Past events

Calendar archives

  • Science outreach activity in collaboration with BistroBrain

    Three students from the CRÉ will engage in science outreach and communication exercise and present their current work at the Île Noire pub on February 25, 2026, as part of a collaboration between the CRÉ and BistroBrain. The theme of the evening will be “Between Justice and Prejudice.”

    Below is a summary of the ethical issue and public appeal of each presentation.

    Mathilde Genest: “Les survivantes d’agression sexuelle à la barre”

    Les survivantes d’agressions sexuelles subissent diverses injustices lors d’un procès pour agression sexuelle. Les mythes sur le viol et les stéréotypes associés aux victimes génèrent de fausses attentes concernant leur comportement et produisent des injustices épistémiques. La crédibilité du témoignage des survivantes dépend notamment de leur conformité aux comportements attendus (McKimmie et al., 2020 ; Nitschke et al., 2019). Par ailleurs, le système judiciaire ne protège pas suffisamment les survivantes et peut leur nuire en limitant leur autonomie et en permettant la revictimisation. Les avocats de la défense ont tendance à se concentrer sur la survivante, son comportement et son identité, particulièrement lors du contre-interrogatoire, afin de transférer la responsabilité de l’accusé sur elle (Craig, 2018 ; McGlynn, 2017). De nombreuses injustices vécues par les survivantes sont liées à leurs réactions au traumatisme pendant et après l’agression sexuelle. Les neurosciences offrent une compréhension approfondie du traumatisme et permettent d’expliquer des comportements souvent mal compris, tels que la réaction de paralysie ou des souvenirs fragmentaires (Haskell & Randall, 2019). Ces connaissances peuvent donc être mobilisées lors des procès pour soutenir les survivantes, notamment par la sensibilisation des jurés et l’adoption de pratiques tenant compte du traumatisme. Je soutiens que les connaissances neuroscientifiques sur le traumatisme devraient être intégrées aux procédures judiciaires afin de remédier aux injustices subies par les survivantes. En parallèle, j’ai développé un cadre bioéthique féministe et centré sur les victimes, qui met l’accent sur leur santé et leur bien-être sans compromettre l’équité du système judiciaire.

    Les agressions sexuelles constituent un problème social important, mis en lumière par des mouvements comme #MeToo, auquel le système judiciaire peine encore à répondre adéquatement. Au Canada, une femme sur trois est victime d’agression sexuelle, et pourtant, seules 5 à 6 % des agressions sont signalées à la police (Canadian Women’s Foundation, 2022 ; Lachapelle, 2024). Parmi celles-ci, une infime minorité mène à un verdict de culpabilité, et seuls deux ou trois agresseurs sont incarcérés sur 1 000 agressions. Ces chiffres soulèvent une question fondamentale : pourquoi le système échoue-t-il si souvent à rendre justice aux survivantes? Ma présentation intéressera le public parce qu’elle propose des outils pour mieux comprendre cet échec, en reliant des données empiriques à une analyse philosophique accessible. J’explique comment les mythes sur le viol, les stéréotypes de genre et une méconnaissance du traumatisme influencent la manière dont les survivantes sont perçues et traitées en cour, affectant directement leur crédibilité. En mobilisant les neurosciences du traumatisme, je montre comment certaines réactions des survivantes, souvent mal interprétées, peuvent être mieux comprises et prises en compte. Bien que cette recherche soit principalement menée et publiée en anglais, il est particulièrement pertinent de la vulgariser en français afin de la rendre accessible au public québécois, directement concerné par ces enjeux sociaux et institutionnels. Cette présentation vise ainsi à traduire des réflexions philosophiques complexes dans un langage clair et ancré dans le contexte local, tout en contribuant à une meilleure compréhension et mobilisation citoyenne sur ces enjeux.

