In his Tractatus, Wittgenstein maintained that arithmetic consists of equations arrived at by the practice of calculating outcomes of operations$\Omega ^{n}(\bar {\xi })$defined with the help of numeral exponents. Since$Num$(x) and quantification over numbers seem ill-formed, Ramsey wrote that the approach is faced with “insuperable difficulties.” This paper takes Wittgenstein to have assumed that his audience would have an understanding of the implicit general rules governing his operations. By employing the Tractarian logicist interpretation that theN-operator$N(\bar {\xi })$and recursively defined arithmetic (...) operators$\Omega ^{n}(\bar {\xi })$are not different in kind, we can address Ramsey’s problem. Moreover, we can take important steps toward better understanding how Wittgenstein might have imagined emulating proof by mathematical induction. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'legalistic mistake'. The use of “legal‐like” terms abounds outside the legal domain. But sometimes the users of these terms commit the fallacy Joel Feinberg called the legalistic mistake. On widening the use of such legal‐like terms, we must be cautious, for we might find ourselves guilty of making inferential mistakes or even proffering pure nonsense. The error, according to Feinberg, is committed by “one who, in stating a moral (...) question using a legal‐like term, uncritically imports the precision of that term in its strict legal sense, while excluding appeal to the kinds of criteria which alone can decide its use”. In “On Being 'Morally Speaking a Murderer’” Feinberg introduced the idea that, sometimes, using legal notions outside legal contexts may lead to a peculiar kind of fallacy he called the legalistic mistake. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'irrelevant conclusion'. The fallacy of irrelevant conclusion, also known as the ignoratio elenchi (“ignorance of the proof”) fallacy, is, in effect, the parent of all other fallacies since every fallacy yields a conclusion that even if it be true is not related – that is, is irrelevant – to the premises of the argument. Arguments that commit the irrelevant conclusion fallacy all end with a conclusion that is (...) not related in any necessary way to the premises. Avoiding this fallacy is easier said than done, for it requires one to be a critical thinker at all times. The chapter finally presents an example of an argument with an irrelevant conclusion. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'confusing an explanation for an excuse'. This fallacy occurs when there is an uncritical assumption that an explanation given for an action or event is an attempt to justify it. Sometimes this fallacy comes about when there is general confusion about the difference between an explanation and an excuse. Other times, we see this fallacy committed intentionally when someone is attempting to use an explanation of facts as some (...) kind of justification or proof for an action. One of the best ways to avoid this fallacy is simply to ask someone if he/she is stating facts or justifying some event or action rather than assuming. Another way to avoid committing this fallacy is to listen carefully to what someone is saying, especially when the argument is rather emotionally charged. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called “converse accident (CA)”. The fallacy of CA occurs in much the same way as the fallacy of hasty generalization. Not unlike its other related fallacy, accident, which applies a general principle to a particular case to which it does not apply, CA instead generalizes over some cases, or even over one particular case, to make a more sweeping conclusion. This fallacious way of thinking is especially noxious since (...) it often grounds racist, sexist, or other prejudiced beliefs. It should be obvious to most readers how to detect or avoid this fallacy. Thinking of any counter‐example will usually suffice to reveal this fallacy's error. We might conclude that all other fallacies covered in this book are boring and not very exciting to read about. It's up to the reader to discover whether this is an example of the fallacious reasoning that is CA. (shrink)

The story of the Vox Populi embodies conflict theory, one popular interpretation of Marx's ideas, portraying a bloody revolution that loses sight of its ideals, turns anarchistic, and becomes the new oppressor. In Columbia, Zachary Hale Comstock and Jeremiah Fink illustrate the way the bourgeoisie may come to create and control the means of production. As the friction builds between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, historical processes contribute to the inevitable collapse of capitalism. In BioShock Infinite, the simmering friction between (...) the upper and lower classes boils over into the rise of the Vox Populi. The functionalist perspective often casts religion as a social structure that keeps society together despite any negative costs it may have for any particular group. In order for the bourgeoisie to own the means of production and keep the working class oppressed, it uses propaganda and indoctrination as powerful agents of control. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'unfalsifiability'. The unfalsifiability fallacy occurs when someone makes a claim that is impossible to prove false. Falsifiability – the ability to be falsified or proven wrong – is considered a key criterion for deeming a hypothesis scientific. Conspiracy theories often rely on unfalsifiable claims in which the theorist ardently defends a theory despite any facts that disprove it, suggesting only, “Well, it's a conspiracy. It's impossible to disprove”. (...) Once the criterion of falsifiability has been established, it is important to examine a statement or theory more critically. The defense of horoscopes not only involves an unfalsifiable claim but can also involve anecdotes. As it turns out, when tested objectively, claims made by horoscopes tend to be false considerably more often than many people recognize. