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 never actually planned on studying philosophy - that was just a happy accident. But at some point, I was introduced to the works of Ernst Fehr, Samuel Bowles and Janos Korai - economists who drew on different disciplines to try to give a more ‘realistic’ account of economic behaviour - and became fascinated with the prospect of a more realistic economics (whatever that means). After that, I decided that I wanted to learn more about alternative approaches to microeconomic theory, their motivations and their explanatory strategies. I looked up a few programs, enrolled at EIPE, and got tangled up in a few questions in philosophy.
Could you shortly introduce the topic of your paper and tell us why you wanted to write about this topic?
My paper is concerned with how we justify the requirements of informed consent in healthcare. The standard story is that its requirement ensures that we respect patients’ autonomy. I had never considered the matter before coming across the target article and intuitively thought this justification worked. But after mulling over it for a day, I thought, as an exercise, that I should try to come up with an argument against it. This turned into an essay for one of my courses, which then turned into a paper for ESJP.
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?
That there’s always room for improvement. The reviewers did a great job at pointing out where my essay was lacking and where it required clarification. Every suggestion they made would have me mumbling to myself agitatedly for a few seconds before I admitted that there’s something to it. And there’s almost always something to it. All in all, thanks to the reviewers’ thoughtful comments, it’s been a great learning experience.
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?
I couldn’t tell you. Usually, I’d spend a few weeks reading before starting an essay, and I would only start when I have some intuition about what it is that I’ll be writing. For this one, I read the target article, took some time to think it over, sat down and started to write with no argument in mind. Maybe I’m better off just working out an argument right after reading rather than waiting around for the intuition to strike.
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’m currently applying to different PhD programs, so if all goes well I'll be enrolling in one of them. But before that, I’ll have to write a thesis. That’ll be fun.