    Alexis Boivin: “Protester contre les enfantillages des adultes”

    Considéré comme la plus grande manifestation de rue de l’histoire des mouvements sociaux chez les jeunes, Fridays for Future a mobilisé plus de 1,5 million de personnes à travers le monde. En enfreignant la loi de la présence obligatoire en classe chez les élèves, ce mouvement a lancé une avenue de recherche intéressante en philosophie politique : la désobéissance civile chez les enfants. Cependant, peu de littérature aborde cette question, malgré l’importance des jeunes dans des mouvements sociaux de grande envergure. Cet angle mort peut s’expliquer par la négligence ou même le refus de l’agentivité politique des enfants : ces derniers sont exclus du droit de vote et sont relégués dans l’espace privé, incapables d’agir politiquement ou de participer à l’exercice commun du pouvoir politique. En effet, peut-on reconnaître des actes de désobéissance civile chez une population qui n’est pas considérée comme ayant une agentivité politique? Si oui, est-ce que ces actes peuvent être justifiés? Je défendrai la thèse suivante: non seulement les enfants devraient être reconnus comme des agents politiques, mais aussi qu’ils peuvent recourir à la désobéissance civile de manière justifiée. J’aborderai le refus de leur agentivité politique au travers du cas d’Elizabeth Eckford, une élève de 15 ans lors du mouvement des droits civiques aux États-Unis. Ensuite, je ferai un parallèle entre les caractéristiques du mouvement Fridays for Future et celles de la désobéissance civile, et j’établirai une justification de la désobéissance civile avec l’aide de l’argument de l’exclusion de Mattheis (2022).

    Le blocage du pont Jacques-Cartier en 2024 et du terminal pétrolier à Montréal-Est en 2022 (ce dernier ayant mené à la condamnation des activistes écologistes impliquées) sont deux exemples parmi d’autres de désobéissance civile qui ont occupé l’actualité québécoise ces dernières années. Ainsi, le terme « désobéissance civile » n’est pas étranger au public et ne le laisse pas indifférent, mais peut parfois être mécompris. Concernant la désobéissance civile spécifiquement menée par des enfants, cela demeure un sujet assez peu discuté, bien que Emmanuelle Dufour et Francis Dupuis-Déri (2025) aient récemment fait paraître une bande dessinée sur les révoltes menées par des élèves du monde entier. La présentation se situe en continuité de cet ouvrage et pourrait donc rejoindre ce lectorat. Au-delà de cette nouvelle parution, la désobéissance civile chez les enfants reste un sujet soit intriguant (pour les personnes adultes qui veulent en connaître davantage), nostalgique (pour les personnes ayant manifesté avant d’avoir le droit de vote), ou confrontant (chez celles qui doutent de l’agentivité politique des enfants). Enfin, les enfants demeurent très souvent un angle mort à tout sujet discuté. Pour reprendre une image de soupers de famille, il y a la table des adultes et celle des enfants, sans toutefois que les deux puissent se communiquer pleinement. Cette présentation offrira donc l’occasion d’accorder une place à ces derniers, même si nous nous trouvons dans un bar!

    Georges Lupwana Ngamasana: “Punir les victimes ? Repenser la justice sociale”

    La justice pénale, fondée sur l’idée du mérite de la peine, constitue le cadre de débats théoriques structurés principalement autour de deux orientations opposées : l’abolitionnisme et le réformisme. Ces deux perspectives partagent un diagnostic critique des institutions pénales, mais divergent profondément quant aux réponses normatives à envisager. Les abolitionnistes font de la prison une cible centrale de leur position. Ils la considèrent comme immorale et socialement néfaste parce qu’elle inflige des préjudices graves et durables aux individus sous couvert de prévenir, contrôler et punir la criminalité. Ils appellent de ce fait à la rendre obsolète (Davis 2014). À l’inverse, tout en prenant au sérieux les arguments abolitionnistes, souvent étayés par des données empiriques solides (Shelby 2022), les réformistes défendent la thèse de la perfectibilité des institutions pénales. Ils soutiennent que des réformes profondes peuvent corriger leurs dérives sans nécessité leur suppression. Cette option est toutefois rejetée par les abolitionnistes. Selon eux, on ne peut maintenir des institutions dont les réformes même les plus ambitieuses échouent à produire des transformations substantielles. Je fais valoir l’idée qu’en essentialisant la peine carcérale comme réponse au crime, la justice est particulièrement vulnérable aux injustices structurelles, notamment à travers une criminalisation sélective et une distribution inégale des sanctions. Elle les reproduit par des mécanismes de tri social, les biais et stéréotypes sociaux ancrés dans le fonctionnement de ses institutions. Il ne s’agit toutefois ni d’une simple répétition mécanique du passé dans le présent, ni d’une stricte continuité entre des institutions appartenant à des époques différentes.