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'essentializing'. One commits the fallacy of essentializing when claiming that just because something was one particular way at one point; it will always be that way. This fallacy is also similar to the genetic fallacy in that it suggests things are a certain way simply “by their nature”. Part of this fallacy relies on the metaphysical notion of determinism: that people are determined by their DNA and, additionally, no (...) amount of environmental factors can change specific aspects of a person. Awareness of essentializing motivates the critical thinker to delve into exactly what is “essential” to a certain entity maintaining a particular label. Many animal rights activists claim that something along the lines of this fallacy is being committed when non‐human animals are excluded from the category of “moral entity” on the grounds of their not maintaining the essential quality, “has human DNA”. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'oversimplification'. The fallacy of oversimplification occurs when we attempt to make something appear simpler by ignoring certain relevant complexities. Sometimes oversimplification makes sense. The world can be a convoluted place, and we may need to ignore certain factors in order to get our heads around certain thorny ideas. But in other cases, oversimplification can be used deliberately to deceive or divide people. In order to avoid the fallacy, we (...) need to become comfortable with accepting complicated answers to certain questions. When we obscure, ignore, or simply fail to identify certain factors, we run a high risk of misunderstanding reality. If we try to address an issue on the basis of this mistaken understanding, there is a good chance our actions will ‐ at best ‐ be ineffective, or ‐ at worst ‐ exacerbate the very problem we are trying to solve. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, argument from fallacy. Also known as argumentum ad logicam, argument to logic, fallacy fallacy, and fallacist's fallacy, the argument from fallacy occurs when one reasons that because the argument for some conclusion is fallacious, the conclusion of that argument is false. Truth and falsity are features of claims. Fallacies are errors in reasoning, not errors about truth or falsity. That is, if someone has committed a fallacy, then he (...) has made an error in reasoning; but it does not follow that he has made a factual error. As a deductive argument, fallacy of affirming the consequent is invalid ‐ one cannot draw/infer the conclusion from the premises ‐ and yet the conclusion is true. As such, it should be clear that poor reasoning (committing a fallacy) does not entail a false conclusion. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy: free speech fallacy (FS). The FS consists in thinking one's political right to freedom of expression includes protection from criticism. Those who commit this fallacy allege that critical scrutiny is either tantamount to censorship or equivalent to the imposition of one's views on others. The error in the fallacy is that the freedom of expression includes critical expressions. The trouble with the argument is that freedom of expression does (...) not mean freedom from criticism. The first distortion concerns the logical consequences of criticism. The second distortion confuses logical implications of criticism with the criticism itself. The FS thus takes the personal implications, necessary though they may be, as the defining features of criticism, when they are merely incidental. (shrink)

This chapter deals with one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called “Straw Man”. How one can straw man someone's view or argument happens in many ways. The chapter focuses on three ways. The first is the representational straw man fallacy. The second form of the straw man fallacy is that of the selectional straw man, or better the weak man. The third is what we will call the hollow man. The straw manning requires a form of misrepresentation of (...) the overall intellectual situation in an area of dispute. Straw man arguments not only produce bad argumentative results at the times they are given, but they have lasting repercussions on the communities they convince. Straw manning depends on us being unaware of a misrepresentation of opponents, and the only way to detect that is to know what the correct representation is. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'sunk cost'. In economics, a sunk cost is an investment that can never be recovered. Prime examples include money spent on research and development or advertising for a product. However, there is a way to think of cost in terms of time, energy, and even emotion. The way to avoid this fallacy is to not allow the fear of losing what was already invested in something to influence (...) one's rational, objective decision about a present or future investment. In Eric Nielsen's words, when making any decision, economic or otherwise, it “makes no sense to factor in sunk costs precisely because they are sunk; no present action can change them. No matter what happens, the sunk costs are always there”. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'begging the question'. Begging the question is a logical fallacy in which the premise of an argument presupposes the truth of its conclusion; in other words, the argument takes for granted what it is supposed to prove. In works such as Prior Analytics and Topics, Aristotle was the first to introduce begging the question by stating what translates to “asking the initial thing” or “asking the original point”. Labeling (...) an argument as “begging the question” is often itself using the fallacy's name incorrectly, and yet we accept this incorrect usage. Politics is a common place for begging the question. Politicians in a debate often beg the question by giving answers that give the conclusion of the person they are citing as a truth or fact and never show any real proof of the matter. