As a nominee of the ESJP you obviously study or studied Philosophy, but could you tell us something more about yourself and how your interest in Philosophy came to be?
I had a great professor in High School! I have always been interested in politics and society in general. My professor was very good at connecting what we studied in the history of philosophy to these topics. Nonetheless, after High School I was a lot into the idea of becoming a professional drummer. My parents were a bit skeptical about it. Thus, we reached the compromise that if I wanted to start the path for a professional music career, I also had to start university on the side. I decided to start a bachelor’s degree in philosophy. After two years, my interest in the drums declined a bit while my interest in philosophy significantly increased. I left the drum school and I devoted myself to philosophy.
Could you shortly introduce the topic of your paper and tell us why you wanted to write about this topic?
Moral group responsibility is still quite an unexplored topic. List and Pettit in 2011 with their book ‘Group Agency’ made a solid case for moral responsibility in the case of structured groups (e.g. a corporation). However, when we talk about random groups of individuals (e.g. three individuals on a beach), the case is still unsettled. I think that the argument from Hindriks that I discuss in the article is intuitively very fascinating. In a nutshell, Hindriks argues that the individuals have a duty to join forces in case a harm occurs (e.g. some children are drowning). Since they have this duty to join forces, the group of individuals as such should be considered responsible to save the children. I thought it was very interesting to engage with the argument and analyze whether I found it analytically convincing as well.
The ESJP works with a double-blind peer-reviewed process that most academic journals also use, followed by an intensive editorial process in which you get feedback on your work. What did you take out of this experience?
I think it was very stimulating to be in the process. Before starting it, I thought that editorial rounds were nothing more than some philosophers checking whether your argument works. Instead, I think it is much different. Of course, there can be criticisms of one’s position. But I think the central point is that it is stimulating for the argument itself to see how other people read it. I revised my paper quite extensively in light of the editors’ comments and I think it improved quite a lot.
Since your paper was first nominated by a teacher for our journal and then passed the double-blind peer-reviewed process, you have shown to be able to write a noteworthy and qualitative philosophical paper. What is your secret?
No secret! I was lucky enough to end up in the research master ‘Philosophy and Economics’ at our faculty. I firmly believe that in this programme you are provided with all the instruments you need to write philosophy. If there is a secret, maybe it is just about being open enough to always make the best of professors’ advice and to really try to understand in which ways your writings can be improved.
You are still a student (or you just graduated) and already have a first publication, what’s next? What are your plans for the future?
I applied to PhD positions in the UK and the US and I should start receiving some feedback soon. Our master is very intense and it is great to build your research capacities. However, in the various classes you are faced with a lot of different debates and I often feel like I know too little to talk about anything at all. I think I would really enjoy having the time to fully delve into the topic of my main interest – that is freedom – and to actually spend time on the literature about it. Doing a PhD would give me this great opportunity. I hope to be lucky enough to be accepted in one of the places where I applied!