@article {3195299, title = {Enabling Rights}, journal = {Australian Journal of Philosophy}, year = {Forthcoming}, url = {https://static1.squarespace.com/static/60402dce24cd730f88e4957a/t/671d56c76926354cd2ed8138/1729976007622/Lichter+\%28forth\%29+-+Enabling+Rights+\%28for+website\%29.pdf}, author = {Andrew Lichter} } @article {3220950, title = {Locke(d) in a Dilemma: The Problem of Territorial Authority}, journal = {Philosophy and Public Affairs}, year = {2026}, pages = {1-12}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/papa.70017}, author = {Samantha Fritz} } @inbook {3197257, title = {Revisiting Raz on Autonomy}, booktitle = {Engaging Raz: Themes in Normative Philosophy}, year = {2025}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, organization = {Oxford University Press}, author = {David Enoch} } @article {3210735, title = {Andrew Prevot: The Mysticism of Ordinary Life: Theology, Philosophy, and Feminism (Review)}, journal = {Faith and Philosophy}, year = {2025}, author = {Jaclyn Rekis} } @book {3197256, title = {Engaging Raz: Themes in Normative Philosophy}, year = {2025}, publisher = {Oxford University Press}, organization = {Oxford University Press}, editor = {Enoch et al.} } @article {3195300, title = {Wrongdoer-Centered Reasons for Blame}, journal = {Ethics}, year = {2025}, url = {https://doi.org/10.1086/733912}, author = {Andrew Lichter} } @article {3195296, title = {The Accessibility of Religious Reasons: an Emotion-Based Account}, journal = {Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy}, year = {2024}, url = {https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13698230.2024.2437341}, author = {Jaclyn Rekis} } @article {3183851, title = {AI, Radical Ignorance, and the Institutional Approach to Consent}, journal = {Philosophy \& Technology}, volume = {37}, year = {2024}, abstract = {

More and more, we face AI-based products and services. Using these services often requires our explicit consent, e.g., by agreeing to the services{\textquoteright} Terms and Conditions clause. Current advances introduce the ability of AI to evolve and change its own modus operandi over time in such a way that we cannot know, at the moment of consent, what it is in the future to which we are now agreeing. Therefore, informed consent is impossible regarding certain kinds of AI. Call this the problem of radical ignorance. Interestingly, radical ignorance exists in consent contexts other than AI, where it seems that individuals can provide informed consent. The article argues that radical ignorance can undermine informed consent in some contexts but not others because, under certain institutional, autonomy-protecting conditions, consent can be valid without being (perfectly) informed. By understanding these institutional conditions, we can formulate practical solutions to foster valid, albeit imperfectly informed consent across various decision contexts and within different institutions.

}, url = {https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13347-024-00787-z}, author = {Etye Steinberg} } @article {3183850, title = {Kolodny Against Hierarchy}, journal = {Philosophy \& Public Affairs}, year = {2024}, url = {https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/papa.12273}, author = {Jake Zuehl} }