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called the historian's fallacy (HF). In HF, the writing of a historical event has been skewed by way of biased hindsight on the author's part. The historian has written the details of the event down in such a way that the facts of the event, only seen after the event has occurred, cause the initial event to become distorted. HF should not be confused with a method historians use (...) in the present day when documenting the past. This is called presentism, a mode of historical analysis in which present‐day ideas are projected into the past. Another issue to address is that HF should not be confused with historical fallacy. One commits the historical fallacy when one reads into a process the results that occur because of that process. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy: red herring (RH). An RH is a distraction device and refers to an informal logical fallacy that detracts from the actual issue, allowing one to be sidetracked from what is actually happening and to draw a false conclusion. RHs can also be used as a literary device to steer readers off course such as in mystery novels like Perry Mason stories and, of course, Sherlock Holmes. Sir Arthur Conan (...) Doyle's Sherlock Holmes: The Hound of the Baskervilles presents a classic example of an RH. If a topic is proposed, and we can speak or write about it without departing from the initial trail, then we have successfully avoided an RH fallacy. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, appeal to ridicule. An appeal to ridicule is closely related to an ad hominem argument because both attack the person. There is a similarity between an appeal to ridicule and an appeal to emotion in that both attempt to bypass rational assessment of a point of view and elicit an emotional reaction from the audience. An appeal to ridicule may be an attempt to elicit humor at another's expense, (...) or it may be an attempt to elicit enmity, playing on the fears and prejudices of the group. The difference between a reductio ad absurdum and an appeal to ridicule is that the former uses good evidence while the latter does not. Perhaps the best way to avoid this fallacy is to cultivate an attitude of respect for other points of view. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'sorites fallacy (SF)'. One commits the SF when claiming that because a continuum exists between two distinct categories or states of affairs, then those categories cannot truly be asserted as distinct. In addition, the SF helps us to distinguish between vagueness and relativity. Recognizing the SF is helpful in highlighting the vagueness of linguistic constructs and categorical thinking. But it serves to remind that simply because of the (...) vagueness of categories, we shouldn't render these categories as non‐existent or vacuous. While it can apply to more real‐ world issues than heaps of sand, the fallacy is best understood in its original conception. Imagine seeing a collection of sand grains upon which we claim it to not constitute a heap of sand. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'proving too much'. The proving too much fallacy has been committed when an argument can be used to also prove something false or leads to contradictory conclusions. An argument that proves too much demonstrates a lack of soundness, since sound arguments can only establish true conclusions, and thus when an argument can be used to prove false conclusions, it becomes evident that there is a flaw in its (...) reasoning. The fallacy of proving too much is not really a single fallacy so much as a great tool for detecting faulty reasoning, since any argument that leads to a contradiction cannot be sound. There are a few forms this fallacy can take on such as when an argument leads to multiple contradictory conclusions. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'euphemism'. Euphemisms create emotional distance and thus provide a level of comfort and ease when discussing a topic that is sensitive, difficult, or disturbing. In some instances, euphemisms are intentionally used to sway people's opinions or emotions to a particular side, as in the example of politicians' referring to the anti‐abortion position as “pro‐life”, torture techniques as “enhanced interrogation”, or the non‐combatants civilians who die during armed conflict (...) as “collateral damage”. Euphemisms are fallacious because they are intentionally used to conceal the truth and obscure any real meaning; they are soft language used to mask or downplay warranted emotional force. Being ambiguous or vague in meaning brands euphemisms as a type of weasel word. Using honest, direct language and making sure the neutrality deployed is accurate is the best way to avoid euphemisms and weasel wording. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'homunculus fallacy' (HmF). The HmF was coined by Anthony Kenny in 1971, in his essay by the same name. Following Ludwig Wittgenstein, Kenny describes the fallacy as occurring when we ascribe to the brain attributes that can be ascribed only to the animal as a whole. Historically this fallacy is connected to the theory of vision or what is sometimes called the Cartesian theater. Someone might explain human (...) vision by saying that when we look around at objects in the world, the light forms an image on the retinas of eyes and something or some little person (where the term homunculus comes from) in the brain looks at these as if they were images on a movie screen. