Prostate cancer has become a major health concern of male Americans. It is now the most common nondermatologic cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among men. The incidence of detected prostate cancer rose rapidly in recent years, partly because of prostate-specific antigen testing; it is only now tapering off. Screening for prostate cancer with PSA is widespread in the United States, yet controversial: the American Urological Association recommends PSA screening and the American Cancer Society recommends offering screening; (...) however, the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Physicians recommend against routine screening; and the American Academy of Family Physicians believes that the decision to screen should be left to the patient. (shrink)

Prostate cancer has become a major health concern of male Americans. It is now the most common nondermatologic cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among men. The incidence of detected prostate cancer rose rapidly in recent years, partly because of prostate-specific antigen testing; it is only now tapering off. Screening for prostate cancer with PSA is widespread in the United States, yet controversial: the American Urological Association recommends PSA screening and the American Cancer Society recommends offering screening; (...) however, the United States Preventive Services Task Force and the American College of Physicians recommend against routine screening; and the American Academy of Family Physicians believes that the decision to screen should be left to the patient. (shrink)

In this paper, I criticize David McNaughton and Piers Rawling's formalization of the agent-relative/agent-neutral distinction. I argue that their formalization is unable to accommodate an important ethical distinction between two types of conditional obligations. I then suggest a way of revising their formalization so as to fix the problem.

We give a constructive proof of McNaughton's theorem stating that every piecewise linear function with integral coefficients is representable by some sentence in the infinite-valued calculus of Lukasiewicz. For the proof we only use Minkowski's convex body theorem and the rudiments of piecewise linear topology.

David McNaughton argues that in footnote 48 of my paper I provide justification for including the severely retarded among those whom we think of as with us in being human. Let me fill in the background to that note.

I very much appreciate the time and care that Jamie Dreier and David McNaughton put into my book, Moral Skepticisms. Their comments raise profound and challenging issues that I cannot treat adequately here. All I can hope to do is point to some directions in which further discussion should proceed.

We show the intimate relationship between McNaughton Theorem and the Chinese Remaindner Theorem for MV-algebras. We develop a very short and simple proof of McNaughton Theorem. The arguing is elementary and right out of the definitions. We exhibit the theorem as just an instance of the Chinese theorem. Since the variety of MV-algebras is arithmetic, the Chinese theorem holds for MV-algebras. However, to make this paper self-contained and entirely elementary, we include a simple proof of this theorem inspired (...) in Ferraioli and Lettieri (Math Logic Q 1:27–43, 2011). (shrink)

According to one formulation of Scanlon’s contractualist principle, certain acts are wrong if they are permitted by principles that are reasonably rejectable because they permit such acts. According to the redundancy objection, if a principle is reasonably rejectable because it permits actions which have feature F, such actions are wrong simply in virtue of having F and not because their having F makes principles permitting them reasonably rejectable. Consequently Scanlon’s contractualist principle adds nothing to the reasons we have not to (...) act wrongly and is redundant. (shrink)

According to one formulation of Scanlon ’s contractualist principle, certain acts are wrong if they are permitted by principles that are reasonably rejectable because they permit such acts. According to the redundancy objection, if a principle is reasonably rejectable because it permits actions which have feature F, such actions are wrong simply in virtue of having F and not because their having F makes principles permitting them reasonably rejectable. Consequently Scanlon ’s contractualist principle adds nothing to the reasons we have (...) not to act wrongly and is redundant. In ‘ Scanlon ’s contractualism and the redundancy objection’ I argued that the redundancy objection is based upon the false assumption that Scanlon regards his contractualist principle as a ground of moral wrongness – that is, as telling us what makes certain acts wrong. I pointed out that he does not regard his principle in this way, but regards it as telling us what moral wrongness is. So the redundancy objection is based on a mistake. Nonetheless, Scanlon is still vulnerable to a version of this objection because he regards the moral wrongness of j ing as a reason not to j. Given that he identifies the fact that j ing is wrong with the fact that j ing is permitted by a reasonably rejectable principle, he is committed to the view that his contractualist principle gives us a reason not to j. His critics can thus still insist that the only reason we have not to do such acts is provided. (shrink)