    Le regain d’intérêt que connaît l’abolitionnisme carcéral invite à repenser la justice non comme une simple réponse au crime, mais comme un processus social visant à réparer les causes structurelles des préjudices. Cette réflexion révèle un paradoxe : des institutions supposées rendre justice engendrent des préjudices structurels supplémentaires, souvent inégalement distribués. Elle invite à comprendre que les injustices structurelles reproduites par les prisons actuelles ne relèvent pas de défaillances contingentes, mais d’un mode de fonctionnement enraciné dans l’histoire. Il ne s’agit ni d’une simple répétition mécanique du passé esclavagiste ou colonial, ni d’une continuité institutionnelle directe, mais d’une transformation des logiques de domination, de stigmatisation et de contrôle social dans des contextes nouveaux. L’injustice peut être intentionnelle en ce sens que, par le complexe industriel carcéral (Davis 2014), certains ont intérêt à ce que ces formes de gestion des populations vulnérables perdurent. Mais l’injustice devient autonome – structurelle – lorsqu’elle ne dépend plus des efforts des agents facilement identifiables pour se maintenir. Ainsi, les fonctions et services revendiqués par la prison – et avec elle la police – ne compensent pas les torts qu’elles causent (Charbit et Gwenola 2024). Je considère que l’abolitionnisme ne peut être une simple entreprise négative d’abolition immédiate et inconditionnelle des institutions pénales. Je suggère de l’appréhender comme un processus de transformation orienté vers une justice véritablement réparatrice et émancipatrice. Son succès mérite d’être accompagné d’une mission constructive (Fryer, 2023) visant à proposer des institutions alternatives. Cette double dimension — critique et constructive — est décisive pour sa cohérence.

    Everyone is welcome!

    *Please note that the event will take place in French.

    Read more

  • Naïma Hamrouni (UQTR), Sami Hurst-Majno (University of Geneva), and Ryoa Chung (Université de Montréal) are taking part in a roundtable organized by Yoann Della Croce at the University of Geneva.

    Read more

  • Members of the Environmental and animal ethics axis as well as other members of the CRÉ interested in questions around environmental and/or animal ethics are warmly invited to attend this first annual workshop. The purpose of the meeting is for members to update each on other on their current and future research plans, to identify and discuss opportunities for collaboration.

    Schedule:

    1-2:30 pm: Introductions – Each participant is invited to give a brief overview of their current research projects as well as future research plans and interests (5 mins per participants)

    2:30-3:15 pm: Brainstorming session 1 – Discussion about possible collaborations in two large groups (group 1: environmental ethics, group 2: animal ethics)

    15 min break

    3:30-4 pm: Brainstorming session 2 – 30 mins discussion in smaller groups

    4-4:30 pm: Brainstorming session 3 – 30 mins discussion in smaller groups

    4:30–5 pm: Wrapping up and consolidating plans

    5 pm: Close – informal drinks nearby for those interested

    Read more

  • As part of CRÉ’s Midis de l’éthique series, guest researcher Stephanie Kapusta (Dalhousie University) will present a paper titled “A Consideration of Life Transitions: the Case of Alienation from Hegemonic Cultural Tools”.

    More details to follow.

    To participate via Zoom, click here.

    Read more

  • We are pleased to invite you to the philosophy and ethics of economics reading group, which will be held in a hybrid format (Zoom) on Monday, February 16, 2026, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. (Montreal time). The meeting will take place in room 2.880 (space z), 2nd floor at HEC, 3000 Côte Ste-Catherine (in the premises of the Alphonse-et-Dorimène-Desjardins International Institute of Cooperatives at the end of the hallway next to the library).

    This session will focus on Kirun Sankaran‘s article entitled “Cash rules everything around me: in defence of housing markets”, published in 2025 in the journal Economics and Philosophy. You can find the article via the following link.

    To participate via Zoom, click here.

    Organized by Morgane Delorme, Gabriel Monette and Nicolas Pinsonneault.

