My primary research interests are in ethical theory, applied ethics, and philosophy of law. My dissertation and early work was about the meta-ethical implications of naturalistic accounts of the moral sentiments, in particular how such accounts bear on the metaphysics of morality. I then started doing more work in applied ethics, most notably in biomedical ethics, the ethics of war, and the ethics of emerging technologies. Moving forward, I am interested in issues that fall at the intersection of moral theory and the philosophy of law, including justification and excuse–with particular emphasis on necessity and self-defense–as well as issues in jurisprudence.
Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin and Daniel Moore, What Is Nanotechnology and Why Does It Matter?: From Science to Ethics (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). Hardback and paperback, x+293 pp. Review by Amber Hottes in Nanotechnology Law & Business 7.2 (2010): 102-104. Note in Chemical & Engineering News 88.36 (2010). Review by Fabrice Jotterand in International Journal of Applied Philosophy 25.1 (2011): 121-127. Review by Kevin Elliott in Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 5.1 (2011): 1-4. Review by Jennifer Kuzma in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry (Online First). Review by Evan Michelson in Science and Public Policy (forthcoming). Review by Matthew Kearnes in Minerva (forthcoming). Review by Robert McGinn in Nanoethics (forthcoming). Review by Sean Hays in Ethics and Information Technology (forthcoming). Lunch with an Author, Association for Practical and Professional Ethics Twentieth Annual Meeting (Cincinnati; 2011).
Fritz Allhoff, Terrorism, Ticking Time-Bombs, and Torture (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012). Hardback, xii+266 pp. Excerpt published in International Journal of Intelligence Ethics 3.1 (2012): 3-45. “Editor’s Choice of Books Received”, Journal of Ethics (2012). Review by Robert Heineman in Choice Reviews Online, September, 2012. Review by Timothy Horner in Journal for Peace & Justice Studies 22.2 (2012): 106-108. Review by Stephen Kershnar in International Journal of Intelligence Ethics 3.2 (2012): 121-125. Review by Philip Devine in Ethics 123.2 (2013): 346-349. Review by J. Jeremy Wisnewski in Philosophy Today 57.1 (2013): 114-120. Review by Peter Brian Barry in Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (2013): 675-696. Review by John Kleinig in Australasian Journal of Philosophy 91.2 (2013): 407-409. Review by David E. Decosse (“Personhood, Utilitarianism, and the Limits of Torture”) in Criminal Justice Ethics 32.3 (2013): 258-261. Review essay by Bradley J. Strawser (“Defensive Interrogational Torture and Epistemic Limitations”) in Public Affairs Quarterly 27.4 (2013): 311-340. Review by Seumas Miller in Journal of Moral Philosophy (in press).
Fritz Allhoff (PI) and John Weckert, Ethical Issues in Nanotechnology and Human Enhancement. US National Science Foundation: Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences: Division of Social and Economic Sciences: Science and Society (S&S): Ethics and Values in Science, Engineering, and Technology. Collaborative proposal with James Moor (PI), Dartmouth College. September 2006-September 2010 ($249,867).
Fritz Allhoff, Craig Hanks, Dominick E. Fazarro, Mario Cristian Gaedicke-Hornung, and Jitendra Tate (PI), NUE: NanoTRA: Texas Regional Alliance to Foster ‘Nanotechnology Environment, Health, and Safety Awareness’ in Tomorrow’s Engineering and Technology Leaders. US National Science Foundation; Nanotechnology Undergraduate Education (NUE) in Engineering. January 2012-December 2014 ($199,997).
Fritz Allhoff (PI), Developing a Normative Framework for Cyberwarfare; US National Science Foundation; Science, Technology, and Society. Collaborative proposal with Neil Rowe (PI) and Bradley Strawser, Naval Postgraduate School and Patrick Lin (PI), California Polytechnic State University. October 2013-September 2016 ($494,465).