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, “unwarranted assumption”. Unwarranted assumptions are claims or beliefs that possess little to no supporting evidence, things we might take for granted as true, or just completely false ideas we inherited without reflection. When we reason using implicit assumptions or further propositions whose truth is uncertain or implausible, we commit the fallacy of unwarranted assumption and the truth of our conclusions is grossly affected. Prejudices and stereotypes are some common (...) ways in which we make unwarranted assumptions. The key to preventing this fallacy is evidence: warranted assumptions have evidence and ways of demonstrating their truth with certainty. It is best to not hold something as true or applicable without proof that it is true and applicable. This implies that we need to assess our ways of thinking and belief formation critically. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called ‘accident’. This fallacy often occurs when people let their attention become distracted by factors, which may be true, other than those relevant in an argument. While the fallacy of accident is an informal fallacy, people can imagine that it has something like this as a form: General principle or rule X applies across the board; particular case x is an example of X; and thus X applies to (...) x. One way to detect or to avoid this fallacy is to ask themselves what generalization is being applied. Once they have that figured out, they can ask themselves whether it really does apply in all cases across the board or whether there is a reason to make an exception in some particular case. (shrink)

This introduction presents an overview of key concepts discussed in this book, which focuses on how citizenship is addressed in the context of education or, more specifically, learning, which is understood as central to the government of individuals and societies in Europe. Educational research has provided numerous critical responses to the citizenship education introduced in the UK and elsewhere. Governance is a form of governing commensurate with the decentralisation associated with neoliberalism, but articulated in terms of transparency, accountability, and social (...) justice in accordance with Third Way thinking. The concern with voice, narrative, and accounting for oneself in the name of democracy and social justice has become central to the discourses and practices of citizenship in the learning society. The active way in which individuals are asked to relate to their European heritage is measured as a form of participation, and therefore contributes evidence of active citizenship. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'genetic fallacy' (GnF). One commits the GnF when advocating for a conclusion based solely on origin. This is a fallacy of relevance—irrelevance, really—because the origin of a claim may be irrelevant to its truth‐value. That is to say, providing an account of the genesis of a claim, its history or origin, may be informative and helpful; however, it need not determine the truth‐value of the claim. Therefore, when (...) one draws a conclusion regarding the truth‐value of a claim based solely on the origin of the claim, then one may have committed the GnF. In the ethical language of “means and ends” reasoning, GnF helps to highlight the problematic nature of the utilitarian‐style disconnect between the justice of actions and the goodness of their consequences. (shrink)

In Rapture some mad shit happens: there are Plasmids that allow players to fire bees out of their hands, generate electricity bolts, set enemies on fire, pick stuff up using telekinetic powers, and much more. One theory is that physical things are those that can be completely described by the vocabulary of the best possible theory of physics. Physicalism would thus be the view that this theory of physics would completely specify all the fundamental categories, all the ingredients we need (...) to make the world. Another theory is that the physical properties are the ones needed to account for the objects we accept as physical; for example, Andrew Ryan's putter. The physicalist's claim would be that these properties are the only ones we need to account for the rest of the world. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy: definist fallacy. The definist fallacy consists of (1) defining one concept in terms of another concept with which it is not clearly synonymous, (2) as the persuasive definition fallacy, defining a concept in terms of another concept in an infelicitous way that is favorable to one's position, or (3) the insistence that a term be defined before it can be used in discussion. The simplest way to not commit (...) any version of this fallacy is to define one's terms credibly! He/she needs to avoid using definitions that are laden with emotion or those that are idiosyncratic. That is, he/she may use more neutral and accepted definitions. If those definitions seem inadequate for his/her purposes, then he/she may argue for his/her definition. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called hedging. Hedging is that error in reasoning involving the systematic weakening of a claim so as to avoid refutation. The defining characteristic of the hedge is the use of understatement. To understate a claim is to use words which diminish the force or content of the claim. Hedging uses understatement the way slippery slope uses vagueness, begging the question uses latency, and the straw man uses overstatement. With (...) the hedge, detensifiers are used to weaken the claim in order to avoid refutation without admitting the weakened claim is different from the original. As with most informal fallacies, hedging can easily be avoided by accepting the counter‐evidence against the initial claim and revising the claim in light of that evidence. