My teaching interests include: Philosophy of Law, Ethics, and Philosophy of Action.
In Semester 1 of 2016/2017, I'm teaching a third-year undergraduate class on free will and philosophy of action.
I am also teaching (with Zach Hoskins) a Masters class on ethics. My section concentrates on to what extent an ethical theory should be action-guiding. I use this issue of action-guidingness to inform our thoughts about cluelessness objection to consequentialism, whether ought implies can, as well as the demandingness objection to consequentialism (and other ethical theories).
In Semester 2 of 2016/2017, I'll be teaching a second-year class on philosophy of race (which I also taught in 2015/2016). We explore questions such as: Is race a natural kind or a social kind? What are the implications of race being a social kind? Should we eliminate the concept of race from our thought, speech, and practice? What is racism? Is implicit (racial) bias racist? What is implicit (racial) bias and (racial) stereotype threat? How do these affect social structure and what are their implications for justifiability of affirmative action? What are some similarities and differences between race and other social kinds, such as gender, class, and disability?
I'm currently designing a new class on philosophical issues in the law, focusing on causation, intention, property, to be introduced for third-years and would be particularly suitable for those thinking of attending law school.
I have taught Critical Thinking, Logic, and Epistemology among others and I'm interested in teaching a postgraduate course on philosophy of action (and its interaction with ethics, rationality, epistemology, law, and philosophy of mind).
I have research interests in value theory, broadly construed: ethics, rationality, philosophy of action, epistemology, and philosophy of law. I would be willing to supervise PhD research in any of… read more
ANESS WEBSTER, JONATHAN MCKEOWN-GREEN and GLEN PETTIGROVE, 2015. Conjuring Ethics from Words Noûs. 49(1), 71-93
ANESS WEBSTER, IMRAN AIJAZ and JONATHAN MCKEOWN-GREEN, 2013. Burdens of Proof and the Case for Unevenness Argumentation. 27(3), 259-282
ANESS WEBSTER, 2009. Review of Equality and Legitimacy by Wojciech Sadurski Australian Journal of Legal Philosophy. 34, 266-268
I have research interests in value theory, broadly construed: ethics, rationality, philosophy of action, epistemology, and philosophy of law. I would be willing to supervise PhD research in any of these areas (including the intersections of these areas).
In ethics, I'm particularly interested in the desiderata for normative ethical theories. One issue I am currently exploring is whether or not and to what extent an adequate ethical theory should provide action-guidance. This issue has, I suggest, implications on other issues in normative ethics, such as ought-implies-can, cluelessness objection and the demandingness objection. The latter issue is the topic of another project in which I argue that there are two different sorts of demandingness. I attempt to show that only one sort poses a problem and that the other can be adequately answered by certain kinds of consequentialist theories.
I am also interested in the nature of intentions. Bratman's view that intentions do not reduce to desire-belief sets is a widely accepted view. But I argue that some of the objections against the Desire-Belief views of intention can be undermined. Currently, I am working on a paper which develops (but ultimately rejects) an objection against the Desire-Belief View that argues that it is not compatible with some views on the moral significance of intention.
I recently defended a dissertation on philosophy of law. The dissertation concerns whether there is a principled distinction between criminal law and tort law. I defend a two-pronged account of the distinction. The first prong concerns two different notions of responsibility: blameworthiness and agency. I argue that blameworthiness is implicated in criminal wrongdoing, but not in tortious wrongdoing. By agency, I mean a thinner notion of responsibility which has to do with whether the act can be attributed to the agent. The second prong concerns different accounts of rights. I argue that this second prong is needed because without it, we would be committed to the claim that all crimes are torts (since blameworthiness entails agency).
Since teaching a second-year philosophy of race course last semester, I have been exploring the notion of shame and racism. I have been thinking about the ways in which being a minority can lead to shame to unpack the phenomenology of being a racial minority. I hope to explore the differences between racism and sexism along these lines and also draw some parallels between being a racial minority and having a (visible) disability.
Other works in progress include a paper on determinism (which attempts to undermine the focus on determinism in the free will debate by arguing that determinism, by itself, does not pose a unique threat to the existence free will), and a paper on intellectual property.