Fritz Allhoff, “Business Bluffing Reconsidered”, Journal of Business Ethics 45 (2003): 283-89. Reprinted in Marc Street (ed.), Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004), pp 53-61. Direct reply in Thomas L. Carson, “The Morality of Bluffing: A Reply to Allhoff”, Journal of Business Ethics 56.4 (2005): 399-403. Direct reply in Jukka Varelius, “Allhoff on Business Bluffing”, Journal of Business Ethics 65.2 (2006): 163-171.
Abstract: On the one hand, bluffing in business seems to bear a strong resemblance to lying, and therefore might be thought to be prima facie impermissible. On the other, many people have the intuition that bluffing is an appropriate and morally permissible negotiating tactic. Given this tension, what is the moral standing of bluffing in business? In this paper, I will consider influential accounts of both Albert Carr and Thomas Carson, and I will present my criticisms thereof. Drawing off of these accounts, I will then develop my own argument as to why bluffing in business is morally permissible, which will be that bluffing is a practice that should be endorsed by all rational negotiators.
Fritz Allhoff, “Terrorism and Torture”, International Journal of Applied Philosophy 17.1 (2003): 105-18. Reprinted in Understanding Terrorism: Philosophical Issues, ed. Timothy Shanahan (LaSalle, IL: Open Court Press, 2005), pp. 243-59. Reprinted (in slightly modified form) as “An Ethical Defense of Torture in Interrogation” in Jan Goldman (ed.), Ethics of Spying: A Reader for the Intelligence Professional (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), pp. 126-40.
Abstract: In this paper, I defend the moral permissibility of torture in ticking time-bomb-like cases. This defense is first made on consequentialist grounds, but a defense is also offered under the aegis of rights-based deontology. In particular, I argue that any serious accounting of rights needs to allow for the infringement of the right against torture assuming such a right exists for a guilty terrorist—in order to preserve the rights violations of countless others. Objections to this sort of “utilitarianism of rights” are considered, with particular focus given to those voiced by Robert Nozick. The final sections of the paper delimit the conditions under which torture can be justified, as well as what kinds of torture would be appropriate.
Fritz Allhoff, “Evolutionary Ethics from Darwin to Moore”, History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 25 (2003): 81-109.
Abstract: Evolutionary ethics underwent a revival in the 1980s and 1990s, bringing adherents to defend views about the relationship between evolution and morality that had largely fallen out of disfavor by the beginning of the 20th century. In thinking about these more recent accounts, it is illustrative to reconsider the history of evolutionary ethics, both to see past errors and to see how novel contemporary accounts really are. This essay comprises a broad historical survey, starting with Charles Darwin (especially using Descent and his private notebooks) and Herbert Spencer, through the criticisms of T.H. Huxley, Henry Sidgwick, and G.E. Moore, and concluding with suggestions about ways forward.
Fritz Allhoff, “Telomeres and the Ethics of Human Cloning, American Journal of Bioethics 4.2 (2004): W29-W31. Direct reply in Jesse Steinberg, “Response to Fritz Allhoff, ‘Telomeres and the Ethics of Human Cloning’”, American Journal of Bioethics 5.1 (2005): W27.
Abstract: In search of a potential problem with cloning, I investigate the phenomenon of telomere shortening which is caused by cell replication; clones created from somatic cells will have shortened telomeres and therefore reach a state of senescence more rapidly. While genetic intervention might fix this problem at some point in the future, I ask whether, absent technological advances, this biological phenomenon undermines the moral permissibility of cloning.
Fritz Allhoff, “Germ-Line Genetic Enhancement and Rawlsian Primary Goods”, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15.1 (2005): 39-56. Reprinted in Journal of Evolution and Technology 18.1 (2008): 10-26. Direct reply in Colin Farrelly, “Justice in the Genetically Transformed Society”, Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 15.1 (2005): 91-99.
