This article substantiates the common intuition that it is wrong to contribute to dangerous climate change for no significant reason. To advance this claim, I first propose a basic principle that one has the moral obligation to act in accordance with the weight of moral reasons. I further claim that there are significant moral reasons for individuals not to emit greenhouse gases, as many other climate ethicists have already argued. Then, I assert that there are often no significant moral (or (...) excusing) reasons to emit greenhouse gases. In any such trivial-cost – but not necessarily trivial-impact – cases, the individual then has an obligation to refrain. Finally, I apply the moral weighing principle to everyday situations of emitting and establish two surprisingly substantial implications: the relevance of virtues to the interpersonal assessment of environmentally harmful actions and the extensive individual ethical obligations that exist short of moral purity. (shrink)

There is a remarkable trend in contemporary environmentalism that emphasizes ‘accepting responsibility’ for the natural world in contrast to outdated preservationist thinking that shirks such responsibility. This approach is often explained and justified by reference to the anthropocene: this fundamentally new epoch—defined by human domination—requires active human intervention to avert planetary catastrophe. However, in this paper, I suggest this rhetoric encourages a flight from history. This often jubilant, sometimes anxious, yearning for unprecedented human innovation and—ultimately—control in our new millennia mirrors (...) the Futurist movement that took off near the beginning of the last century. Despite the significant differences in the details of how academics have defended this twenty-first-century environmental outlook, they all represent the true flight from history; they too quickly jettison the ideas of historical environmentalists and so misunderstand the environmental values at the heart of preservation that are more salient than ever. (shrink)

An adult university hospital ethics committee evaluated a proposed TA-NRP protocol in the fall of 2018. The protocol raised ethical concerns about violation of the Uniform Determination of Death Act and the prohibition known as the Dead Donor Rule, with potential resultant legal consequences. An additional concern was the potential for increased mistrust by the community of organ donation and transplantation. The ethics committee evaluated the responses to these concerns as unable to surmount the ethical and legal boundaries and the (...) ethics committee declined to endorse the procedure. These concerns endure. (shrink)

What term is most appropriate in describing the limits of medicine? That depends on who determines the limits and the bases on which those limits are delineated and communicated. Schneiderman, Jecker, and Jonsen critique two recent policy statements by critical care providers—Bosslet et al. and Nates et al. —for their rejection of the use of the term futile for treatment. Both statements recommend using the adjective inappropriate for the problematic treatment, rather than futile, based on the lack of consensus of (...) just what constitutes futility. Schneiderman, Jecker, and Jonsen also assert that, despite a lack of consensus about the determination of futility, the definitions they have... (shrink)

This paper is a critical discussion of Robert T. Hall's recent attempt to construct a "minimal" definition of 'civil disobedience.' It is shown that the analysis, if applied consistently, results in a definition which is too minimal in including far too much under the rubric of 'civil disobedience.’ Furthermore, it is argued that Hall himself is not consistent in his treatment, the result being a definition which is too restrictive insofar as it excludes certain clear cases of civilly disobedient action. (...) It is shown that the inadequacies in Hall's minimal definition stem from an underlying confusion in his understanding of civil disobedience, the nature of which is indicated by examining his treatment of one of the features commonly held to be essential to acts of civil disobedience, namely, the publicity attending their performance. Finally, my argument is intended to demonstrate that any proposed definition of 'civil disobedience' which does not include reference to a publicity condition is bound to fail to do the job required of it. (shrink)

Throughout his philosophical career Thomas Reid was an opponent of scepticism. When providing some remarks on his philosophical development he informs us that initially he accepted Berkeley’s version of the theory of ideas, thinking it adequately secured knowledge of ordinary things and events, until Hume demonstrated the sceptical problems with knowledge of the self encountered by the doctrine. This led to Reid’s re-examination and ultimate rejection of the theory of ideas.

In the 1999 Galton Lecture for the annual conference of The Galton Institute, the author summarizes the main elements of Galtongenerals original and largely intuitive ideas, which still inspire mainstream scientific research on intelligence.

Acquisition of word meanings, or vocabulary, reflects general mental ability (psychometric g) more than than do most abilities measured in test batteries. Among diverse subtests, vocabulary is especially high on indices of genetic influences. Bloom's exposition of the psychological complexities of understanding words, involving the primacy of concepts, the theory of mind, and other processes, explains vocabulary's predominant g saturation.

Childress and coauthors present a case considering ECMO withdrawal over the objection of the conscious patient who is no longer a candidate for transplantation or other definitive therapeutic inter...

In this issue, Raphael Cohen-Almagor reviews some of the terms used in the discussion of bioethical issues at the end of a patient's life; he argues that they are “valueladen” and serve “primarily the physicians, at times at the expense of the patients’ best interest.” Each of the following terms comes under scrutiny: “death with dignity,” “persistent vegetative state,” “futility,” “double effect,” and “brain death.” He argues that these concepts, developed in recent decades, “have generated an unhealthy atmosphere for patients, (...) which might lead to undesirable actions at the end of patients’ lives.” He issues a plea to discontinue the use of the term “persistent vegetative state” because it is dehumanizing, to explain “double effect” and “futility” in detail and with sincerity, and to clarify the motivation for using these terms and others. He warns physicians not to use terminology that is offensive to patients and loved ones or that weakens their patients’ will to live. (shrink)

As the title indicates, This paper represents an examination of the relationships obtaining among the concepts of foresight, Intention, And responsibility. It begins with a critical analysis of the legal and quasi-Moral principle of the resumption of intentionality (i.E., An agent is presumed to have intended the "foreseeable" consequences of her intentional actions). It is shown that, While legally indispensable, It will simply not withstand philosophical scrutiny for purposes of ascribing moral responsibility. I proceed eventually to an evaluation of a (...) proposal which would make foresight itself a sufficient--Though not a necessary--Condition for the ascription of responsibility. The strengths and weaknesses of such a proposal are assessed within both legal and moral contexts. Having distinguished between what I term the "hard-Liners" vs. The "soft-Liners" to the debate, I give my reasons for aligning myself with the hard-Liners (i.E., Those who might be sympathetically inclined to my alternate proposal). (shrink)

This paper discusses a problem arising from the way in which John Searle marks the distinction between intentional and unintentional action (Inquiry, Vol. 22, pp. 253?80), namely, that of adequately distinguishing those events which we regard as unintentional actions on the part of an agent from those other events occasioned by or brought about as a result of his action which we (correctly) do not countenance as actions of any sort ? unintentional or otherwise. Searle's attempt to distinguish them in (...) terms of the ?proximity of the contents of intentions? is examined and rejected, and an alternative account which exploits the anthropocentric character of our action vocabulary is proposed and defended. The discussion ends with a brief indication of some other difficulties engendered by Searle's analysis. (shrink)

The problem of decision-making capacity in patients with dementia, such as those with early stage Alzheimer's, can be vexing, especially when these patients refuse life-sustaining medical treatments. However, these patients should not be presumed to lack decision-making capacity. Instead, an analysis of the patient's decision-making capacity should be made. Patients who have some degree of decision-making capacity may be able to make a choice about life-sustaining medical treatment and may, in many cases, choose to forgo treatment.

It is now a default obligation to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR), in the absence of knowledge of a patient’s or surrogate’s wishes to the contrary. We submit that it is time to reevaluate this position. Attempting CPR should be subject to the same scrutiny demanded of other medical interventions that involve balancing a great benefit against grievous harms.