Événements

Filtrer : Axes
  • Éthique fondamentale
  • Éthique et politique
  • Éthique et économie
  • Éthique et environnement
  • Éthique et santé
Mots-clés :
  • Conférences (236)
  • Colloques (103)
  • Ateliers (137)
  • Divers (56)
  • Mardis midi du CRÉUM (MAMIC) (8)

Agenda

  1. mar
    27
    lun
    2017
    1. Séminaire des boursier(e)s d’études supérieures du CRÉ – 2e séance @ Salle 307
      mar 27 journée entière
      Vous êtes cordialement invité(e)s au second séminaire des boursier(e)s d’études supérieures du CRÉ. 
      Les étudiant(e)s présenteront pendant leur projet de recherche pendant environ 45 minutes, ce qui sera suivi d’une discussion de la même durée.
      L’horaire proposé pour cette première journée est le suivant:
      09:00 – 10:30 Genevièe Dick, étudiante à la maîtrse sous la direction de Marc-Antoine Dilhac, en philosophie – enseignement au collégial, UdeM, « Injustices épistémiques en démocratie: quelles vertus citoyennes développer en réponse? ». 
      10:30 – 12:00 Françoise Paradis-Simpson, doctorante sous la co-supervision de Christine Tappolet et Marc-Antoine Dilhac, en philosophie, UdeM, « Identité démocratique et pluralisme ».
      12:00 – 12:30 Lunch. Apportez votre boite à lunch, nous pourrons manger tou(te)s ensemble! 
      12:30 – 14:00 Haidar Hazar, doctorante sous la direction de Vardit Ravitsky et Gilles Bibeau, en bioéthique, UdeM, « L’autonomie reproductrice des femmes vis-à-vis du Test Prénatal Non-Invasif: étude comparative Liban-Québec ». 
      14:00 – 15:30 Sylvain Lajoie, étudiant à la maîtrise sous la direction de Peter Dietsch, en philosophie, UdeM « Vers un égalitarisme au nom des principes de liberté et de propriété de soi ».
    2. Kristin Voigt (McGill) et Colin Chapman (McGill) @ Salle 307
      17:00 – 19:00

      Dans le cadre de ses 5 à 7, le CRÉ est heureux d’accueillir son « duo improbable » composé de deux de nos membres réguliers.

      Nous recevons ainsi Kristin Voigt (philosophie et Institute for Health and Social Policy, McGill) et Colin Chapman (anthropology et McGill School of Environment, McGill). La présentation de Kristin sera intitulée « Relational equality and the expressive dimension of state action » et celle de Colin sera intitulée  « 50 Years of Primate Conservation: Shifting Baselines and Shifting Approaches ».

      Voici les résumés:

      Kristin Voigt, « Relational equality and the expressive dimension of state action »

      Expressive theories of state action seek to identify and assess the ‘meaning’ of state action, such as legislation and policies. As developed by Anderson and Pildes, state action must ‘express’ equal concern and respect for citizens, reflecting the requirements of relational equality. In this paper, I consider what an expressive theory of state action requires, given the commitments of relational equality, and how it relates to relational egalitarianism more broadly. After outlining the relational approach to equality and the idea of an ‘expressive theory’ of state action, I explore what kinds of policies such a theory might single out as problematic. I discuss different ways of assessing the ‘expressive content’ of state action, highlighting that it is unclear how we can determine the expressive content of state action. I discuss two specific questions that need to be addressed to develop an egalitarian theory of the expressive dimension of state action.

      (Pour vous préparer à la présentation de Kristin, son article est disponible sur demande: valery.giroux@umontreal.ca)

      Colin Chapman, « 50 Years of Primate Conservation: Shifting Baselines and Shifting Approaches »

      The world is changing rapidly. Global assessments indicate that 2.3 million km2 of forest was lost between 2000 and 2012, and in the tropics, where most primate species are found, loss increased by 2101 km2 per year.  But why use the year 2000 as a baseline?  The rapid disappearance of tropical forests, the potential impacts of climate change, and the extent of bushmeat hunting have all only been appreciated in the last 50 years. Here I review the changes in the global status of primates over the last 50 years and discuss how the field of primate conservation has evolved to meet the challenges of the changing world.  This analysis reveals a shift from an animal based perspective to one made to accommodate human needs, but what are the achievements of these different approaches, what are their rationales, and where do they lead?  While statistics on deforestation and primate population endangerment are grim, there have recently been positive conservation gains globally and, as an illustration of conservation methods and outcomes, I discuss the conservation efforts around Kibale National Park, Uganda.

