PhD in Philosophy

Publications

Peut-on encore être hédoniste éthique ?

Published in Les ateliers de l’éthique / The Ethics Forum, 2022

L’hédonisme éthique est la théorie selon laquelle les seules choses qui ont de la valeur finale, respectivement positive et négative, sont le plaisir et le déplaisir. Une grande partie du débat philosophique autour de l’hédonisme éthique s’est concentrée sur la nature de ces états affectifs. Cet article se propose de revisiter cette question en examinant les relations entre l’hédonisme éthique et la philosophie du plaisir et de la douleur. L’hédonisme éthique est traditionnellement associé à une théorie qui conçoit le plaisir comme une qualité phénoménale, mais cette théorie est loin de faire l’unanimité. Nous montrerons que la plupart des théories récentes les plus prometteuses en philosophie du plaisir et de la douleur sont en fait incompatibles avec l’hédonisme éthique, ce qui place l’hédoniste dans une position difficile. // Ethical hedonism is the thesis that the only things that have (respectively positive and negative) final value are pleasure and displeasure. A large part of the philosophical debate around ethical hedonism has focused on the nature of these affective states. This article aims at reconsidering this question by looking at the relationships between ethical hedonism and the philosophy of pleasure and pain. While ethical hedonism has traditionally been associated with felt-affect theories of pleasure, these are far from consensual. A closer look reveals that the most promising theories that have been recently developed in these fields seem to undermine ethical hedonism.

Recommended citation: Broi, Antonin (2022). "Peut-on encore être hédoniste éthique ?". Les ateliers de l’éthique / The Ethics Forum, 17(1-2), 192-213. https://doi.org/10.7202/1097020ar

Une défense de l’hédonisme axiologique

Published in Dialogue, 2022

L’hédonisme axiologique a une longue histoire en philosophie. Pourtant, il garde une mauvaise réputation qui lui vaut d’être parfois écarté sans ménagement de la discussion philosophique. Cet article se propose de défendre l’hédonisme axiologique en exposant les principaux arguments en sa faveur et en répondant aux principales critiques et confusions dont il fait l’objet. Une attention particulière sera portée aux arguments établissant la spécificité du plaisir et du déplaisir par rapport à toutes les autres choses — amitié, savoir, justice, etc. — dont on pourrait argumenter la valeur finale. // While axiological hedonism has a long history in philosophy, it also has a bad reputation, which has led to it being discarded without proper examination of its plausibility. In this article, I defend axiological hedonism by presenting the main arguments in its favour as well as the criticisms and confusions to which it has been subjected. I pay special attention to the arguments that hint at the specificity of pleasure and displeasure in comparison with other things — friendship, knowledge, justice, etc. — that might be argued to have final value.

Recommended citation: Broi, Antonin (2022). "Une défense de l’hédonisme axiologique". Dialogue, 61(2), 325-346. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0012217322000373

From the Heterogeneity Problem to a Natural-Kind Approach to Pleasure

Published in Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 2022

The heterogeneity problem, which stems from the alleged difficulty of finding out what all pleasant experiences have in common, is largely considered as a substantial issue in the philosophy of pleasure, one that is usually taken as the starting point for theorizing about the essence of pleasure. The goal of this paper is to move the focus away from the heterogeneity problem and toward an alternative approach to pleasure. To do this, I first show that, although the approach stemming from the heterogeneity problem has led to an interesting discussion about the essence of pleasure, it has usually endorsed an introspectionist methodology and other problematic assumptions that have led to doubtful results. I thus propose a natural-kind approach to pleasure, which seeks to determine what, if any, the natural kind of pleasure would consist in. This approach broadens the investigation of pleasure by enabling the use of a larger range of methodological tools, thus opening new promising directions for research.

Recommended citation: Broi, Antonin (forthcoming). "From the Heterogeneity Problem to a Natural-Kind Approach to Pleasure". Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12417

Revelation and Phenomenal Relations

Published in The Philosophical Quarterly, 2020

Revelation, or the view that the essence of phenomenal properties is presented to us, is as intuitively attractive as it is controversial. It is notably at the core of defences of anti-physicalism. I propose in this paper a new argument against Revelation. It is usually accepted that low-level sensory phenomenal properties, like phenomenal red, loudness or brightness, stand in (phenomenal) relation of similarity and quantity. Furthermore, these similarity and quantitative relations are taken to be internal, that is, to be fixed by what their relata are. I argue that, under some plausible additional premises, no account of what grounds these relations in the essence of their relata is consistent with Revelation, at least if we take common phenomenological descriptions for granted. As a result, the plausibility of Revelation is undermined. One might however resist this conclusion by weakening the epistemic relation postulated between subjects and their phenomenal properties.

Recommended citation: Broi, Antonin (2020). "Revelation and Phenomenal Relations". The Philosophical Quarterly, 70(278), 22-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqz043

Effective Altruism and Systemic Change

Published in Utilitas, 2019

One of the main objections against effective altruism (EA) is the so-called institutional critique, according to which the EA movement neglects interventions that affect large-scale institutions. Alexander Dietz has recently put forward an interesting version of this critique, based on a theoretical problem affecting act-utilitarianism, which he deems as potentially conclusive against effective altruism. In this article I argue that his critique is not as promising as it seems. I then go on to propose another version of the institutional critique. In contrast to Dietz’s version, it targets not the core principles of effective altruism but rather some important methodological assumptions made in EA research, namely diminishing marginal returns and low-hanging fruits. One key conclusion is that it may be time for critics of effective altruism to shift their attention from the theoretical core principles of effective altruism towards the methodological tools actually employed in practice by the EA movement.

Recommended citation: Broi, Antonin (2019). "Effective Altruism and Systemic Change". Utilitas, 31(3), 262-276. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0953820819000153