We can urge others to not act in some way that is contingently imprudent while at the same time making them aware of the injustice in having to not act in this way. Second, and more controversially, we should blame others, even if to a much lesser degree than perpetrators of harm, in the rare occasions when they do act imprudently and raise the chances that others harm them.

One is not born trustworthy but becomes trustworthy through practice. When we engage in trusting relationships of all kinds, we develop a better grasp of what those relationships are, what particular norms they entail, and how they should be applied.

People do not exist as isolated, displaced figures, and we do not think of them as such. When we mentally represent people, we represent them in relation to other people and the world they live in. Therefore, we must take care not only in forming beliefs about particular people, but also in forming beliefs about those they are related to and the world in which they exist.

Dogwhistles are phrases which mean something seemingly unproblematic at face value, but can communicate a second, hidden meaning to certain audiences. Can people use dogwhistles to target those who don’t yet share their views?

If non-overlapping generations can cooperate with each other, can they engage in conflict with each other too?

…insofar as philosophers and theorists seek to claim that cultural diversity is conducive to problem solving and conflict resolution, they must also heed the ways in which securing these epistemic benefits threatens to erode the very fabric of cultural difference.

In the paper “Moral Luck” Bernard Williams makes the striking claim that the justifiability of an act can depend on its outcome […] I’m not so sure that Williams’ is wrong[.]