      Chacune des présentations sera suivie par une période discussion. Bienvenue à tou(te)s!

  2. mar
    30
    jeu
    2017
    1. Vanessa Nurock (Université Paris 8, CNRS, UCLA) @ Salle 223
      12:15 – 14:00

      Le GRÉEA est heureux d’accueillir Vanessa Nurock (EpIDaoO & CRESPPA, Université Paris 8, CNRS, UCLA), qui offrira une présentation intitulée « Faut-il animaliser l’éthique? ».

      Résumé

      Les animaux sont souvent utilisés comme métaphores, voire modèles, de comportements moraux. Peut-on prendre cette idée au sérieux ? Faut-il alors animaliser l’éthique ? Il s’agira de répondre à cette question en s’appuyant à la fois sur des éléments issus de l’éthologie, des sciences cognitives et de la philosophie pour défendre l’hypothèse d’une morale « naïve » animale et explorer les enjeux métaéthiques d’une telle proposition.

      Bio-biblio
      Vanessa Nurock est philosophe, maîtresse de conférences à l’université Paris 8. Ses recherches portent sur l’éthique du vivant entendu sous son double aspect : d’une part les bases naturelles de l’éthique et d’autre part nos jugements moraux sur le vivant. Actuellement en délégation CNRS à UCLA , elle travaille à l’interface entre l’éthique du care et la bioéthique sous son double aspect biomédical et environnemental/animal. Elle a notamment publié « Sommes-nous naturellement moraux ?» (PUF 2012), « Multinaturalismes » (Wildproject 2013) co-édité avec Florence Burgat et « L’éthique animale, au croisement des perspectives de recherche entre éthologie et philosophie » ( Revue « Histoire de la recherche contemporaine », 2015 4, 1), en collaboration avec Mathilde Lalot et Dalila Bovet.

    2. Jennifer Saul (University of Sheffield) @ LEA 927, McGill University
      15:30 – 17:30
      Dans le cadre de la série des conférences féministes, le CRÉ est heureux de vous annoncer que Jennifer Saul (University of Sheffield), invitée par le comité Équité et climat du département de philosophie de McGill, offrira une présentation de son travail, mené avec Jules Holroyd, intitulé « Are professional reform proposals hostage to the empirical evidence on implicit bias and stereotype threat? ». La présentation sera suivie par une période de discussion.
  3. avr
    3
    lun
    2017
    1. Droits politiques des animaux non humains @ Salle C-2059, Carrefour des Arts et des Sciences, Pavillon Lionel-Groulx
      14:00 – 17:00

      Le GRÉEA est heureux de recevoir Sue Donaldson et Will Kymlicka (Queen’s University, A.P.P.L.E) pour deux discussions sur leurs articles (non publiés) :

      « Animal Citizens and the Democratic Challenge » (Sue Donaldson)

      « Human Rights without Human Supremacism » (Will Kymlicka)

      Les discussions se dérouleront en anglais et dureront 1h30 environ chacune, incluant une courte pause entre les deux. Il est possible d’assister aux deux discussions ou à une discussion seulement dans la limite des places disponibles.

      Réservation préalable et lecture des textes fortement conseillées. Les textes seront transmis une semaine avant la rencontre.

