Craig Hanks and Aili Bresnahan are contributing editors only -- not main editors.

Some recent commentators have acquiesced in the efforts of some religious groups to co-opt concepts of morality, thus leading many—inappropriately, I believe—to think we must keep all morality out of our civic life and especially out of the reasoning in our legal system. I review examples of the confusion in characterizing the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision as a conflict between constitutional rights and religious moral precepts. I argue that this approach capitulates to particular views of morality as religious morality. (...) I consider the appeals to morality in the dissent and the ensuing confusion among commentators about the significance ofthis opinion. I review alternate readings of the Lawrence majority opinion, including proposals that it be considered from the perspectives of the ethicalframeworks of Locke, Mill, or Kant. (shrink)

Some recent commentators have acquiesced in the efforts of some religious groups to co-opt concepts of morality, thus leading many—inappropriately, I believe—to think we must keep all morality out of our civic life and especially out of the reasoning in our legal system. I review examples of the confusion in characterizing the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision as a conflict between constitutional rights and religious moral precepts. I argue that this approach capitulates to particular views of morality as religious morality. (...) I consider the appeals to morality in the dissent and the ensuing confusion among commentators about the significance ofthis opinion. I review alternate readings of the Lawrence majority opinion, including proposals that it be considered from the perspectives of the ethicalframeworks of Locke, Mill, or Kant. (shrink)

Midwest Studies In Philosophy, EarlyView.

Several philosophical problems concerning the object of criticism in dance are identified and analyzed as preliminary to an eventual theory of evaluation of dance. Basic to philosophical adequacy is understanding the artform as it is actually practiced and appreciated, recognizing its complexity as a performing artform using unique human bodies as instruments. ;Definitions of "dance" proposed by philosophers, dance historians, and others are inadequate to specify necessary and sufficient conditions of dance, to distinguish dance from other human non-art phenomena, and (...) to distinguish dance from other artforms. Definitions can be adequate for a specific purpose, using descriptive characteristics and standards for evaluation and appreciation by an audience. ;The ontological status of dance is best understood as consisting of the primary media of movement by human bodies and music and secondary media of the visual dimensions of costumes, scenery, and lighting. Improved understanding of the artform is possible with this more comprehenive recognition of its complex multi-media status, as shown in an analysis of "appropriateness" of the various media, a typical criterion for evaluation. ;The identity of a work of art in dance can be established using a notational system in conjunction with a standard for acceptable compliance with that notation. "Substantial similarity," as determined by lay observers, the test for copyright infringement, provides a useful standard for dance. Other theories have required too much of an identity standard; its purpose is to identify a particular performance as one of a certain work, not to teach dancers to perform the work, nor to enable directors to produce it, nor to provide standards for a good performance of the work. ;A necessary condition of the proper object of criticism is perceivability. The considerable interest in the dance world in production and other factors not perceivable on stage during performance is best understood as a interest in the on-going skills of artists, as opposed to the evaluation of an aesthetic object. (shrink)

Some recent commentators have acquiesced in the efforts of some religious groups to co-opt concepts of morality, thus leading many—inappropriately, I believe—to think we must keep all morality out of our civic life and especially out of the reasoning in our legal system. I review examples of the confusion in characterizing the 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision as a conflict between constitutional rights and religious moral precepts. I argue that this approach capitulates to particular views of morality as religious morality. (...) I consider the appeals to morality in the dissent and the ensuing confusion among commentators about the significance ofthis opinion. I review alternate readings of the Lawrence majority opinion, including proposals that it be considered from the perspectives of the ethicalframeworks of Locke, Mill, or Kant. (shrink)