Research

My research is mainly located at two intersections: history + ethics and ethics + bioethics.

On the history + ethics side, my central interest is how serious engagement with the moral philosophy of the past can help us to face the present. How do thinkers from distant times and places help us, here and now, with the question of how to live?

I am completing my second book, American Ethics: An Introduction to Pragmatist Moral Philosophy. There are numerous thinkers worthy of serious study in the pragmatist tradition, especially when we focus on contributions to moral philosophy. It is common for introductory courses or volumes on pragmatism to focus exclusively on three thinkers: Charles S. Peirce (1839-1914), William James (1842-1910), and John Dewey (1859-1952). But those who want to engage the possibilities of pragmatist ethics seriously will benefit from going beyond Peirce-James-Dewey treatments of the tradition, and including the thinkers with whom the ‘big three’ stand in constellation. This could include any of the following philosophers – some quite bright stars in the history of pragmatism already, some whose place in the firmament has not been so well appreciated: Josiah Royce (1855-1918), Jane Addams (1860-1935), George Santayana (1863-1952), Ella Lyman Cabot (1866-1934), Clarence Irving Lewis (1883-1964), and Alain Locke (1885-1954). American Ethics explores the contributions of all nine of these thinkers to moral philosophy.

In addition to 19th-21st century pragmatism, I am also interested in ancient ethics (especially the virtue traditions) and early modern ethics (again, especially the virtue vibes). One of the common points between American pragmatism and early modern European philosophy is that neither one fits a ‘tidy’ narrative. Pragmatism encompasses a lot more than a theory of truth; early modern philosophy can be explored in a myriad of ways beyond the canonical knowledge/scepticism lens.

On the ethics + bioethics side, my central interest is well-being over the life course. From cradle to grave, what makes life go well or poorly for the person living it?

The medical humanities are a naturally interdisciplinary nexus. My approach is rooted in philosophical research in ethics and bioethics, but also draws from current research in psychology and sociology. I also draw on pragmatism, which portrays the pursuit of knowledge as fundamentally group work. To do better, one has to know better – and knowing better requires knowing together.

I focus on two areas where knowing together has historically been challenging: mental health care and death & dying.

Working together in the context of mental health care is often fraught. In contemporary life, the stigmatization of people navigating mental illness is rampant in ordinary social contexts as well as in the delivery of health care. My current projects concern the efficacy of typical stigma reduction strategies, engage with challenges offered by disorders with unusual stigma dynamics, and argue for the need to co-produce new strategies for the myriad contexts in which mental health care takes place.

Working together in the context of death & dying is no less challenging. Death talk is often seen as creepy or morbid, despite the inevitability of death itself. In contemporary life, death is with us in a major way, as many countries move into so-called ‘demographic decline’ and the end draws near(er) for the largest generation of humans to ever live. My current projects concern the importance of having ongoing conversations about death, as well as building awareness of medical, social, and funerary options.

In the interest of honouring blind review processes, I do not post details about specific works in progress / under review.