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called ' if by whiskey'. The if by whiskey fallacy is a kind of deception by double talk in which one supports both sides of an issue by using terms that are selectively emotionally sensitive. The name derives from a 1952 speech made by Noah S. “Soggy” Sweat, Jr., a legislator from the state of Mississippi, on the issue of whether Mississippi should continue its prohibition on alcohol. One (...) could argue that this fallacy is a special case of the appeal to emotion fallacy. However, because of its particular use, to avoid answering a question on a controversial matter in a clear and decisive manner, it certainly warrants its own label. The trick to avoiding this fallacy is to take a stand. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'false dilemma (FD)'. According to Andrea A. Lunsford, John J. Ruskiewicz, and Keith Walters, a FD tends to “reduce a complicated issue to excessively simple terms” or, when intentionally created, tends to “obscure legitimate alternatives”. FD reflects incorrect thinking because it presents a problem or issue as having only two possible solutions when in fact there are more. Liam Dempsey noted that shows such as The Daily Show and (...) The Colbert Report often employed FD in order to highlight the “theatrics” that are found in political events or the use of FD by politicians. Politics aside, an FD exists anytime an extreme dichotomy of choices appears as the only possible answers. Advertisers also create an FD when creating a situation with only two outcomes and the only correct or positive outcome leads to their brand. (shrink)

BioShock begins simply with the text “1960 Mid‐Atlantic.” The player's horizon shifts to accommodate this fact, like not being so surprised that Jack can smoke in the airplane. What follows in BioShock is the development of a narrative where it is assumed that Jack is entering Rapture for the first time in his life. Later, it is revealed that he is not. When Andrew Ryan exposes Jack's real identity, Ryan is falsifying both the narrative of Jack coming to Rapture for (...) the first time and the meta‐narrative of the player operating a free agent as an avatar. Understanding how BioShock effectively manipulates players will take us through a variety of territories: cognitive science, philosophy of mind, philosophical hermeneutics, philosophy of video gaming, and philosophy of free will. It's all a testament to the brilliance of BioShock and a demonstration of how video games can teach us‐ even change us. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called 'division'. The fallacy of division occurs when one incorrectly infers that the characteristics, attributes, or features of the group as a whole will also be found in the individuals comprising the group. The easiest way to avoid this fallacy is never to assume that the characteristics, attributes, or features of the group as a whole will also be found in the individuals comprising the group. One must inspect (...) and evaluate the characteristics, attributes, or features of the whole separately from the parts of which the whole is comprised. Inferences from a whole to a part can be made, however, if additional assumptions are added to the argument that link together the property had by the whole with the property had by the part. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called “composition”. The fallacy of composition occurs when one incorrectly infers that the characteristics, attributes, or features of individuals comprising some group will also be found in the group as a whole. Inferences from a part to a whole can be made if additional assumptions are added to guarantee that the whole will have the property if the parts do. The easiest way to avoid this fallacy is never (...) to assume that the characteristics, attributes, or features of individuals comprising some group will also be found in the group as a whole. One must inspect and evaluate the characteristics, attributes, or features of the whole separately from the parts of which the whole is comprised. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'middle ground (MG)'. Like almost all fallacies, MG is prevalent because it closely resembles a non‐fallacious way of reasoning. In many disputes, especially when there is a spectrum of opinions, the truth often lies somewhere in between the most extreme views on either side. The fallacy is committed by people who don't listen to the reasons that have been offered by each side to defend their theories – they (...) simply assume that the truth is in the middle. The fallacy is the result of intellectual laziness. Fortunately, this is an easy fallacy to avoid. Simply keep in mind the fact that merely because someone asserts a theory, especially an extreme theory, this does not by itself provide evidence for any conclusion at all. (shrink)

“Father” Zachary Hale Comstock is a self‐professed prophet, religious zealot, and racist, who has kept his “heir” under lock and key in the floating city of Columbia. Booker DeWitt is a washed‐up, disgraced ex‐Pinkerton agent haunted by his participation in the Wounded Knee Massacre. He enters Columbia to rescue Elizabeth in exchange for having his gambling debts settled. After much bloodshed, Booker saves Elizabeth and kills Comstock. In the past, Booker attended a baptism to assuage his guilt over Wounded Knee. (...) In some worlds he rejected the baptism, got married, had a daughter, Anna, and ended up as an indebted alcoholic ex‐Pinkerton agent. In the Comstock world, Anna is renamed Elizabeth in order to conceal her true origins. BioShock Infinite paints a metaphysical picture that treats the many‐worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics as reality. (shrink)

