I work on issues at the intersection of ethics, the philosophy of technology, epistemology and aesthetics.
Publications
"Thinking Functionally About Moral Assertion"
Ethical Theory & Moral Practice. Forthcoming.
"Political Philosophy in the AI Ethics Classroom"
Teaching Ethics. Forthcoming.
"A CS1 Data Analysis Project with Embedded Ethics" (with Shira Wein, Alicia Patterson, Sydney Luken)
ACM Teaching Materials for Computing (2024)
"Deference to Moral Testimony and (In)authenticity"
Oxford Studies in Experimental Philosophy: Volume 5. Edited by Josh Knobe and Shaun Nichols. Oxford University Press, 2024.
"Show, Don’t Tell: Emotion, Acquaintance and Moral Understanding Through Fiction"
The British Journal of Aesthetics, 63, no. 4 (2023)
"Epistemic Neglect"
Social Epistemology. 34, no. 5 (2020).
"Identifying Documentary: Against the Trace Account"
Film & Philosophy. 24 (2020).
"Obligations of Intellectual Empowerment" (Invited contribution)
Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective (2021)
"Giving, Receiving, and the Virtue of Testimonial Justice” (Invited contribution)
Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective (2021)
"José Medina’s The Epistemology of Protest" (Book review)
Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal. 34, no. 1 (2024)
"Tom Cochrane’s The Aesthetic Value of the World" (Book review)
The British Journal of Aesthetics, 64, no.4 (2024)
Works in progress
A paper on digital manipulation
Under review
Abstract:
The first part of this paper motivates the claim that, when responding to concerns about digital manipulation, we should avoid centering the value of personal autonomy. The second part considers whether republicans can provide a suitable alternative for illuminating, and substantiating, these concerns. It’s argued that to the extent that they focus on targeted advertising, existing attempts to use republicanism to answer normative questions about digital manipulation face serious limits. Nonetheless, republicanism might still be able illuminate problems with digital manipulation, so long as one focuses on features of the data economy that extend beyond targeted ads.
A paper algorithms & authenticity
Under review
Abstract:
Algorithmic Decision Aids (ADAs) are tools that help people make decisions more accurately, more efficiently, or both. The paper distinguishes between two versions of the claim that ADAs threaten personal authenticity. The first version of the worry is that ADAs threaten authenticity because they threaten our ability to put our values into action. An agent committed to fairness, for instance, risks deciding in a way that is unfair when she recruits an ADA, because the ADA is liable to be biased in ways she cannot easily see. On the second version of the worry, opaque ADAs threaten authenticity because they risk undermining the ability of our decisions to express our understanding of our reasons for action. This is a problem, from a normative point of view, because this variety of authenticity is essential for certain relational goods, like friendship, intimacy and (in some cases) a healthy democracy. While both versions of the worry are serious, the paper argues that the first version of the worry is significantly more tractable than the second.