Abstract: Genetic interventions raise a host of moral issues and, of its various species, germ-line genetic enhancement is the most morally contentious. This paper surveys various arguments against germ-line enhancement and attempts to demonstrate their inadequacies. A positive argument is advanced in favor of certain forms of germ- line enhancements, which holds that they are morally permissible if and only if they augment Rawlsian primary goods, either directly or by facilitating their acquisition.
Fritz Allhoff, “A Defense of Torture: Separation of Cases, Ticking Time-Bombs, and Moral Justification”, International Journal of Applied Philosophy 19.2 (2006): 243-64.
Abstract: In this paper, I argue for the permissibility of torture in idealized cases by application of separation of cases: if torture is permissible given any of the dominant moral theories (and if one of those is correct), then torture is permissible simpliciter and I can discharge the tricky business of trying to adjudicate among conflicting moral views. To be sure, torture is not permissible on all the dominant moral theories, as at least Kantianism will prove especially recalcitrant to granting moral license of torture, even in idealized cases. Rather than let the Kantian derail my central argument, I directly argue against Kantianism (and other views with similar commitments) on the grounds that, if they cannot accommodate the intuitions in ticking time-bomb cases, they simply cannot be plausible moral views—these arguments come in both foundationalist and coherentist strains. Finally, I postulate that, even if this paper has dealt with idealized cases, it paves the way for the justification of torture in the real world by removing some candidate theories (e.g., Kantianism) and allowing others that both could and are likely to justify real-world torture.
Fritz Allhoff, “Physician Involvement in Hostile Interrogations”, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 15 (2006): 392-402. Reprinted in Fritz Allhoff (ed.), Physicians at War: The Dual-Loyalties Challenge (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008), pp. 91-104. Direct reply in Richard S. Matthews, “Indecent Medicine: Considering Physician Involvement in Torture” in Fritz Allhoff (ed.), Physicians at War: The Dual-Loyalties Challenge (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008), pp. 105-125. Direct reply in Michael Davis, “Why Physicians Should Not Be Involved in Hostile Interrogations: A Reply to Allhoff”, Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics (forthcoming).
Abstract: In this paper, I have two main goals. First, I will argue that traditional medical values mandate, as opposed to forbid, at least minimal physician participation in hostile interrogations. Second, I will argue that traditional medical duties or responsibilities do not apply to medically-trained interrogators. In support of this conclusion, I will argue that medically-trained interrogators could simply choose not to enter into a patient-physician relationship. Recognizing that this argument might not be convincing, I will then propose three further arguments against the claim that medical knowledge creates special duties: the logical argument, the metaphysical argument, and the argument from analogy. Finally, I will argue that invocations of role-differentiated morality, professionalism, and oaths could not circumvent the central argumentation of this paper.
Fritz Allhoff, “On the Autonomy and Justification of Nanoethics”, Nanoethics: The Ethics of Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale 1.3 (2007): 185-210. Reprinted in Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin (eds.), Nanotechnology & Society: Current and Emerging Ethical Issues (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008), pp. 3-38.
Abstract: In this paper, I take a critical stance on the emerging field of nanoethics. After an introductory section, §2 considers the conceptual foundations of nanotechnology, arguing that nanoethics can only be as coherent as nanotechnology itself and then discussing concerns with this latter concept; the conceptual foundations of nanoethics are then explicitly addressed in §3. §4 considers ethical issues that will be raised through nanotechnology and, in §5, it is argued that none of these issues is unique to nanotechnology. In §6, I express skepticism about arguments which hold that, while the issues themselves might not be unique, they nevertheless are instantiated to such a degree that extant moral frameworks will be ill-equipped to handle them. In §7, I draw plausible distinctions between nanoethics and other applied ethics, arguing that these latter might well identify unique moral issues and, as such, distinguish themselves from nanoethics. Finally, in §8, I explore the conclusions of this result, ultimately arguing that, while nanoethics may fail to identify novel ethical concerns, it is at least the case that nanotechnology is deserving of ethical attention, if not a new associative applied ethic.