      Contact: greea@umontreal.ca

      Résumés

      « Animal Citizens and the Democratic Challenge » (Sue Donaldson)

      “Nobody—from the most fervent animal liberationist to the most unrepentant carnivore” believes that animals are “fitted by nature to enjoy civil and political rights”. Thus spoke Brian Barry 16 years ago, and until very recently the idea that animal rights might include political rights, such as the right to vote, has been viewed as a reductio ad absurdum of animal rights theory. Even many theorists of the recent ‘political turn’ in animal rights theory, such as Alastair Cochrane or Rob Garner, who emphasize the need for animals’ interests to be considered in political decision-making processes, deny that this requires self-governance or self-representation and participation by animals themselves. In this paper I argue that if human-animal societies are to be truly democratic, animals must actively co-author the rules of society. But how can animals participate in politics if they can’t mark a ballot? I explore two strategies for overcoming the democratic deficit. The first incorporates mechanisms of political participation into the “spaces and places” that domesticated animals currently inhabit in society – namely domestic and work spheres. I refer to this as “enabling voice” within the existing geography of citizenship. While essential, I argue that this strategy is insufficient, and that surmounting these limits requires a fundamental reshaping of the landscape of citizenship. Genuine political participation requires that citizens have the freedom and opportunity to encounter one another in spontaneous, unpredictable encounters in spaces which they are empowered to re-shape together. I argue that this requires a drastic reduction in the confinement of domesticated animals, and a dramatic increase in the size of the public commons. A combination of enabling voice and transforming space is essential to a democratic zoopolis.

      Human Rights without Human Supremacism (Will Kymlicka)

      Several recent theories of human rights have appealed to the idea that human rights can be grounded on some account of human dignity. Critics of these `dignitarian’ accounts argue that the idea of human dignity is vague to the point of emptiness, and lacks any determinate content. In fact, however, recent discussions of human dignity all make one very specific claim: namely, that humans must not be treated in the same way we treat animals. Whatever else human dignity requires, it requires that we give humans a much higher status than we give animals. In this respect, dignitarian defenses of human rights follow in a long line of other supremacist accounts of human rights, all of which are as concerned to argue that animals do not deserve rights as they are to argue that humans do deserve rights. I will suggest that the human rights project will be much stronger, both philosophically and politically, if it jettisons such supremacist defenses. There is growing evidence that the more people draw a sharp species hierarchy between humans and animals, the more they draw hierarchies amongst humans, weakening the rights of subaltern groups. Defending human rights on the backs of animals is not only philosophically suspect, but politically self-defeating.

       

  4. avr
    4
    mar
    2017
    1. Patrick Turmel (Université Laval) @ Salle 309
      12:15 – 13:45

      Patrick Turmel (Université Laval), membre du CRÉ, nous offrira une présentation sur l’heure du midi.

      Plus de détails à venir.

  5. avr
    11
    mar
    2017
    1. Michele Palmira (University of Barcelona and LOGOS) @ Salle 309
      12:15 – 13:45

      Michele Palmira (University of Barcelona and LOGOS), ex-stagiaire postdoctoral du CRÉ, nous rendra bientôt visite. Ce sera l’occasion de l’entendre parler de « Conative Disagreement ».

      Résumé

      Expressivsts and indexical contextualists about morality explain the presence of disagreement about moral matters by invoking the idea that conative attitudes – such as preferences, desires, planning states – can give rise to disagreement.

      In this talk, I investigate the nature of conative disagreement. In the first part of the talk I distinguish between two varieties of conative disagreement: a first-order variety being about what we prefer or desire; a higher-order variety being about what concept of preferability or desirability we should use in a given context. In the second part of the talk I critically assess non-normative definitions of conative disagreement advanced by Gibbard (2003), Marques (2015), and Stevenson (1963). In the third and final part of the talk I tentatively argue, by analogy with the doxastic case, that if there is any room for a genuine notion of conative disagreement, this notion has to be defined by appealing to the normative properties of conative attitudes.

  6. avr
    20
    jeu
    2017
    1. Territorial Rights: New Directions and Challenges @ Uqam
      avr 20 journée entière

      Informations à venir.

  7. avr
    21
    ven
    2017
    1. Droits territoriaux. Nouvelles directions et nouveaux défis @ Salle DS-1950, UQÀM
      9:00 – 17:15

      Le GRIPP est fier de s’associer à la conférence sur les droits territoriaux organisée par Amandine Catala (UQAM) et Margaret Moore (Queen’s) intitulée Droits territoriaux. Nouvelles directions et nouveaux défis.

