<html xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)">
<style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Aptos;
panose-1:2 11 0 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
mso-ligatures:standardcontextual;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Aptos",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}
@page WordSection1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt 72.0pt;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style>
</head>
<body lang="EN-AU" link="#467886" vlink="#96607D" style="word-wrap:break-word">
<div class="WordSection1">
<p class="MsoNormal">Hi everyone,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">This week's speaker in the University of Sydney Philosophy Seminar Series is Nicholas Southwood, (Australian National University)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The title of the talk is "Feasibility Beyond ‘Ought’ Implies ‘Can’". Here is an abstract for the talk:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:36.0pt">Many of us are tempted by the idea that there is a Feasibility Requirement on the correctness or validity of certain normative claims about politics: claims about the laws and policies states ought to implement,
the obligations we have regarding the organisation of social and political life, the institutional arrangements that justice requires us to bring about, and so on. But how exactly should we interpret this idea of a Feasibility Requirement? The standard interpretation
treats it as a particular instance of the principle that “Ought” Implies “Can.” I argue that this is a mistake. The problem with the standard interpretation is that it cannot make sense of certain central feasibility-involving inferences. I propose a non-standard
interpretation according to which the Feasibility Requirement is instead a specific instance of a stronger principle that I call the Feasible Demands Thesis. This holds that claims about what we ought to do, in order to be correct or valid, must not make infeasible
explicit or implicit demands. Interpreting the Feasibility Requirement in terms of the Feasible Demands Thesis helps to undermine the primary motivation for embracing a kind of Revisionary Realism, according to which feasibility’s primary normative significance
is not adequately captured by the idea of a Feasibility Requirement. We do not need to go beyond a Feasibility Requirement so long as it is correctly interpreted, or so I argue.
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The seminar will take place at 3:30pm on Wednesday Sep 24 in the Philosophy Seminar Room (N494).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Enquiries about the seminar series can be directed to ryan.cox@sydney.edu.au<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Ryan Cox<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Lecturer in Philosophy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Discipline of Philosophy<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">School of Humanities<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">University of Sydney<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">ryan.cox@sydney.edu.au<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>