BEGIN:VCALENDAR VERSION:2.0 PRODID:-//Philosophy events - ECPv6.16.5//NONSGML v1.0//EN CALSCALE:GREGORIAN METHOD:PUBLISH X-ORIGINAL-URL:/philevents X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Philosophy events REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H X-Robots-Tag:noindex X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H BEGIN:VTIMEZONE TZID:Europe/London BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:BST DTSTART:20180325T010000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:GMT DTSTART:20181028T010000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:BST DTSTART:20190331T010000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:GMT DTSTART:20191027T010000 END:STANDARD BEGIN:DAYLIGHT TZOFFSETFROM:+0000 TZOFFSETTO:+0100 TZNAME:BST DTSTART:20200329T010000 END:DAYLIGHT BEGIN:STANDARD TZOFFSETFROM:+0100 TZOFFSETTO:+0000 TZNAME:GMT DTSTART:20201025T010000 END:STANDARD END:VTIMEZONE BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20191202T150000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20191202T170000 DTSTAMP:20200129T153315Z CREATED:20200129T153315Z LAST-MODIFIED:20200129T153315Z UID:10000784-1575298800-1575306000@www.st-andrews.ac.uk SUMMARY:Metaphysics &Logic Seminar: No Meeting (Industrial Action) DESCRIPTION: URL:/philevents/event/metaphysics-logic-seminar-no-meeting-industrial-action/ LOCATION:A virtual seminar by Zoom\, The University\, 58勛圖\, KY16 9L\, United Kingdom CATEGORIES:Metaphysics Reading Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20191203T120000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20191203T140000 DTSTAMP:20200211T153304Z CREATED:20200129T153316Z LAST-MODIFIED:20200211T153304Z UID:10000785-1575374400-1575381600@www.st-andrews.ac.uk SUMMARY:Language and Mind Seminar: No meeting (industrial action) DESCRIPTION: URL:/philevents/event/language-and-mind-seminar-no-meeting-industrial-action/ LOCATION:A virtual seminar by Zoom\, The University\, 58勛圖\, KY16 9L\, United Kingdom CATEGORIES:Language and Mind Seminar END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20191203T150000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20191203T170000 DTSTAMP:20200211T153419Z CREATED:20200129T153316Z LAST-MODIFIED:20200211T153419Z UID:10000786-1575385200-1575392400@www.st-andrews.ac.uk SUMMARY:Conceptual Engineering Seminar: No meeting DESCRIPTION: URL:/philevents/event/conceptual-engineering-seminar-no-meeting/ LOCATION:A virtual seminar by Zoom\, The University\, 58勛圖\, KY16 9L\, United Kingdom CATEGORIES:Conceptual Engineering Seminar END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20191205T120000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20191205T133000 DTSTAMP:20200129T153317Z CREATED:20200129T153317Z LAST-MODIFIED:20200129T153317Z UID:10000787-1575547200-1575552600@www.st-andrews.ac.uk SUMMARY:Epistemology Seminar: canceled DESCRIPTION: URL:/philevents/event/epistemology-seminar-canceled/ LOCATION:A virtual seminar by Zoom\, The University\, 58勛圖\, KY16 9L\, United Kingdom CATEGORIES:Epistemology Seminar END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20191206T101500 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20191206T114500 DTSTAMP:20200129T153318Z CREATED:20200129T153318Z LAST-MODIFIED:20200129T153318Z UID:10000788-1575627300-1575632700@www.st-andrews.ac.uk SUMMARY:Medieval Logic Seminar: Roger Bacon\, On Signs (De Signis) DESCRIPTION: URL:/philevents/event/medieval-logic-seminar-roger-bacon-on-signs-de-signis/ LOCATION:Arch矇 Seminar Room\, 17-19 College Street\, 58勛圖\, KY169AL CATEGORIES:Medieval Logic Reading Group END:VEVENT BEGIN:VEVENT DTSTART;TZID=Europe/London:20191206T140000 DTEND;TZID=Europe/London:20191206T160000 DTSTAMP:20200129T153323Z CREATED:20200129T153323Z LAST-MODIFIED:20200129T153323Z UID:10000789-1575640800-1575648000@www.st-andrews.ac.uk SUMMARY:Super Special Seminar Jonathan Ichikawa (British Columbia) Deception and Valid Consent DESCRIPTION:Abstract: When all goes well\, ones agreement to constitutes valid consent to . If I agree to your doing X to me\, for instance\, and all goes well\, then I waive any right I had against your doing X to me\, and other things being equal\, you are morally permitted to do X to me. This paper concerns what it takes for all to be going\, in the relevant sense\, well. In particular\, under what circumstances does ignorance on my part\, or deception on yours\, prevent my agreement from constituting valid consent? Commonsense liberal ethics says it does so only when I am ignorant about central elements of the situation: if I am deceived about who it is I am agreeing to have sex with\, for example\, because of a partners disguise\, I do not give valid consent. But if I am seduced by someone who exaggerates their influence in my industry\, it is widely thought\, whatever wrong done to me is not a violation of my consent. Tom Dougherty has argued against this commonsense stance\, suggesting that any time one is deceived about a dealbreaker\, ones consent is invalidated.\nI will argue three things. First\, Doughertys view cannot be right; it is subject to clear counterexamples. Second\, attempts to rehabilitate the dealbreaker framework by invoking subtler distinctions in the same spirit are unlikely to succeed; a parallel to the defeaters literature in post-Gettier epistemology is instructive. Third\, this motivates an altogether different way of thinking about the motivating questions: instead of focusing on whether deception can prevent ones agreement to from constituting valid consent to \, we should focus instead on questions of just what contents one consenting to\, given the conventional ways in which consent is communicated.\n \nWhen all goes well\, ones agreement to constitutes valid consent to . If I agree to your doing X to me\, for instance\, and all goes well\, then I waive any right I had against your doing X to me\, and other things being equal\, you are morally permitted to doX to me. This paper concerns what it takes for all to be going\, in the relevant sense\, well. In particular\, under what circumstances does ignorance on my part\, or deception on yours\, prevent my agreement from constituting valid consent? Commonsense liberalethics says it does so only when I am ignorant about central elements of the situation: if I am deceived about who it is I am agreeing to have sex with\, for example\, because of a partners disguise\, I do not give valid consent. But if I am seduced by someonewho exaggerates their influence in my industry\, it is widely thought\, whatever wrong done to me is not a violation of my consent. Tom Dougherty has argued against this commonsense stance\, suggesting that any time one is deceived about a dealbreaker\, onesconsent is invalidated. \nI will argue three things. First\, Doughertys view cannot be right; it is subject to clear counterexamples. Second\, attempts to rehabilitate the dealbreaker framework by invoking subtler distinctions in the same spirit are unlikely to succeed; a parallel tothe defeaters literature in post-Gettier epistemology is instructive. Third\, this motivates an altogether different way of thinking about the motivating questions: instead of focusing on whether deception can prevent ones agreement to from constitutingvalid consent to \, we should focus instead on questions of just what contents one consenting to\, given the conventional ways in which consent is communicated. URL:/philevents/event/super-special-seminar-jonathan-ichikawa-british-columbia-deception-and-valid-consent/ CATEGORIES:Super Special Seminar series END:VEVENT END:VCALENDAR