    Read more

  • As part of the GRIN workshops, you are invited to attend a lecture by Emanuela Carta (Graz University of Technology, KU Leuven) entitled “Rethinking Consent as Affective Approval”. The lecture will take place on February 13, 2026, from 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., in room 422 of Department of Philosophy at the Université de Montréal, located at 2910 Édouard-Montpetit Boulevard, Montreal, Quebec.

    The conference will also be broadcast on Zoom via the following link (meeting ID: 266 439 5811; passcode: 454185).

    Summary

    Recent debates in feminist philosophy have expressed growing dissatisfaction with the dominant understanding of consent as a form of permission. While some have responded by supplementing consent with additional normative criteria for ethical intimate encounters, others have explored the possibility of reconceptualizing consent.

    In this talk, I pursue this latter strategy by developing an account of consent as affective approval: a sui generis emotion experienced upon recognizing something as right. On this view, consent is not primarily a speech act or a decision, but a form of emotive endorsement, which should not be confused with enthusiasm or desire.

    I then explore the relationship between affective approval, agency, and autonomy, suggesting that the proposed affective account of consent may help secure the possibility of consent under conditions of partial autonomy.

     

    Read more

  • Workshop of the Fundamental Ethics axis @ McGill University

    9 h 30 – 17 h 00

    2025–2026 edition of the Annual Meeting of the CRÉ’s Fundamental Ethics axis, directed by Natalie Stoljar (McGill) and Mauro Rossi (UQAM).

    This first edition of the annual workshop will take place at McGill. The program will feature six presentations by co-researchers affiliated with the axis!

    The axial meetings are organized with the aim of enabling members of each of the Centre’s five main research axes to become better acquainted with their colleagues’ work, to foster a sense of belonging to the Centre, and to encourage collaboration. While these meetings are primarily intended to bring together the co-researchers of a given axis, collaborators, affiliated researchers, and student or postdoctoral members of the axis are also welcome. Participation by members of other axes is likewise encouraged, particularly where their research interests overlap with those of members of the Fundamental Ethics axis.

    Program

    Note that the morning and afternoon sessions will be held in different rooms.

    Morning session: School of Population and Global Health, 2001 McGill College, Room

    1140

    9.30am-10.20am: Stephanie Leary (McGill) – “What should we be doing when we’re doing metaethics?”

    10.30am-11.20am: Arturs Logins (ULaval) – “The expected fittingness maximization theory of emotional rationality”

    Lunch break

    Afternoon session: Philosophy Department Seminar Room, Leacock Building, Room 927

    1.00pm-1.50pm: Catherine Rioux (ULaval) – “Engaging Ethically With Fundamental Despair”

    2.00pm-2.50pm: Iwao Hirose (McGill) – “Minimally good life and time”

    Break

    3.10pm-4.00pm: Chris Howard (McGill) – “Decentralizing the Digital Public Sphere”

    4.10pm-5.00pm: Christine Tappolet (UdeM) – “Embracing Affective Ambivalence”

    Read more

  • A Day of Reflection: “La démocratie et l’état de droit. À l’épreuve du projet de constitution du Québec”*

    In light of the proliferation of legislative and political initiatives that undermine rights and freedoms, both in Quebec and internationally, this event offers a day of reflection and discussion on contemporary transformations of the rule of law and democracy. Drawing on the CAQ government’s draft constitution and other recent initiatives in Quebec, the event aims to provide a better understanding of the scope and effects of the reforms underway and to open up discussion on the democratic conditions necessary for defining how we live together.

    The day will take the form of a structured exchange divided into three main thematic sessions.

    1. The devitalization of the rule of law: contrasting perspectives on a global phenomenon

    This first session will place Quebec debates in an international context marked by a widespread weakening of mechanisms for protecting rights and limiting political power. Presentations will focus on transformations in the rule of law, the normalization of violations of fundamental rights, and strategies for circumventing institutional checks and balances. The goal is to better understand what is changing, how these changes are taking place, and what their consequences are for contemporary democratic regimes.

    2. Rights and freedoms under pressure: Bill 1 and recent legislative initiatives

    This session will focus on the Quebec context. It will analyze Quebec’s draft constitution (Bill 1) in light of a broader set of laws and public policies adopted in recent years that are helping to redefine the balance of powers and the system for protecting rights and freedoms in Quebec. For example, it will address laws affecting union rights, secularism, language, gender equality, and the normalization of the use of the notwithstanding clause.

