Mary Anne Warren investigates a theoretical question that is at the centre of practical and professional ethics: what are the criteria for having moral status? That is: what does it take to be an entity towards which people have moral considerations? Warren argues that no single property will do as a sole criterion, and puts forward seven basic principles which establish moral status. She then applies these principles to three controversial moral issues: voluntary euthanasia, abortion, and the status of (...) non-human animals. (shrink)

The Forum and the Tower tackles a fascinating and perennial topic: the relationship between the academy and the world of politics. The accomplished Harvard law professor Mary Ann Glendon traces this crucial relationship from Classical Greece taking readers through the Roman Empire, Renaissance Italy, the English revolution, the Federalist era in the US, the French Revolution, the Napoleonic wars, the Concert of Europe, the progressive era, and the New Deal/World War II era.

Does birth make a difference to the moral rights of the fetus/infant? Should it make a difference to its legal rights? Most contemporary philosophers believe that birth cannot make a difference to moral rights. If this is true, then it becomes difficult to justify either a moral or a legal distinction between late abortion and infanticide. I argue that the view that birth is irrelevant to moral rights rests upon two highly questionable assumptions about the theoretical foundations of moral rights. (...) If we reject these assumptions, then we are free to take account of the contrasting biological and social relationships that make even relatively late abortion morally different from infanticide. (shrink)

By a potential person I shall mean an entity which is not now a person but which is capable of developing into a person, given certain biologically and/or technologically possible conditions. This is admittedly a narrower sense than some would attach to the term ‘potential'. After all, people of the twenty-fifth century, if such there will be, are in some sense potential people now, even though the specific biological entities from which they will develop, i.e. the particular gametes or concepti, (...) do not yet exist. For there do exist, in the reproductive capacities of people now living and in the earth's resources, conditions adequate to produce these future people eventually, provided of course that various possible catastrophes are avoided. Indeed, in some sense of ‘potential’ there have been countless billions of potential people from the beginning of time. But I am concerned not with such remote potentialities but with currently existing entities that are capable of developing into people. (shrink)

The past 25 years have seen an upsurge of interest in the figure of Mary Magdalene, whose image has been transformed through feminist scholarship from penitent prostitute to prominent disciple of Jesus. This article documents another, non-academic, interpretation of Mary Magdalene – the image of Mary as goddess or embodiment of the female divine. The most influential proponent of this view is Margaret Starbird, who hypothesizes that Mary was both Jesus’ wife and his divine feminine counterpart. (...) The author suggests that feminist theologians/thealogians should be aware of this popular understanding of Mary; and consider what it is about Mary Magdalene as the sacred feminine/bride of Jesus/sophia that captures the public imagination in a way that other feminist christologies do not. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: What is Moral Status? The Moral Agency Theory The Genetic Humanity Theory The Sentience Theory The Organic Life Theory Two Relationship‐based Theories Combining these Criteria Principles of Moral Status Human Zygotes, Embryos, and Fetuses Are All Animals Equal? Machines and Artificial Life‐forms Conclusion.

This article presents a seven-step corpus-based approach to discourse analysis that starts with a detailed analysis of each individual text in a corpus that can then be generalized across all texts of a corpus, providing a description of typical patterns of discourse organization that hold for the entire corpus. This approach is applied specifically to a methodology that is used to analyze texts in terms of the functional/communicative structures that typically make up texts in a genre: move analysis. The resulting (...) corpus-based approach for conducting a move analysis significantly enhances the value of this often used methodology, while at the same time providing badly needed guidelines for a methodology that lacks them. A corpus of ‘birthmother letters’ is used to illustrate the approach. (shrink)

This survey on biotechnology and bioethics was carried out onnational random samples of the public and scientists in November2000-January 2000 throughout Japan, and attendees at theNovartis Life Science Forum held on 29 September, 1999 inTokyo. The sample size was 297, 370, and 74 respectively. Whilethere is better awareness of GMOs in 2000 compared to 1991; thetrend shows an increase in the perceived risks of GMOs followedby growing resistance in Japan. While a majority of personsbelieved genetic engineering would make life better (...) over the nexttwenty years , the proportion of respondents who thoughtgenetic engineering would make life worse over the next twentyyears doubled from 1997 to 2000 .Respondents were asked whether they had heard aboutapplications in several areas and the order of familiarity was: pest-resistant crops, human genes in bacteria, mouseto develop cancer, food and drinks, pigs with human hearts andpre-implantation diagnosis. A divide of opinion can be seen whenthe results on benefit, risk and moral acceptability of applicationsof biotechnology by the public are compared to the forum andscientist samples.A significant change in the acceptance of the public occurred in2000 where only 22% agreed on the moral acceptability of GMfood compared to 41% in 1997. In 2000 fewer people said they arewilling to buy genetically modified fruits that taste bettercompared to 1997 . The results show less public support foruse of gene therapy than 1993 and twice as many scientistsrejected gene therapy than they did in 1991.When asked whom is best placed to regulate modernbiotechnology, the respondents were overwhelmingly in favor ofinternational regulatory bodies, such as the United Nations andthe World Health Organization , rather than national bodies.The comparison between scientists and public is interesting,however the more enthusastic sample were participants from theNovartis Life Science Forum with its mixed occupations. (shrink)