Fritz Allhoff, “The Evolution of Moral Sentiments and the Metaphysics of Morals”, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 12.1 (2009): 97-114.
Abstract: So-called evolutionary error theorists, such as Michael Ruse and Richard Joyce, have argued that naturalistic accounts of the moral sentiments lead us to adopt an error theory approach to morality. Roughly, the argument is that an appreciation of the etiology of those sentiments undermines any reason to think that they track moral truth and, furthermore, undermines any reason to think that moral truth actually exists. I argue that this approach offers us a false dichotomy between error theory and some form of moral realism. While accepting the presuppositions of the evolutionary error theorist, I argue that contract-based approaches to morality can be sensitive to those presuppositions while still vindicating morality. Invoking Stephen Darwall’s distinction between contractualism and contractarianism, I go on to offer an evolutionary-based contractarianism.
Fritz Allhoff, “Risk, Precaution, and Emerging Technologies”, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Society 3.2 (2009): 1-27. Reprinted (in slightly modified form) as “Risk, Precaution, and Robotics” in Patrick Lin, George Bekey and Keith Abney (eds.), Robot Ethics: The Ethical and Social Implications of Robotics (Cambridge: MIT Press, forthcoming).
Abstract: This paper explores a framework for thinking about risks inherent in emerging technologies; given uncertainty about the magnitude—or even nature of those risks, deliberation about those technologies is challenged. §1 develops a conceptual framework for risk, and §2 integrates that conception into cost-beneﬁt analysis. Given uncertainty, we are often pushed toward precautionary approaches, and such approaches are explored in §3. These ﬁrst three sections are largely literature review, and then a positive argument for how to think about the relationship between risk, precaution, and uncertainty is offered in 4.
Fritz Allhoff, “The Coming Era of Nanomedicine”, American Journal of Bioethics 9.10 (2009): 3-11. Featured as Target Article with direct replies by Summer Johnson, Ellen McGee, Ronald Sandler, and Tihamer Toth-Fejel. Response issued as Response to Commentators on ‘The Coming Era of Nanomedicine’”.
Abstract: In this essay, I will present some general background on nanomedicine, particularly focusing on some of the investment that is being made in this emerging field (§1). The bulk of the essay, though, will consist in explorations of two areas in which the impacts of nanomedicine are likely to be most significant: diagnostics and medical records (§2) and treatment (§3), including surgery and drug delivery. Under each discussion, I will survey some of the ethical and social issues that are likely to arise in these applications.
Fritz Allhoff, “The War on Terror and the Ethics of Exceptionalism”, Journal of Military Ethics 8.4 (2009): 265-288.
Abstract: The war on terror is commonly characterized as a fundamentally different kind of war from more traditional armed conflict. Furthermore, it has been argued that, in this new kind of war, different rules, both moral and legal, must apply. In the first part of this paper, three practices endemic to the war on terror—torture, assassination, and enemy combatancy status—are indentified as exceptions to traditional norms. The second part of the paper uses these examples to motivate a generalized account of exceptionalism; a taxonomy of different exceptionalisms is derived, including temporal, spatial, and group-based exceptionalisms. The third part of the paper considers the ethical status of exceptionalism, paying particular attention to the group-based exceptionalisms that are argued to be prevalent in the war on terror. It is concluded that there is nothing inherently wrong with group- based exceptionalism and, furthermore, that the proper locus of ethical evaluation lies not with the norms are that being excepted, but rather with the groups that are being excepted from them.
Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor, and John Weckert, “The Ethics of Human Enhancement:25 Questions & Answers”, Studies in Ethics, Law, and Society 3.3 (2009): 1-41.
Abstract: This paper presents the principal findings from a three-year research project funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) on ethics of human enhancement technologies. To help untangle this ongoing debate, we have organized the discussion as a list of questions and answers, starting with background issues and moving to specific concerns, including: freedom & autonomy, health & safety, fairness & equity, societal disruption, and human dignity. Each question-and-answer pair is largely self-contained, allowing the reader to skip to those issues of interest without affecting continuity much. This report is funded under NSF awards #0620694 and 0621021. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.
