Excited to see this great review of “Why It’s OK to be a Moderate” forthcoming in Journal of Moral Philosophy: philarchive.org/rec/VANWIO
Kyle van Oosterum also has a nice substack post up expanding on it here: open.substack.com/pub/kylevo/p...
I am grateful for the thoughtful commentary!
My interview with Marcus Arvan @marcusarvan.bsky.social about how many of history’s worst evils have resulted from far-right and far-left radicalism, and how many widely hailed social and political achievements have been achieved by moderates.
#philsky #politics
youtu.be/yvk5e0VRpMU
A Substack outlining my book's argument that it's OK to be a political moderate, along with links to two podcast interviews: one with the leftist podcast "Academic Edgelords" and the other with conservative Spencer Case at "Micro-Digressions."
newworkinphilosophy.substack.com/p/why-its-ok...
I wrote a short summary of the below recently published paper for the New Work in Philosophy blog.
open.substack.com/pub/newworki...
Thanks @marcusarvan.bsky.social for hosting this!
Read “Ignorance Is the Foundation of Justice” in Too Weird to Believe, Too Plausible to Deny!
@amazon: a.co/d/chdPsv4
#philosophy #justice #ethics
"Why It’s OK to Be a Moderate ... is a great book released at the perfect time, and I will be recommending it to students, family, and friends."
Happy to see this first review of "Why It's OK to be a Moderate" today. interpretationjournal.com/shop/mcgowan...
"Arvan makes a well-reasoned, well-researched, and well-written case for viewing political moderates as the unsung heroes of democratic societies for well over a century...
Also, the happiest, most stable, and least corrupt societies in the world (in Northern Europe) are those that most closely conform to Rawls’ theory.
Imagine saying that an economic theory is wrong because politicians aren’t following it. That’s no reason to throw the theory under the bus. If it’s a good theory, it’s just a reason to get people to actually follow it.
Much of what the OP describes in their post has little to do with the theory at all, but rather inaccurate straw man interpretations of it.
But that’s not the case here. A good theory of justice should do two things: describe an ideal society/world we should shoot for (ideal theory), and then show how to get there in a just way from where we are (nonideal theory). As I argue in my work, Rawls’s theory does both.
Also, you say liberals need to show why liberalism is good for people. Okay, but this isn’t that hard to show: see philpapers.org/rec/ARVFRS
That it does so is an unfortunate yet fairly common misconception. Rawls provided an “ideal theory” of a fully just society—but when the framework is extended to unjust conditions, its implications are far more non-neutral on race, gender, and many other things as well.
Rawlsian liberalism (“Justice as fairness”) does not, for example, support neutrality on anti-black racism (something you imply it does in your piece).
Your discussion here may be based on common interpretations of Rawlsian liberalism—but as I show in this published paper, those interpretations are largely wrong about how committed it is to neutrality under unjust conditions.
philpapers.org/rec/ARVAAO
I recently went on Academic Edgelords, a leftist podcast, to discuss my new book, Why It's OK to be a Moderate.
Much to my delight, all three hosts indicated that they enjoyed the book, and we had a fantastic discussion!
If you're curious, check it out: www.academicedgelords.com/2025/07/08/e...
Yes, when you click Donate on the GoFundMe page, it gives that as an option.
I am devastated to learn of my dear friend and fellow philosopher Helen De Cruz’s passing.
With Helen's blessing, her husband Johan and I agreed to circulate a GoFundMe on their children’s behalf.
Please feel free to share and circulate widely.
www.gofundme.com/f/support-he...
"How to do philosophy with (science) fiction"
Here are some reflections on writing weird novels as scholarly outputs (with thanks to @marcusarvan.bsky.social).
>> newworkinphilosophy.substack.com/p/giacomo-pe... <<
Whether the value is truth, morality, or whatever, there is no empirically tractable way to train these things to reliably give the right outputs. www.scientificamerican.com/article/ai-i...
“As they try to tackle a problem step by step, they run the risk of hallucinating at each step. The errors can compound as they spend more time thinking.”
Your daily reminder that “aligning” LLMs with what we want them to do is a fool’s errand.
www.nytimes.com/2025/05/05/t...
I made a video for New Work in Philosophy on mind and self, from Descartes to the anti-Cartesians. Thanks @marcusarvan.bsky.social for the invite! youtu.be/tPXbnketu8I
A fun, short interview at "Why Philosophy?" on my path into philosophy, what philosophy means to me, etc.
Many thanks to Céline Leboeuf for the invitation. It's a great series, and I highly recommend subscribing to her substack!
celineleboeuf.substack.com/p/why-philos...
New podcast interview with Reid Blackman on whether AI control and alignment are possible. Thanks so much to Reid for having me on--it was a fun discussion! open.spotify.com/episode/5rdh...
Hope some of you decide to check it out and enjoy it, and if so, please do share the word!
