ŷ���ڱ���Ƶ

Michael Huemer, professor of philosophy at the University of ŷ���ڱ���Ƶ Boulder, is the winner of the inaugural Adams Prize in Philosophy, which is presented by the Taylor Charitable Trust, in partnership with University of North Carolina’s Program in the Humanities. Huemer’s research focuses on epistemology, ethics and metaethics.

The Adams Prize was named in honor of UNC philosopher and Kenan Professor E. Maynard Adams (1919–2003). The $50,000 prize recognizes the scholar who best demonstrates an understanding of Adams’ work, and the significance and implications of his ideas on the relationship between morality, epistemology and metaphysics. To win the award, Huemer submitted an essay addressing the philosophical views of Adams as expressed in “Ethical Naturalism and the Modern World-View” (1960).

The Taylor Charitable Trust formally awarded Huemer the prize in an April ceremony held on the campus of The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

The two-tiered peer-review jury said Huemer’s review “carefully analyzed and contextualized Adams’ thought.”

Adams was a longtime faculty leader, and an engaged public scholar. He was the co-founder of UNC’s Program in the Humanities and Human Values, its Peace, War, and Defense Curriculum, and served as chair of the Department of Philosophy and Chair of the Faculty during his tenure.

Adams was a prolific author responsible for writing, co-writing or editing 12 books and writing more than 100 scholarly articles and reviews. Adams’ philosophical ideas contain one of the most ambitious syntheses of logic, ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics in contemporary American philosophy, the Taylor Charitable Trust observes.

“The Taylor Charitable Trust obviously believes that Adams’ philosophical views are worthy of attention, but harbors no pro or con position regarding their merit as regards the annual essay competition.”

In 2011, Huemer was named a ŷ���ڱ���Ƶ Center for the Humanities and the Arts Fellows. With that assistance, he wrote a book titled “,” just published this year. The book argues that there is no philosophically satisfactory account of the basis for political authority.