    3. Revaluing democracy and the rule of law: participation, inclusion, and recognition

    The final session will broaden the discussion to democratic issues raised by political transformations currently underway. It will focus on the conditions for an inclusive constitutional process with strong democratic legitimacy, the concept of political community and “we” in recent government initiatives, and the importance of co-construction with Indigenous peoples in defining how we live together in Quebec.

    This event is organized by the Centre de recherche sur la diversité et la démocratie au Québec in collaboration with the Centre de recherche en éthiqueAmnistie internationale, the Barreau du QuébecConseil de la Nation Atikamekw, the Fédération des femmes du Québec, the Ligue des droits et libertés, and the Observatoire pour la justice migrante.

    Organized by Karine Millaire (UdeM), Martin Papillon and Christian Nadeau (UdeM). With the participation of Louis-Philippe Lampron, Daniel Weinstock (McGill), Dominique Leydet (UQÀM), Dia Dabby and Lucie Lamarche.

    *Please note that the event will take place in French.

    Photos by Ryoa Chung (UdeM) and Ximena Samson.

    Read more

  • Join us for the Montreal PhD and early career workshop in normative political philosophy, which will be held February 5, 2026, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., in room 309 of the Centre de recherche en éthique, located at 2910 Édouard-Montpetit Boulevard, Montréal, Québec.

    This workshop will provide an opportunity for early career researchers to share their research in a friendly and informal setting, expand their research network, and get feedback on ongoing projects. The workshop will be pre-read and is scheduled to take place in person.

    Schedule:

    • 9:30 a.m. – 9:45 a.m.: Opening remarks
    • 9:45 a.m. – 10:30 a.m.: Kyuree Kim (McGill, CRE), Theorizing the dynamics of structural processes in structural injustice and domination
    • 10:30 a.m. – 11:15 a.m.: Alexis Bibeau-Gagnon (McGill), Clashing with the State: Violent Protests, Police, and Self-defense
    • 11:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m.: Grégoire René (McGill), The Metaphysics of Gender Archetypes
    • 12:30 p.m. – 1:15 p.m.: Sabrina Bungash (McGill), On the Porn Debate: Reconsidering the Question of Rights
    • 1:15 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.: Lunch
    • 2:00 p.m. – 2:45 p.m.: Anna Milioni (CRE, UdeM), The right to emigrate and the duty to support just institutions
    • 2:45 p.m. – 3:30 p.m.: Alexandre Petitclerc (UdeM, CRE), Theories of Justice and Social Rights: A Normative Dead End
    • 3:30 p.m. – 4:00 p.m.: Coffee break
    • 4:00 p.m. – 4:45 p.m.: Will Gildea (CRE, McGill), Justice, Animals, and the Earth We Inhabit: Casal’s Theory of Interspecies Justice
    • 4:45 p.m. – 5:30 p.m.: Ellena Thibaud-Latour (UdeM), A social understanding of indifference

    To register, please contact the organizers, Anna Milioni and Alexandre Petitclerc.

    Read more

  • First Session – CRÉ Graduate Fellows’ Seminar @ Room 309, CRÉ, hybrid

    15 h 00 – 16 h 30

    You are invited to the first session of the 2025–2026 edition of the CRÉ Graduate Fellows’ Seminar.

    On this occasion, Melissa Hernandez-Parra and Vincent Rochelle will present their work. Each presentation will last approximately 20 minutes and will be immediately followed by a discussion of about 25 minutes.

    The aim of the Seminar is to provide our graduate fellows with constructive feedback and critical discussion in order to help them strengthen their research projects. It also offers them the opportunity to practise delivering an academic presentation in a format comparable to that of scholarly conferences. We very much hope that many of you will join us for this activity, which we intend to be especially formative.

    Both presentations will be in French, but questions may be asked either in French or English. 

    Program

            1) 3:00–3:45 p.m. – Presentation by Melissa Hernandez-Parra, PhD candidate in Philosophy at the Université de Montréal, under the supervision of Christine Tappolet.

    En défense du relativisme modéré des attributions de responsabilité 

    This presentation is part of a research project devoted to the variability of moral and legal responsibility attributions and their normative implications. Starting from the observation that our responsibility-attribution practices vary significantly across social, cultural, and institutional contexts, the project questions the idea that there are unique and universal criteria for determining, independently of practice, who is responsible and under what conditions.