This survey on biotechnology and bioethics was carried out on national random samples of the public and scientists in November 2000-January 2000 throughout Japan, and attendees at the Novartis Life Science Forum held on 29 September, 1999 in Tokyo. The sample size was 297, 370, and 74 respectively. While there is better awareness of GMOs in 2000 compared to 1991; the trend shows an increase in the perceived risks of GMOs followed by growing resistance in Japan. While a majority of (...) persons believed genetic engineering would make life better over the next twenty years, the proportion of respondents who thought genetic engineering would make life worse over the next twenty years doubled from 1997 to 2000. Respondents were asked whether they had heard about applications in several areas and the order of familiarity was: pest-resistant crops, human genes in bacteria, mouse to develop cancer, food and drinks, pigs with human hearts and pre-implantation diagnosis. A divide of opinion can be seen when the results on benefit, risk and moral acceptability of applications of biotechnology by the public are compared to the forum and scientist samples.A significant change in the acceptance of the public occurred in 2000 where only 22% agreed on the moral acceptability of GM food compared to 41% in 1997. In 2000 fewer people said they are willing to buy genetically modified fruits that taste better compared to 1997. The results show less public support for use of gene therapy than 1993 and twice as many scientists rejected gene therapy than they did in 1991.When asked whom is best placed to regulate modern biotechnology, the respondents were overwhelmingly in favor of international regulatory bodies, such as the United Nations and the World Health Organization, rather than national bodies. The comparison between scientists and public is interesting, however the more enthusastic sample were participants from the Novartis Life Science Forum with its mixed occupations. (shrink)

Drawing on interviews with women and men musicians, this study examines women's overrepresentation in an instrumental specialty, the electric bass, in alternative rock music. Structurally, this phenomenon may be explained by the instrument's greater ease of learning and lesser attractiveness to men, yet women bassists frequently advance an alternative theory of “womanly” affinity. The entrance of women into rock bands via the bass may provide them with new opportunities and help legitimate their presence in a male-dominated site of artistic production, (...) yet it may simultaneously work to reconstruct a gendered division of labor and reproduce dominant gender ideologies. (shrink)

When deciding what disorders to screen newborns for, we should be guided by evidence of real effectiveness, take opportunity cost into account, distribute costs and benefits fairly, and respect human rights. Current newborn screening policy does not meet these requirements.

Any even cursory examination of what it is to exchange words about X or to exchange views about Y requires hard thought about what it is to exchange, period. How do we invest in what we give out, and how do we get it back? In kind, or differently moneyed? And, more crucial to the topic into which I am about to make a foolhardy plunge, is there such a thing as free exchange? And if so, what is it worth?How (...) do we perceive worth anyway? What relation does such perception of the invisible system of the initially visible coinage of exchange bear to present visual perception, and then to seeing? And what does perception matter anyway, in relation to writing, reading, and exchanging words? Which is primary?All these questions—in their institutional setting, or then in their freedom from context—can themselves be related to and gathered up into the notion of translation, or the carrying over from one side to, and into, another. All we can learn about speaking and the ways it is taught, reading and the ways we learn it, seeing and the ways it teaches us is translated and transported from sight and its constraints and choices to language and its own. How we read both is itself a subject of choice and constraint, of freedom and explicit value-placing, of variety and fidelity to certain ends. Mary Ann Caws is professor of English, French, and comparative literature in the Graduate School, City University of New York. She is past president of the Modern Language Association and the author of, among other works, The Eye in the Text: Essays on Perception, Mannerist to Modern , Architextures in Surrealism and After , Reading Frames in Modern Fiction , and Interferences. (shrink)

« L’idéalisme poussé jusqu’au bout ramène toute éthique à la politique. Autrui et moi fonctionnent comme éléments d’un calcul idéal, reçoivent de ce calcul leur être réel et s’abordent mutuellement sous l’emprise des nécessités idéales qui les traversent de toutes parts. [...] « Dans ce monde sans multiplicité, le langage perd toute signification sociale, les interlocuteurs..

Günther Anders, Hannah Arendt, Hans Jonas, Emmanuel Levinas, Karl Làwith, Herbert Marcuse, Leo Strauss, Eric Weil... Non sans quelque paradoxe, la philosophie sociale, politique, métaphysique de l'après-guerre a été largement représentée par des penseurs allemands ou formés en Allemagne, qui avaient la particularité d'avoir été des étudiants de Martin Heidegger et d'être en même temps d'origine juive. Ce volume, issu d'un colloque international tenu à Paris en 2012, a voulu les penser ensemble pour la première fois et étudier sur quel (...) fond historique et intellectuel cette double spécificité a été possible. Quelle dette chacun d'entre eux a-t-il pu contracter à l'égard de ce maître commun et quelle distance ont-ils pu prendre (ou ne pas prendre) par rapport à lui après la Seconde Guerre mondiale? Un double questionnement qui permettra d'écrire une nouvelle page de la philosophie allemande, qui pourrait bien être aussi une page de la philosophie juive au XXe siècle. (shrink)