Fritz Allhoff, “What Is Modesty?”, International Journal of Applied Philosophy 23.2 (2010): 165-187.
Abstract: This paper examines the virtue of modesty and provides an account of what it means to be modest. A good account should not only delimit the proper application of the concept, but should also capture why it is that we think that modesty is a virtue. Recent work has yielded several interesting, but flawed, accounts of modesty. Julia Driver has argued that it consists in underestimating one’s self-worth, while Owen Flanagan has argued that modesty must entail an accurate—as opposed to underestimated or inflated—conception of one’s self worth. Neither of these accounts provides a satisfactory characterization of modesty as a virtue, or so I shall argue. After developing those criticisms, I will present my own positive account, which draws from the work of G.F. Schueler’s, as well as work done by Jean-Paul Sartre and Gabriele Taylor on the moral emotion of shame.
Fritz Allhoff, “What Are Applied Ethics?”, Science and Engineering Ethics 17.1 (2011): 1-19.
Abstract: This paper explores the relationships that various applied ethics bear to each other, both in particular cases and more generally. §1 lays out the challenge of coming up with such an account and, drawing a parallel with the philosophy of science, offers that applied ethics may either be unified or disunified. §2 develops one simple account through which applied ethics are unified, vis-à-vis ethical theory. However, this is not taken to be a satisfying answer, for reasons explained. In §3, specific applied ethics are explored: biomedical ethics; business ethics; environmental ethics; and neuroethics. These are chosen not to be comprehensive, but rather for their traditions or other illustrative purposes. Finally, §4 draws together the results of the preceding analysis and defends a disunity conception of applied ethics.
Fritz Allhoff, “Torture Warrants, Self-Defense, and Necessity”, Public Affairs Quarterly 25.3 (2011): 217-240.
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.
Patrick Lin and Fritz Allhoff, “Nanoethics and Human Enhancement: A Critical Evaluation of Recent Arguments”, Nanotechnology Perceptions 2 (2006): 47-52.
Abstract: Human enhancement—our ability to use technology to enhance our bodies and minds, as opposed to its application for therapeutic purposes—is a critical issue facing nanotechnology. It will be involved in some of the near- term applications of nanotechnology, and it is a core issue related to far-term predictions in nanotechnology, such as longevity, nanomedicine, artificial intelligence and other issues. The implications of nanotechnology as related to human enhancement are perhaps some of the most personal and therefore passionate issues in the emerging field of nanethics, forcing us to rethink what it means to be human or, essentially, our own identity. For some, nanotechnology hold the promise of making us superhuman; for others, it offers a darker path toward becoming Frankenstien’s monster. Without advocating any particular side of the debate, this essay will look at a growing chorus of calls for human enhancement, especially in the context of emerging technologies, to be embraced and unrestricted. We will critically examine recent “pro-enhancement” arguments—articulated in More Than Human by Ramez Naam, as one of the most visible works on the subject today—and conclude that they ultimately need to be repaired, if they are to be convincing.
Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin, “What’s So Special about Nanotechnology and Nanoethics?”, International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20.2 (2006): 179-90.
Abstract: Nanoethics is a contentious field for several reasons. Some believe it should not be recognized as a proper area of study, because they believe that nanotechnology itself is not a true category but rather an amalgamation of other sciences, such as chemistry, physics, and engineering. Critics also allege that nanoethics does not raise any new issues but rather revisits familiar ones such as privacy. This paper answers such criticisms and sets the context for the papers that follow in this nanoethics symposium.
Patrick Lin and Fritz Allhoff, “Against Unrestricted Human Enhancement”, Journal of Evolution and Technology 18.1 (2008): 35-41.