    In the first part, I present the relativist argument from genuine disagreement. According to this argument, the persistence of deep and rationally intractable disagreements about the conditions of responsibility provides reason to doubt a strict normative objectivism regarding responsibility. I then examine several classic objections to this position, including the risk of scepticism and the difficulty of accounting for moral critique and moral progress.

    In the second part, I defend a pluralist response to these objections. I argue that responsibility attributions can be objectively justified within plural normative frameworks structured by distinct values and aims. This pluralism makes it possible to acknowledge genuine disagreement while preserving a form of normative objectivity tied to the function of moral responsibility, as well as the possibility of critique across frameworks. The goal is thus to propose an account of responsibility attributions that is sensitive to the diversity of practices without abandoning the idea of a shared criterion of responsibility attribution across different social groups.

            2) 3:45–4:30 p.m. – Presentation by Vincent Rochelle, PhD candidate in Philosophy at Université Laval, under the supervision of Catherine Rioux. Vincent will present via Zoom (link below).

    Penser une théorie cohérente des sentiments existentiels

    Theories appealing to existential feelings have flourished since Matthew Ratcliffe (2008) introduced this class of mental states, described as pre-intentional feelings of the subject’s relation to the world (Ratcliffe 2009, 2012, 2018). These states make it possible to name everyday affective experiences that lack specific objects and that the philosophy of emotions typically relegates to mere figures of speech (feeling disconnected, overwhelmed, in harmony with the world, alive, etc.), while also allowing for a more accurate description of the phenomenology of psychopathological states (such as loss of motivation in depression or feelings of unreality in schizophrenia). They also provide a way of theorizing affective states more fundamental than standard emotions, such as basal hope (Calhoun 2018; Milona and Stockdale 2018), which may function as a condition of possibility for particular hopes. One can also anticipate potential implications for other affective states—such as deep boredom or certain forms of anxiety—that the philosophy of emotions has so far struggled to adequately capture (Elpidorou and Freeman 2019).

    These new applications of existential feelings regularly criticize theoretical shortcomings in Ratcliffe’s original account (Saarinen 2018; Fitzpatrick 2023), in particular his appeal to the category of the pre-intentional. These divergences have prevented the development of a coherent and unified theory of existential feelings that would genuinely articulate the various intuitions put forward by different authors.

    I propose an alternative conception of existential feelings, departing from Ratcliffe’s account, whose aim is to establish coherent definitional criteria and to unify these theories. The central claim is that existential feelings are indeed intentional, but that they possess objects that differ markedly from those of emotions. I argue that the objects of existential feelings are the states of possibility faced by an agent, and that these feelings are individuated by the modal—rather than evaluative—properties they represent. On this view, existential feelings provide a necessary (though not sufficient) cognitive basis for emotions of uncertainty and for their motivational character. Finally, I describe four existential feelings that appear to account for the phenomena discussed by the various authors.

    Chair: Ryoa Chung (UdeM)

    To attend via Zoom, click here (Meeting ID: 818 6254 4190; Passcode: 9Me2EW).

    Read more

  • We are pleased to invite you to the philosophy and ethics of economics reading group, which will be held in a hybrid format (Zoom) on Monday, February 2, 2026, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. (Montreal time). The meeting will take place in room 2.880 (space z), 2nd floor at HEC, 3000 Côte Ste-Catherine (in the premises of the Alphonse-et-Dorimène-Desjardins International Institute of Cooperatives at the end of the hallway next to the library).

    This session will focus on Kristoffer Berg‘s article entitled “Why Taxes Need Not Treat Equals Equally”, published in 2024 in the Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics. You can find the article via the following link.

    To participate via Zoom, click here.

    Organized by Morgane Delorme, Gabriel Monette and Nicolas Pinsonneault.

    Read more

  • As part of the launch of the book Dimension éthique de l’acte de juger (Éditions Yvon Blais, 2026), co-authored by Emmanuelle Marceau (University of Montreal) and André Lacroix, the Centre de recherche en droit public (CRDP), in collaboration with the Centre de recherche en éthique (CRÉ) and the Institut d’éthique appliquée de l’Université Laval (IDÉA), is organizing a round table discussion on the values that drive judges’ decisions.

