The new Philosophers’ Carnival is up at Studi Galileiani. Looks like a lot of good stuff. I’m amused by the summary of my post on Dreier’s Conjecture:
Staying with moral theory, Andrew Sullivan at E.G. considers Dreier’s Conjecture; namely, that non-consequentialist approaches can be reduced to consequentialism. Sullivan disagrees that the distinction between the two is empty and sets out a detailed argument to this effect, concentrating on the premise that for any non-consequentialist theory there is a "counterpart" consequentialist theory leading to the same verdict in identical circumstances (with the caveat that both have to be characterised as “plausible“).
This is a pretty fair summary of my post, but I have one minor quibble: I am not Andrew Sullivan. I guess the person who wrote this summary noticed that I had written a post entitled "Andrew Sullivan" and assumed that I wouldn’t be writing about Andrew Sullivan unless I was Andrew Sullivan. That is an incorrect, but forgivable, assumption.
UPDATE: As Hugo mentions in comments below, he has amended the post so that the first mention of Andrew Sullivan is corrected. There still remains a second mention of Sullivan in the post, but that’s OK. It’s not a bad thing to be confused for a talented and successful pundit like Andrew Sullivan. I’m just glad the summary didn’t read something like this:
Staying with moral theory, Bill O’Reilly at E.G. considers Dreier’s Conjecture; namely, that…
UPDATE (five minutes later): Hugo’s fixed all the Sullivan-mentions in the summary now. Thanks, Hugo! 🙂
E.G. 
Leave a reply to alan Cancel reply