Value is often thought to be human-generated, bestowed on nature by our interests, and thus fundamentally instrumental. Holmes Rolston III argues [article attached, in MeetUps], however, that the natural world has its own value. He tries to lead us from our anthropocentric perspective to one in which we see that individual animals and organisms have value in themselves, that aggregates such as species and ecosystems have what he refers to as systemic value, and, at the limit, that the Earth and even Nature Itself are intrinsically valuable. How far should we follow Rolston?

INSTRUCTIONS:
• "Leave a Reply" to this entry to start a new discussion thread.
• "Reply" to a comment to contribute to a pre-existing discussion thread.
• Don't forget the "Notify me of new comments" checkbox if that is what you want.
• Limitations: (i) Comments are limited to 800 words; (ii) Nesting of replies is limited to two levels, so in some replies you may want to indicate to whom you are responding, eg "@JoeM 6/6/2025 06:02:04 pm" or suchlike.
• Contact the moderator if you have any problems or questions.

An eccentric billionaire, who you believe can almost certainly predict your actions, presents you with a choice between two boxes. One box contains $1000, which you can clearly see. The other is is opaque, and already contains either $1M or nothing at all, but you cannot tell which. The choice is between (1) taking only the opaque box, or (2) taking both boxes. He predicted your choice, and has put $1M in the opaque box if he predicted you choose only that box, and nothing at all if he predicted you choose both. What should you choose?

INSTRUCTIONS:
• "Leave a Reply" to this entry to start a new discussion thread.
• "Reply" to a comment to contribute to a pre-existing discussion thread.
• Don't forget the "Notify me of new comments" checkbox if that is what you want.
• Limitations: (i) Comments are limited to 800 words; (ii) Nesting of replies is limited to two levels, so in some replies you may want to indicate to whom you are responding, eg "@JoeM 6/6/2025 06:02:04 pm" or suchlike.
• Contact the moderator if you have any problems or questions.

Deepfake technology gives us the ability to produce realistic looking and sounding video or audio files of people doing or saying things they did not do or say. It has caused widespread consternation, and significant legislative action, with the criminalization of non-consensual sharing of deepfake sexualized images, and recent proposals to extend this to the mere creation of such images. But what, if anything, is wrong with deepfakes? Adrienne de Ruiter [article attached, in MeetUps] argues that, while a deepfake need not be wrong in itself, it is nevertheless morally suspect, for it raises issues of consent, deception and intention. How good is her argument?

INSTRUCTIONS:
• "Leave a Reply" to this entry to start a new discussion thread.
• "Reply" to a comment to contribute to a pre-existing discussion thread.
• Don't forget the "Notify me of new comments" checkbox if that is what you want.
• Limitations: (i) Comments are limited to 800 words; (ii) Nesting of replies is limited to two levels, so in some replies you may want to indicate to whom you are responding, eg "@JoeM 6/6/2025 06:02:04 pm" or suchlike.
• Contact the moderator if you have any problems or questions.

How much should your confidence in your beliefs diminish when you learn that others, who seem just as informed and reasonable as you, hold beliefs contrary to yours? Perhaps a little less confident, or even suspend belief? For if they really are your epistemic peer, then you are no better than them as a truth-o-meter, and, as with other measuring devices, you should take the average. Or could you remain just as confident as you were? For it is implausible to think that there is only one way of taking the evidence in difficult cases, as so understandable that epistemic equals could reasonably come to different conclusions. David Christensen [article attached, in MeetUps] considers these and other arguments, and so will we.

INSTRUCTIONS:
• "Leave a Reply" to this entry to start a new discussion thread.
• "Reply" to a comment to contribute to a pre-existing discussion thread.
• Don't forget the "Notify me of new comments" checkbox if that is what you want.
• Limitations: (i) Comments are limited to 800 words; (ii) Nesting of replies is limited to two levels, so in some replies you may want to indicate to whom you are responding, eg "@JoeM 6/6/2025 06:02:04 pm" or suchlike.
• Contact the moderator if you have any problems or questions.

Skepticism about numbers has a long history. Many have doubted negative numbers, not to mention irrational and imaginary numbers. But even natural numbers – one, two three, and so on – raise questions. For where are they to be found? Not on earth, it seems. In heaven, as Plato thought? But then how could we know anything about them? Perhaps they don't exist at all, as Nominalists think. But then how could we explain why they are indispensable for science? Mark Balaguer [article attached, in MeetUps] considers these and other answers to our question: Do numbers exist?

INSTRUCTIONS:
• "Leave a Reply" to this entry to start a new discussion thread.
• "Reply" to a comment to contribute to a pre-existing discussion thread.
• Don't forget the "Notify me of new comments" checkbox if that is what you want.
• Limitations: (i) Comments are limited to 800 words; (ii) Nesting of replies is limited to two levels, so in some replies you may want to indicate to whom you are responding, eg "@JoeM 6/6/2025 06:02:04 pm" or suchlike.
• Contact the moderator if you have any problems or questions.

According to the seminal work of Miranda Fricker, epistemic injustice involves unjust devaluation of a person or group in their capacity as knowers, either because their personal testimony is less trusted, or their self-understanding is hampered by deficient social concepts, in either case ultimately due to prejudice. Rachel Mckinnon explains these ideas, and further development of them, in the article attached [in MeetUps]. In what sense are these injustices really epistemic, and are all of them really injustices anyway?

INSTRUCTIONS:
• "Leave a Reply" to this entry to start a new discussion thread.
• "Reply" to a comment to contribute to a pre-existing discussion thread.
• Don't forget the "Notify me of new comments" checkbox if that is what you want.
• Limitations: (i) Comments are limited to 800 words; (ii) Nesting of replies is limited to two levels, so in some replies you may want to indicate to whom you are responding, eg "@JoeM 6/6/2025 06:02:04 pm" or suchlike.
• Contact the moderator if you have any problems or questions

According to the Uluru Statement, Aboriginal sovereignty was never ceded, and co-exists with that of the Australian Crown. The High Court disagrees, having declared that no sovereignty adverse to the Crown currently resides in the Aboriginal people, and that there can be no Indigenous law-making system parallel to that of the Crown. Motivated by debates about treat-making, lawyers Sean Brennen, Brendan Gunn and George Williams examine the concept of sovereignty [full discussion here, and, for those with less time, the Readers Digest version here], its uses in Australia by Indigenous peoples, governments and the courts, as well as how it is applied in other nations. So who is right? Can Aboriginal sovereignty co-exist with that of the Australian Crown?

INSTRUCTIONS:
• "Leave a Reply" to this entry to start a new discussion thread.
• "Reply" to a comment to contribute to a pre-existing discussion thread.
• Don't forget the "Notify me of new comments" checkbox if that is what you want.
• Limitations: (i) Comments are limited to 800 words; (ii) Nesting of replies is limited to two levels, so in some replies you may want to indicate to whom you are responding, eg "@JoeM 6/6/2025 06:02:04 pm" or suchlike.
• Contact the moderator if you have any problems or questions