      VEUILLEZ VOUS INSCRIRE POUR LE 1ER AVRIL VIA TERRITORIAL.RIGHTS@GMAIL.COM

      Voici le programme:

      Jour 1: Vendredi 21 avril 2017
      UQAM, Salle DS-1950 (320 Rue Sainte-Catherine Est)

      9.00-9.15: Bienvenue et introduction

      9.15-10.55: Panel 1: The Boundary Problem, Expulsion, and Attachment

      • Paulina Ochoa Espejo, “Territorial Grounds of Democracy: Territory, Property, and Jurisdiction in Juan de Solórzano’s Derecho Indiano
      • Patti Lenard, “Expulsion from Membership and Territory”
      • Cara Nine, “Place Attachment: What’s Identity Got to Do with It?”

      10.55-11.15: Pause café

      11.15-12.45: Panel 2: Unoccupied Areas, Territorial Expansion, and Resource Rights

      • Margaret Moore, “Is Canada Entitled to the Arctic?”
      • Alejandra Mancilla, “Sorting Out the Normative Grounds of Territorial Rights and Rights over Natural Resources in Antarctica”

      12.45-13.45: Dîner

      13.45-15.15: Panel 3: Ownership, Stewardship, and Territorial Rights

      • Mathias Risse, “Humanity’s Collective Ownership of the Earth and Immigration”
      • Fabian Schuppert, “Territorial Rights, Control over Natural Resources, and the Specter of Intergenerational Domination: Examining the Prospects and Limits of a Stewardship Account”

      15.15-15.45: Pause café

      15.45-17.15: Panel 4: Natural Resource Conservation and Animals’ Right to Place

      • Chris Armstrong, “Justice and the Burdens of Natural Resource Conservation”
      • Avery Kolers, “Primitive and Political Rights to Place: Zoopolis and Beyond” – with a reply by Will Kymlicka

      17.15-18.15: Réception

      Jour 2: Samedi 22 avril 2017
      UQAM, Salle DS-1950 (320 Rue Sainte-Catherine Est)

      9.00-10.30: Panel 5:
      Roundtable on A. John Simmons’ Boundaries of Authority (OUP 2016)
      Présidente: Mira Bachvarova

      • Commentaires de David Miller, Cara Nine, Anna Stilz
      • Réponse de A. John Simmons

      10.30-11.00: Pause café

      11.00-12.30: Panel 6: Indigenous Land Claims and Postcolonial Boundary Drawing

      • Kerstin Reibold, “Waldron and Indigenous Land Claims”
      • Catherine Lu, “Border Disputes: Postcolonial States and the Struggle for Reconciliation”

      12.30-13.30: Dîner

      13.30-15.00: Panel 7: Secession and Annexation

      • David Lefkowitz, “International Law, Institutional Reasoning, and Secession”
      • Amandine Catala, “What’s Really Wrong with Annexation: A Non-Domination Account”

      15.00-15.30: Pause café

      15.30-17.00: Panel 8: Territory, Immigration, and Self-Determination

      • Sarah Song, “Collective Self-Determination and Immigration Control”
      • Anna Stilz, “A Political Autonomy Account of Self-Determination”

      17.00-17.15: Conclusion

    2. Frédérique de Vignemont (Institut Jean Nicod) @ Salle 422
      10:00 – 12:00

      Le GRIN reçoit Frédérique de Vignemont (Institut Jean Nicod) qui offrira une présentation intitulée « The sense of bodily ownership: an affective feeling ».

      Résumé

      When I complain, “I feel pain in my shoulder”, there are two occurrences of the first person pronoun: at the level of the subject of the painful experience (I feel pain) and at the level of the body part in which I localize pain (in my shoulder). The first expresses the subjectivity of my sensation. The second expresses the awareness of my body as my own. Most philosophical interest has focused on the first, but what has been called the sense of bodily ownership – for want of a better name – has also recently come into the limelight both in the philosophical literature and in the psychological literature. Here I will defend a reductionist approach, according to which the sense of ownership can be reduced to some specific properties of bodily experiences. But which properties? I will argue that the feeling of bodily ownership should be conceived of on the model of the feeling of familiarity and that it consists in the sense of the spatial boundaries of one’s body as having a special significance for the self.