Affirming the consequent is a fallacious form of reasoning in formal logic that occurs when the minor premise of a propositional syllogism affirms the consequent of a conditional statement. A conditional statement is an “if‐then” sentence that expresses a link between the antecedent (the part after the “if”) and the consequent (the part after the “then”). A conditional statement does not assert either the antecedent or the consequent. It simply claims that if the antecedent is true, then the consequent is (...) also true. Although affirming the consequent is an invalid argument form and sometimes mistaken for, the valid argument form modus ponens. Modus ponens is a valid argument form in Western philosophy because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; however, affirming the consequent is an invalid argument form because the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called “adverse consequences”. The argument from adverse consequences can be seen as an argument that is intended to be pragmatic ‐ about what we should do, not about what is true ‐ but then comes to the wrong kind of conclusion. In many genuinely pragmatic arguments, however, adverse consequences are relevant to the conclusion and no fallacy is committed. So it is important to notice exactly what the conclusion (...) of the argument is. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, “two wrongs make a right”. If the notion that “two wrongs make a right” seems familiar and peculiarly stated, it may be because we moreover hear it in other more commonly rendered forms. To say “two wrongs do not make a right”, necessarily implies a wholesale condemnation of retributive justice. Retributive justice, despite its largely sanitized form in contemporary society, retains the core idea that justice can be achieved (...) by the extraction of some quantity of something, such as time. With restorative justice the aim is that both parties are meant to achieve some kind of healing and consolation. But the essentially rhetorical nature of the claim, “two wrongs make a right”, assures us that no such logic is in place, and worse, that the so‐called justifications for committing wrongful acts are not derived from a rigorous calculus but rather through blunt insistence. (shrink)

The Plasmids in BioShock are essentially enhancement technologies for “healthy” individuals. Although the sea slug in BioShock is a work of fiction, in the real world researchers are investigating species‐transcending gene technology. BioShock makes apparent the usefulness of biological enhancements, but also warns us about the potential dangers of playing with biology. Not everyone is in favor of human enhancement technologies. Their opponents fear that some procedures might change what it means to be human on a fundamental level. BioShock is (...) a digital game, and the types of Plasmids you are given are adequate to the challenges you encounter. Perhaps enhancement technologies would actually lead to greater social justice and equality by benefiting those who aren't as genetically gifted as others. As things stand, we are subject to the genetic lottery, but enhancement technologies would shift our fate “from chance to choice” and level the playing field. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy, 'denying the antecedent'. Like affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent is also a fallacious form of reasoning in formal logic. This time the problem occurs when the minor premise of a propositional syllogism denies the antecedent of a conditional statement. Denying the antecedent makes the mistake of assuming that if the antecedent is denied, then the consequent must also be denied. Like modus ponens, modus tollens is a valid (...) argument form because the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion; however, like affirming the consequent, denying the antecedent is an invalid argument form because the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion. The invalidity of denying the antecedent is confirmed by a truth table presented in the chapter. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on the work of Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, and their interpretation by Stanley Cavell. Cavell's philosophy has sought to reclaim the work of Emerson and Thoreau for and as philosophy, and particularly as American philosophy. In Cavell's Emersonian moral perfectionism, perfectionism is understood as ateleological, and not in terms of perfectibility. Cavell therefore seeks to distinguish this American expression of perfectionism from what he identifies as a dimension or tradition of the moral life that (...) spans the course of Western thought, found in teleological form in, for example, Plato and Aristotle. Emerson's essay expresses a disappointment in America's passive acceptance of its European inheritance and in the implications of this for citizenship and democracy. America, or American man, must undertake its own labour to produce its own knowledge of itself and the world. (shrink)

This chapter begins by providing some historical background to European integration. It draws attention to the way that history has been used to promote a European identity since the European Union and, with it, European citizenship were created in 1992. The framing of the relationship between globalisation and its socioeconomic challenges has made the need to attend to questions of citizenship, particularly through education, self‐evident. The shift in the mode of governance has not only entailed using education as a means (...) of educating citizens about Europe: in the current context, education, or specifically, learning, has become a central aspect of how citizenship is understood. Examples of recent educational and cultural policy highlight terms that are central to producing a particular mode of governance. These examples illustrate the practices of accountability that have emerged in recent years that require governments, institutions, organisations, and individuals to speak about themselves in particular ways. (shrink)