Abstract: The defining debate in this new century will be about technology and human enhancement, according to many across the political spectrum. Our ability to use science to enhance our bodies and minds –as opposed to its application for therapeutic purposes –is one of the most personal and therefore passionate issues in an era where emerging technologies seduce us with new and fantastic possibilities for our future. But in the process, we are forced to rethink what it means to be human or, essentially, our own identity. For some, technology holds the promise of making us superhuman; for others, it offers a darker path toward becoming Frankenstein’s monster. This paper will look at a growing chorus of calls for human enhancement to be embraced and unrestricted. Specifically, we will critically examine recent “pro-enhancement” arguments – articulated in More Than Human by Ramez Naam, as one of the most visible works on the subject today –and conclude that they ultimately need to be strengthened, if they are to be convincing.
Patrick Lin and Fritz Allhoff, “Untangling the Debate: The Ethics of Human Enhancement”, Nanoethics: The Ethics of Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale 2.3 (2008): 251- 264.
Abstract: Human enhancement, in which nanotechnology is expected to play a major role, continues to be a highly contentious ethical debate, with experts on both sides calling it the single most important issue facing science and society in this brave, new century. This paper is a broad introduction to the symposium herein that explores a range of perspectives related to that debate. We will discuss what human enhancement is and its apparent contrast to therapy; and we will begin to tease apart the myriad intertwined issues that arise in the debate: (1) freedom & autonomy, (2) health & safety, (3) fairness & equity, (4) societal disruption, and (5) human dignity.
Fritz Allhoff, “Discriminating against ‘Organ Takers’”, American Journal of Bioethics 4.4 (2004): 31-33.
Fritz Allhoff, “Free-Riding and Research Ethics”, American Journal of Bioethics 5.1 (2005): 50-1.
Chris Buford and Fritz Allhoff, “Neuroscience and Metaphysics”, American Journal of Bioethics 5.2 (2005): 34-6.
Fritz Allhoff, “On Economic Justifications of Bioterrorism Defense Spending”, American Journal of Bioethics 5.4 (2005): 52-4.
Fritz Allhoff, “Stem Cells and the Blastocyst Transfer Method: Some Concerns Regarding Autonomy, American Journal of Bioethics 5.6 (2005): 28-30.
Chris Buford and Fritz Allhoff, “Neuroscience and Metaphysics (Redux)”, American Journal of Bioethics (AJOB-Neuroscience) 7.1 (2007): 58-60.
Fritz Allhoff, “Treating the Military’s Wounded: Reply to Gross, American Journal of Bioethics 8.2 (2008): 15-16.
Fritz Allhoff, “Response to Commentators on ‘The Coming Era of Nanomedicine’”, American Journal of Bioethics 9.10 (2009): W1-W2.
Fritz Allhoff, “Physicians at War: Response to Critics”, International Journal of Applied Philosophy 24.1 (2010): 101-114.
Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, and Jesse Steinberg, “Ethics of Human Enhancement: An Executive Summary”, Science and Engineering Ethics (forthcoming).
Fritz Allhoff and Anand Vaidya, Business Ethics, 3 vols. (London: Sage Publications, 2005). Hardback, xxx+457 pp.; 285 pp.; 450 pp.
Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin, Nanoethics: A Symposium in International Journal of Applied Philosophy 20.2 (2006): 179-261.
Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor, and John Weckert, Nanoethics: The Social & Ethical Implications of Nanotechnology (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2007). Hardback and paperback, 322 pp. Review by Amber Hottes in Nanotechnology Law & Business (Winter 2007): 527-31. Review by Jason Robert in Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 2.1 (2008), Article 10. Review by Arthur L. Caplan in Chemical & Engineering News 86.13 (2008): 42-3. Review by Armin Grunwald in Hyle 14.1 (2008): 53-57. Review by Jorgen Altmann in Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 47.21 (2008): 3864-3865. Review by Ronald Sandler in American Journal of Bioethics 8.8 (2008): 70-71. Review by Sally Randles and Harald Throne-Holst in R&D Management 39.1 (2008): 109-110. Review by Kevin C. Elliott in Philosophy of Science 75.3 (2008): 405-209.
