Lakeside Ethics Workshop

programme

attendees

other info

Lakeside Ethics Workshop

University of Michigan & University of Notre Dame September 11 & 12, 2026

Workshop Programme

Session length: 75 minutes Talk: 30-40 mins Commentary: 5-10 mins Q&As: 25-40 mins

Friday Sep 11

Saturday Sep 12

11:45am: Arrival 12:00-1:15pm: Workshop Lunch 1:15-2:30pm: Doug Portmore: Reasons, Contextualism, and Doxastic Wronging

• Comments: Renée Jørgensen, Chair: Lorenzo Manuali

2:30-3:45pm: Margot Witte: 'That’s not the vacation I want’: A guide to motivational meshing

• Comments: Ciara O'Rourke, Chair: Kesavan Thanagopal

3:45-4:15pm: Coffee Break 4:15pm-5:30pm: Patrick Wu: The Sum of Well-being

• Comments: Edward Elliott, Chair: Kris McDaniel

5:30pm-7:00pm: Check-in & Drinks 7:00pm: Workshop Dinner

10:15am-10:30am: Morning Coffee 10:30am-11:45am: Katie O'Dell: Objectification

• Comments: Anna Edmonds, Chair: Rebecca Kates

11:45am-1:00am: Eric Swanson: Loving Well

• Comments: Abe Mathew, Chair: Ying Liu

1:00pm-2:30pm: Workshop Lunch 2:30pm-3:45pm: Abdul Ansari: Against the Aestheticization of Ethics: On how to love the good

• Comments: Laura Callahan, Chair: Ginny Hannahan

3:45pm-4:15pm: Coffee Break 4:15pm-5:30pm: Mike Zhao: Moral Worth

• Comments: Rachael Goodyer, Chair: Jess Isserow

5:30pm onwards: Drinks & dinner

Communicating in the same old ways is boring and doesn’t engage people

Click on icons for talk abstracts

Coming soon!

Portmore

Wu

Witte

Swanson

O'Dell

Ansari

HOME PAGE

Zhao

Abdul Ansari,Postdoc

Robert Audi,Faculty

LauraCallahan, Faculty

EdwardElliott Faculty

AnnaEdmonds, Faculty

NicolasCornell,Faculty

Zack Barnett,Faculty

Jessica Isserow, Faculty Conference organizer

YingLiu, Postdoc

ZesiFeng, Grad

Renée Jørgensen, Faculty

LorenzoManuali Grad

GinnyHannahan Grad

RebeccaKates, Grad

DougPortmore, Faculty Conference organizer

KatieO'Dell, Grad Conference organizer

CiaraO'Rourke, Grad

MargotWitte, Grad

Eric Swanson, Faculty

AbeMatthew, Postdoc

KesavanThanagopal, Grad

KrisMcDaniel, Faculty

MikeZhao, Faculty

RachaelGoodyer, Faculty

PatrickWu, Postdoc

This is our list of attendees You can click on the photos for links to each person's webpage or website

HOME PAGE

Venue Details

What's covered ($) for attendees

We'll be staying at the Inn at Harbor Shores

• Address: 800 Whitwam Dr, Saint Joseph, Michigan 49085

The conference begins with the first Workshop Lunch at 12 noon on Sep 11.

• This wil be a catered buffet in our meeting room ('The Waterside Room').
• This is something of an ice-breaking event, so we recommend trying to mingle with folks from the other institution.

Parking at the hotel is complementary for all guests. Check-in is at 4pm, Check-out is at 11am.

Accommodation The Workshop Dinner Two Workshop Lunches Coffee in the coffee breaks

About a 1 hour drive from University of Notre Dame

What's not

Gas costs, alcohol expenses, and other meal expenses (You'll need to use personal/research funds)

Food & Drink

Venue Website

For Presenters & Commentators

The hotel doesn't do breakfast with the rooms; you can either bring along breakfast supplies, or check out the hotel's restaurant and coffee shop. Both Workshop Lunches will be catered buffets in our meeting room. The Workshop Dinner on September 11 will be at [venue to be confirmed]. (Please note that we won't be able to cover people's alcohol.) Options for the self-funded drinks & dinner on September 12, click icon

1. Please send your paper to your commentator (ideally) three weeks prior to the workshop; that is, by August 21.
2. Commentaries should ideally home in on one or two main points, rather than cover multiple points in quick succession.
3. Please print out 25 copies of any handouts to bring along.
4. There will be a projector and an HDMI cable; if using Powerpoint, please bring your laptop and any necessary cables/adaptors.

About 2.5 hours drive from University of Michigan

HOME PAGE

Dinner & Drinks options

Bars

Restaurants

• Plank's Tavern
• Silver Harbor Brewing Company
• St Joe Community Taproom

• Plank's Tavern
• Silver Beach Pizza
• Azul Tequilla Mexican Bar & Grill
• Bistro on the Boulevard

This paper concerns racist beliefs based on naked statistical evidence. Lippert-Rasmussen (2006) calls the process of forming such beliefs unalloyed profiling: profiling that’s free of prejudice and based solely on accurate statistical regularities. On Mark Schroeder’s influential account of doxastic wronging, it’s wrong to hold such beliefs because of their content, which falsely diminishes their subjects. And, on Schroeder’s view, more evidence is needed to be epistemically justified in holding such beliefs, because of how morally objectionable it is to falsely diminish someone. But I argue that Schroeder’s view has several problems, including a version of the wrong-kind-of-reason problem. Consequently, I offer an alternative account that avoids these problems. On my account, the doxastic wrong in believing, say, that a given black diner is a below-average tipper doesn’t lie in believing something that falsely diminishes them, but rather in failing to suspend judgment regarding whether they’re a bad tipper when you haven’t yet ruled out the possibility that they have exercised their rational agency in a way that’s atypical of black diners. Furthermore, I argue that if we want to avoid the counterintuitive possibility that it could be morally wrong to have an epistemically justified belief, then we should appeal to relevant-alternative contextualism rather than the sort of pragmatic encroachment that Schroeder likes.

This paper develops a relational ideal for navigating practical disagreement in intimate relationships, which I call “motivational meshing.” When partners disagree over a shared decision, familiar strategies like negotiating or acquiescing treat each person's values as fixed inputs to be traded off against each other. Motivational meshing is a more demanding alternative: Through sustained attention and imaginative engagement, each partner takes on the other's perspective until what began as an interpersonal disagreement becomes an intrapersonal conflict within each of them. The result is not necessarily agreement but a distinctive form of shared deliberation – one in which partners see the world together rather than bargaining across their differences. I argue motivational meshing realizes relational goods that the alternatives structurally cannot, while also acknowledging that motivational meshing is a demanding ideal, rather than a standing requirement of love.