    Moderated by Nicolas Vermeys, this roundtable discussion will bring together the authors of the book, as well as André Ouimet, associate professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Sherbrooke, and Marie-Josée Hogue, Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada.

    The event will take place on January 28, 2026, at 4:30 p.m., in room A-3421 of the Maximilien-Caron building at the University of Montreal, in Montreal, Quebec.

    A wine reception will follow the roundtable discussion. Copies of the book will be available for purchase.

    To register, click here.

    Read more

  • “Pricing Suffering” @ Room 309, hybrid

    12 h 30 – 13 h 45

    As part of the CRÉ Lunch Talks, our guest researcher Bob Fischer (Texas State University) will give a presentation entitled “Pricing Suffering.”

    To join via Zoom, click here.

    Read more

  • Elvira Basevich (University of California, Davis) will give a presentation entitled “W.E.B. Du Bois on Worker Domination: On Black Chattel Slavery, Wage Slavery, and Second Slavery” as part of the activities of the Philosophy of Work Network.

    The activities of the Philosophy of Work Network are open to researchers and graduate students with research interests in this area. Please write to the organizers, Denise Celentano (denise.celentano@umontreal.ca) and Pablo Gilabert (pablo.gilabert@concordia.ca), to receive the zoom link.

    Abstract

    This talk defends the neglected concept of “second slavery” in W.E.B. Du Bois’s critique of Reconstruction and capitalist political economies in the late 19th- and 20th-century. It proceeds in four steps. First, it distinguishes the concept of black chattel slavery from wage slavery and, second, presents the normative core of Du Bois’s account of black chattel slavery. Next, it illuminates the afterlife of slavery by systematizing Du Bois’s remarks about a “second slavery” that persisted after legal abolition. It defends the following key features of second slavery, which disproportionately target nonwhite laborers alone: the loss of equal public standing as rights-bearers, resulting in insecure labor rights, and the racial division of labor. Lastly, it concludes by considering the implications of the abolition of second slavery today for building an interracial labor movement.

    Read more

  • To mark the publication of The Nationality and Statelessness of Nomadic Peoples Under International Law (OUP, 2025), by our collaborator Heather Alexander, the CRÉ invites you to a presentation of the book by its author.

    To join via Zoom, please use the following link.

    Abstract

    Despite the universal right to nationality, many nomadic peoples struggle to claim this fundamental status. International law offers solutions to combat statelessness-like birth registration-but do they work for nomadic peoples? The Nationality and Statelessness of Nomadic Peoples Under International Law delves into the nationality challenges faced by four communities: former Bedouin in Kuwait, Tuareg in Mali, Fulani in Côte d’Ivoire, and Sama Dilaut (Bajau Laut) in Malaysia.

    Drawing on diverse sources from across disciplines, as well as original field research, the book traces the roots of nomadic statelessness from colonization to the present. Through a rigorous legal analysis, the book evaluates how effectively international law addresses these underlying issues and safeguards the right to nationality for those whose lifestyles transcend borders and conventional nation-state structures. Finally, the book proposes reforms to international law to better address the needs of nomadic peoples regarding nationality and citizenship.

     

    Read more

  • Please note that the meeting will now take place in room CSC-02.840, on the 2nd floor of HEC, 3000 Côte Ste-Catherine (on the premises of the Alphonse-et-Dorimène-Desjardins International Institute of Cooperatives).

    You are cordially invited to this year’s first meeting of the economic philosophy reading group, which will be held in hybrid format (Zoom) on Monday, January 19, 2026, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. (Montreal time). The session will focus on Jared Parmer‘s article, entitled “Meaningful Work and Achievement in Increasingly Automated Workplaces”, published in 2023 in The Journal of Ethics. Please contact the organizers to obtain the text if needed (Morgane Delorme, Gabriel Monette, Nicolas Pinsonneault).

    To participate via Zoom, click here.

    We hope to see many of you there and would be delighted if you could share this invitation with anyone who might be interested.

    Organized by Morgane Delorme, Gabriel Monette and Nicolas Pinsonneault.

