the philosophy and ethics that underpin Just War theories. We see the book as a link between theoretical discussions of modern warfare and the practical and real-world developments of warfare in the 21^st century.