Traditional theism teaches that God engages in a relentless form of observation for every human being. If, as is widely supposed, humans have a right to privacy, then it seems that God constantly violates this right. In this paper we argue that there is both a defensible philosophical excuse and justification for this infringement. We also argue that this defense is extensible to human social and political contexts; it provides the vital elements of a theory of just privacy infringement. This (...) theory is broadly compatible both with major forms of political theory and with the main conceptions of privacy defended in recent philosophical and jurisprudential literature. (shrink)

Observation by nonstandard observers has different implications for privacy than observation by ordinary human beings. This seemingly trivial point yields important insights about privacy. Searching for the characteristic that explains this difference reveals that privacy is importantly related to our interest in how others see us, and the derivative interest in controlling the information upon which others’ perceptions are based. This also casts light on the important relationships between privacy, autonomy, and the development of public personae.

What do musicians, critics, and listeners mean when they use emotion‐words to describe a piece of instrumental music? How can ‘pure’ musical sounds ‘express’ emotions such as joyfulness, sadness, anguish, optimism, and anger? Sounds are not living organisms; sounds cannot feel emotions. Yet many people around the world believe they hear emotions in sounds and/or feel the emotions expressed by musical patterns. Is there a reasonable explanation for this dilemma? These issues gain additional importance when we ask them in the (...) context of music education. For example, can we, or should we, teach music students to listen‐for musical expressions of emotion? If so, how? My contention is that listeners can and do hear emotions in musical patterns; musical sounds can be expressive of emotions. Accordingly, I offer ideas for teaching students how to hear and create musical expressions of emotions. (shrink)

What do musicians, critics, and listeners mean when they use emotion‐words to describe a piece of instrumental music? How can ‘pure’ musical sounds ‘express’ emotions such as joyfulness, sadness, anguish, optimism, and anger? Sounds are not living organisms; sounds cannot feel emotions. Yet many people around the world believe they hear emotions in sounds and/or feel the emotions expressed by musical patterns. Is there a reasonable explanation for this dilemma?These issues gain additional importance when we ask them in the context (...) of music education. For example, can we, or should we, teach music students to listen‐for musical expressions of emotion? If so, how?My contention is that listeners can and do hear emotions in musical patterns; musical sounds can be expressive of emotions. Accordingly, I offer ideas for teaching students how to hear and create musical expressions of emotions. (shrink)

Spermatogenesis is an elaborate process involving both cell division and differentiation, and cell‐cell interactions. Defects in any of these processes can result in infertility, and in some cases these can be genetic in cause. Mapping experiments have defined at least three regions of the human Y chromosome that are required for normal spermatogenesis. Two of these contain the genes encoding the RNA binding proteins RBM and DAZ, suggesting that the control of RNA metabolism is likely to be an important control (...) point for human spermatogenesis. A similar analysis in mice has shown that at least two regions of the mouse Y chromosome are essential for spermatogenesis. Both genetic and reverse genetic approaches have been used to identify mouse autosomal genes required for spermatogenesis. These studies have shown that genes in a number of different pathways are essential for normal spermatogenesis, and also provide putative models of human infertility. (shrink)

This paper challenges two main arguments often presented to show that cloning a human being would be morally wrong per se. These arguments are that human cloning would be intrinsically wrong 1) because it involves manufacturing a person rather than creating or reproducing one, and 2) because it violates some claim or right that individuals have to be biologically unique. I argue that while cloning may involve genetic selection, it need not always be a decision to select for a certain (...) type of individual. Furthermore, I contend that the notion of biological uniqueness is inadequate to ground either the idea that biologically non‐unique individuals are morally worse off than unique ones or that biological uniqueness itself constitutes a criterion of moral value or status. (shrink)