Fritz Allhoff, Physicians at War: The Dual-Loyalties Challenge (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008). Hardback, xii+271 pp. Review by Christian Enemark in Journal of Military Ethics 7.4 (2008): 320-322. Review by Michel Davis in Studies in Ethics, Law, and Technology 3.2 (2009): 1-4. Review by Jason Gatliff in Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 6.3 (2009): 391-392. Review by Griffin Trotter in International Journal of Applied Philosophy (in press). Response panel at American Philosophical Association Central Division Meeting (Chicago; 2008). Response panel at the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics Eighteenth Annual Meeting (Cincinnati; 2009). Lunch with an [Editor], Association for Practical and Professional Ethics Eighteenth Annual Meeting (Cincinnati; 2009).
Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin, Nanotechnology & Society: Current and Emerging Ethical Issues (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008). Hardback, xxxiv+299 pp. Review by Amber Hottes in Nanotechnology Law & Business, Fall 2008, pp. 359-364. Review by Jaipreet Virdi in Spontaneous Generations: A Journal for the History and Philosophy of Science 2.1 (2008): 248-250. Review by Travis N. Rieder in Nanoethics: The Ethics of Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale 2 (2008): 229-231.
Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin, “Nanotechnology and Human Enhancement: A Symposium” in Nanoethics: The Ethics of Technologies that Converge at the Nanoscale 2.3 (2008): 251-327.
Elizabeth Radcliffe, Richard McCarty, Fritz Allhoff, and Anand Vaidya, Late Modern Philosophy: Essential Readings with Commentary (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007). Hardback and paperback, ix+376 pp.
Fritz Allhoff and Anand Vaidya, Business in Ethical Focus (Calgary: Broadview Press, 2008). Paperback, 647 pp.
Fritz Allhoff and Anand Vaidya, Professions in Ethical Focus (Calgary: Broadview Press, 2008). Paperback, 520 pp.
Timothy McGrew, Marc Alspector-Kelly, and Fritz Allhoff, The Philosophy of Science: An Historical Anthology (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2009). Paperback, xix+660 pp. Review by Liz Stillwagon Swan in Philosophy of Science (in press).
Fritz Allhoff, Philosophies of the Sciences: A Guide (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010). Hardback, xi+371 pp. Paperback (forthcoming).
Fritz Allhoff, Ron Mallon, and Shaun Nichols, Philosophy: Traditional and Experimental Approaches (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming).
Fritz Allhoff, Wine & Philosophy: A Symposium on Thinking and Drinking (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007). Paperback, 322 pp. Translation into Ukrainian, Вно і флос фі. Смпо дмки келх (Kiev: Темпор, 2010). Translation into Portuguese (forthcoming). Review by Mitch Frank in Wine Spectator, December 31, 207-January 15, 2008, pp. 138-41. Review by Peter Machamer in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, April 16, 2008. Review by Raymond D. Boisvert (“De gustibus non disputandum) in Gastronomica 8.4 (2008), pp. 95-97. Review by Tim Moriarty in Wine Enthusiast, September 1, 2008, p. 28. Review by Joshua Hall in Journal of Wine Economics 3.2 (2009), pp. 223-225.
Fritz Allhoff and Dave Monroe, Food & Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2007). Paperback, 320 pp. Translation into Ukrainian (Kiev: Tempora, forthcoming). Translation into Portuguese (forthcoming). Review by Raymond D. Boisvert (“De gustibus non disputandum”) in Gastronomica 8.4 (2008), pp. 95-97.
Fritz Allhoff and Marcus Adams, Whiskey & Philosophy (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010). Paperback, 366 pp. Gourmand World Cookbook Award nominee (2009). Review by Thom Olink in Whiskey etc. magazine 7.4 (Winter 2009), p. 37 (in Dutch). Review by Davin de Kergommeaux in Malt Maniacs 115 (2009), E-pistle 2009-34. Review by Hans Offringa and Becky Offringa, Charleston Mercury, January 19, 2010, p. 19. Review by Lew Bryson in Malt Advocate, Spring 2010, p. 28. Interview by Chris D’Amico in Mutineer 11 (May/June 2010), p. 28.