    Read more

  • As part of the GRIN workshops, you are invited to attend a lecture by Raphaël Tossings (University of Ottawa, Sorbonne University) entitled “Objects Without Essences – A Reading of Brandom’s Theory of Objectivity in Making It Explicit”. The lecture will take place on January 16, 2026, from 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m., in room 14.250 of the John Molson Building at Concordia University, located at 1450 Guy Street, Montreal, Quebec.

    Summary

    In Making It Explicit (1994), Brandom constructs a philosophical system designed to account for the expressivity available to linguistic beings like us. To fulfill this ambition, Brandom characterizes us as thinking and acting within an inferentially articulated space of reasons which is both made by us and constitutive of what we take ourselves to be.

    However, Brandom has often been accused by his peers of ignoring the obvious fact that we all experience the same world and the same objects. According to such readers, inferentialism fails to elucidate how our thoughts bear on objects whose nature is independent from us. Brandom took this challenge seriously, which lead him to reconsider his views and to endorse a conceptual realism read off Hegel’s writings in A Spirit Of Trust (2019).

    In this lecture, I will argue that Brandom should have resisted such pressure. My goal is to show that, in the second part of Making It Explicit, Brandom merged the Fregean account of objects with the anti-essentialism of Rorty to yield a theory of objectivity that accommodates the perspectival and autonomous nature of thinking while preserving the possibility of genuine communication and knowledge of the truth.

    Read more

  • Workshop of the axis Ethics & Health @ Room 422, UdeM, hybrid mode

    9 h 00 – 12 h 30

    Annual Workshop of the CRÉ’s Ethics & Health axis

    To participate via Zoom, click here.

    8:45-9:00 am: Coffee and breakfast pastries, served in room 309

     

    9:00-10:45 am: Roundtable discussion for members of the Axis, chaired by Nathalie Gaucher (UdeM)
    Each participant will be invited to introduce their research profile (5 minutes each) and to highlight the ethical dimensions of their work.

     

    11:00-11:30 am: Scientific presentations, chaired by Ryoa Chung (UdeM)
    Jonas-Sébastien Beaudry (McGill) will present on one of his research project. The presentation will be followed by a discussion period.

     

    11:30 am-12:30 pm: Collective brainstorming session, chaired by Nathalie Gaucher (UdeM) and Ryoa Chung (UdeM)
    During this group discussion, we will aim to identify the overarching, unifying themes of the Axis, with a view to revising the scientific programming of the axis for 2027-2033.

     

    12:30 pm: Lunch in room 309 (CRÉ)

     

    Organized by the co-leads of the CRÉ Ethics & Health axis: Ryoa Chung (UdeM) and Nathalie Orr-Gaucher (UdeM).  

    Read more

  • We are pleased to invite you to the philosophy and ethics of economics reading group, which will be held in a hybrid format (Zoom) on Thursday, December 4, 2025, from 12:00 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. (Montreal time). The meeting will take place in room 2.880 (space z), 2nd floor at HEC, 3000 Côte Ste-Catherine (in the premises of the Alphonse-et-Dorimène-Desjardins International Institute of Cooperatives at the end of the hallway next to the library).

    For this session, we will discuss Fausto Corvino‘s text, entitiled “What could justify a prohibition on the luxury emissions of the very rich?”, published in Politics, Philosophy & Economics (2025).

    Please contact the organizers to receive the text by email.

    To participate via Zoom, click here.

    We hope to see many of you there, and would be delighted if you could share this invitation with anyone who might be interested.

    Organized by Morgane Delorme, Gabriel Monette and Nicolas Pinsonneault.

    Read more

  • Join us for the launch of Yann Allard-Tremblay‘s (McGill University) new book entitled Disjunctures: Indigenous Redirections in Political Theory (Oxford 2025) ! Comments on the book will be given Arash Abizadeh (McGill University), Amandine Catala (Université du Québec à Montréal), Aaron Mills (McGill University), Jacob Levy (McGill University), and Christian Nadeau (Université de Montréal).

    In addition, the first chapter of the book, entitled “Reconciliation Duly Considered”, is available free of charge until December 7, 2025. For more information, click here.

    Organized by the Research Group on Constitutional Studies (RGCS), a division of the Yan P. Lin Centre for Freedom and Global Orders in the Ancient and Modern Worlds, and the Centre de recherche en éthique.

    Read more