Université catholique de Louvain
Chaire Hoover d'éthique économique et sociale
The Hoover Chair Research Seminar by Victor MARDELLAT (Chaire Hoover)
The teleological conception of practical reasons (hereafter, ‘TCR’) claims that (i) every intentional action must aim at some result, and infers from this that (ii) all practical reasons are a function of the (un)desirability of the available outcomes. Douglas Portmore, TCR’s leading defender, offers two reasons for accepting it. First, if intentional actions are teleological in the sense specified by (i), then it is natural to suppose that the reasons for performing them are also teleological. Second, (ii) promises to unify all reasons for action under a single framework. Such unification, however, would be an explanatory advantage only if it did not require denying the existence of genuine reasons for action or distorting them. I argue that (i) is not as intuitive as Portmore claims, and that TCR fails adequately to capture all reasons for action. This matters in part because TCR is one of the main assumptions that generate the famous ‘paradox of deontology.’
The Hoover Chair Research Seminar by Christophe SENTE (Associate Researcher at Cevipol, ULB)
Hayek’s constitutional theory is valuable not only because it illuminates the current dysfunctions of liberal democracies, but because it offers a prescriptive framework for thinking beyond them. His defense of individual liberty leads him to advocate demarchy: an institutional innovation designed to protect the constitutional order from the short-term turbulence of party-driven politics. Yet Hayek’s proposal contains a significant blind spot. By grounding representation exclusively in individuals, he overlooks the democratic relevance of integrating enterprises and economic actors more directly into political institutions. Strengthening institutions that give voice to enterprises, professions, and organized civil society may offer a way to restore a durable nomos within liberal democracies.
The Hoover Chair Research Seminar by Axel GOSSERIES (Chaire Hoover) & Manuel SA VALENTE (UMinho & Chaire Hoover)
To better address long-term issues, some advocate granting extra power to younger generations. While persuasive at first, this argument faces three serious challenges. The "future votes" challenge points to the fact that younger generations will have more power in the future anyway. The "divergence" objection suggests that reasons to adjust power to “stakes” might not align in the case of youth empowerment. Finally, the “attitude dynamics” challenge stresses that the future political views of the young may differ from those they hold today. These challenges, we argue, render the case for youth empowerment much harder to defend than initially thought.