Fritz Allhoff and Anand Vaidya, “Introduction” in Fritz Allhoff and Anand Vaidya (eds.), Business Ethics (London: Sage Publications, 2005), pp.xix-xxx.
Fritz Allhoff and Anand Vaidya, “The Zen Master and the Big Aristotle: Cultivating a Philosopher in the Low Post in Jerry L. Walls and Gregory Bassham (eds.), Basketball and Philosophy (Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky, 2007), pp. 107-115.
Patrick Lin and Fritz Allhoff, Nanoscience and Nanoethics: Defining the Disciplines” in Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor, and John Wekcert (eds.), Nanoethics: The Social & Ethical Implications of Nanotechnology (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2008).
Fritz Allhoff, “Planting the Vines” in Fritz Allhoff (ed.), Wine & Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), pp. 1-12.
Fritz Allhoff and Dave Monroe, Setting the Table” in Fritz Allhoff and Dave Monroe (eds.), Food & Philosophy (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing, 2008), pp. 1-10.
Patrick Lin and Fritz Allhoff, “Nanotechnology, Society, and Ethics” in Fritz Allhoff and Patrick Lin (eds.), Nanotechnology & Society: Current and Emerging Ethical Issues (Dordrecht:Springer, 2008), pp. xxi-xxxiv.
Fritz Allhoff, “Physicians at War: The Dual-Loyalties Challenge” in Fritz Allhoff (ed.), Physicians at War: The Dual-Loyalties Challenge (Dordrecht: Springer, 2008), pp. 3-11.
Fritz Allhoff and Marcus P. Adams, “Start Up the Still in Fritz Allhoff and Marcus P. Adams (eds.), Whiskey & Philosophy: A Small Batch of Spirited Ideas (Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009), pp. 1-17.
Fritz Allhoff, “Physicians at War: Lessons for Archaeologists?” in Peter G. Stone (ed.), Cultural Heritage, Ethics, and the Military (Woodbridge, UK: The Boydell Press, 2011), pp. 43-54.
Fritz Allhoff, “Health Care for Soldiers”, in Rosamond Rhodes, Margaret P. Battin, and Anita Silvers (eds.), Medicine and Social Justice: Essays on the Distribution of Health Care, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, in press).
Fritz Allhoff, Review of Darwin’s Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society by David Sloan Wilson, Human Nature Review 4 (2004): 76-80.
Fritz Allhoff, Review of Remaking Life & Death: Toward an Anthropology of the Biosciences by Sarah Franklin and Margaret M. Lock (eds.), History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 26 (2004): 440-442.
Fritz Allhoff, Note on The President of Good & Evil: The Ethics of George W. Bush by Peter Singer, Ethics 115.2 (2005): 439.
Fritz Allhoff, Review of A World without Values: Essays on John Mackie’s Moral Error Theory by Richard Joyce and Simon Kirchin (eds.), The Philosophical Quarterly 61.243 (2011): 429-431.
Fritz Allhoff, “The Oregon Plan and QALY’s”, Virtual Mentor: Ethics Journal of the American Medical Association 7.2 (2005).
Fritz Allhoff “Should Alcoholics Be Deprioritized for Liver Transplantation?”, Virtual Mentor: Ethics Journal of the American Medical Association 7.9 (2005).
Jeff Jarosch and Fritz Allhoff, “Ethics and Patient-Centered Communication”, in An Ethical Force Consensus Report: Improving Communication Improving Care (Chicago: AMA Press, 2006): 103-108.
Fritz Allhoff, Patrick Lin, James Moor, and John Weckert, Ethics of Human Enhancement: 25 Questions and Answers (2009). A report prepared for the US National Science Foundation.