Podcast appearances and mentions of cecile fabre

Host Jack Russell Weinstein visits with Cecile Fabre, political philosopher, and Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford. She is also Professor of Political Philosophy at the University of Oxford, and affiliated with the Faculty of Philosophy, the Department of Politics and International Relations, and Nuffield College, Oxford. Her research interests are in theories of distributive justice; the philosophy of democracy; just war theory; the ethics of foreign policy, with particular focus on the ethics of economic statecraft and the ethics of espionage.

Spying raises many ethical issues, but these are rarely discussed - at least by philosophers. Cécile Fabre, author of a recent book on the topic, Spying Through a Glass Darkly, discusses some of these issues with Nigel Warburton in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.  This episode is sponsored by The New European newspaper.

A short promo episode for my first book- 'What is Freedom? conversations with Historians, Philosophers, & Activists' published with OUP, out November, and available to pre-order now.  Featuring a foreword by Cecile Fabre and an introduction by me, the book includes contributions from Elizabeth Anderson, Mary Frances Berry, Ian Dunt, Michael Freeden, Nancy Hirschmann, Omar Khan, Dale Martin, Orlando Patterson, Phillip Pettit, John Skorupski, Peter Tatchell, and Zephyr Teachout. Pre-order on Amazon:  https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0197572227/ref=cm_sw_r_tw_dp_DTPBVTGX5YJHMPE1ZBQ0 OUP:  https://global.oup.com/academic/product/what-is-freedom-9780197572221?lang=en&cc=us (Patreon's won't be charged for this, it's not a full episode)

Cecile Fabre is a professor of political philosophy at the University of Oxford and a senior research fellow at All Souls College, Oxford. She has published extensively on the areas of political philosophy, the ethics of war, the ethics of peace, theories of justice, and the ethics of foreign policy. In 2011, she was elected a Fellow of the British Academy. You can access the book via Oxford Scholarship Online: https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199567164.001.0001/acprof-9780199567164 Twitter: twitter.com/PremisePodcast Facebook: facebook.com/PremisePodcast Soundcloud: @PremisePodcast The podcast is also available on Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, and Spotify. Email: premisepodcast@gmail.com Please consider supporting Premise Podcast on Patreon to help bring philosophy to the public and also enjoy all the benefits of becoming a patron for Premise Podcast. Patreon: www.patreon.com/PremisePodcast

How do we enforce rights under uncertainty? Does America's long history of human rights violations prevent it from acting as a force for good today?

EXECUTION, TORTURE, AND WAR A conversation with Cecile Fabre by Toby Buckle

1. SEX WORK, ORGAN SALES, AND INTUITION A conversation with Cecile Fabre by Toby Buckle

How should we remember and commemorate those who die in war? What about the enemy dead? Cecile Fabre discusses this issue with Nigel Warburton in this episode of the Philosophy Bites podcast.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

In this McDonald Centre conference, Robert and Edward Skidelsky debate their controversial book about work, wealth, and human well-being with Rowan Williams, Cecile Fabre, John Thanassoulis, and other theologians, philosophers, economists and journalists. In 1930 John Maynard Keynes predicted that, over the next century, income would rise steadily, people’s basic needs would be met, and no one would have to work more than fifteen hours a week. Why was he wrong? In How Much is Enough? The Love of Money and the Case for the Good Life (Penguin, 2012 and 2013), Robert and Edward Skidelsky argue that wealth is not—or should not be—an end in itself, but rather a means to the good life. Observing how far modern life has strayed from that ideal, and rejecting the claim that there is any single measure of human well-being—whether GDP or ‘happiness’—they analyse the good life into seven elements, argue that a healthy liberal society should promote them, and propose a set of policies to realise them. In this McDonald Centre conference, held at Christ Church, Oxford on 28 February 2014, the Skidelskys debate with theologians Rowan Williams and John Hughes; philosopher Cecile Fabre; economicsts Donald Hay, Edmund Newell, John Thanassoulis, and David Vines; and journalist Diane Coyle.

Rescuing Justice and Equality: Celebrating the Career of G.A. Cohen - Conference at the Centre for the Study of Social Justice (CSSJ), Department of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford. Friday 23 and Saturday 24 January 2009. On January 23-24 2009, with the generous support of Philosophy and Public Affairs, the Centre for the Study of Social Justice will be hosting a conference to celebrate the career of G.A. Cohen, who is retiring after 23 years as Chichele Professor of Social and Political Theory. Delivered by Cecile Fabre, comments by Hillel Steiner.