As it turns out, accounting for the mechanics of willful wrongdoing has been a major problem for ethics from the beginning, and it has led to some very strange theories. Socrates and Plato simply deny the possibility. What does this mean for DungeonsDragons (DD)? First of all, it means that nobody chooses evil for the sake of evil, what some people call diabolic evil. The primary sources of evil are indifference and self‐deception. Both lead me to a life of convention, (...) simply living up to the code of conduct given by society. It is much more comfortable to think of evil as something done by villains in movies. There is something rather disturbing about the thought that one can become evil gradually. Because of the influence of bad habits, much about the moral life feels grey and fuzzy. (shrink)

Neil Levy presents a new theory of freedom and responsibility. He defends a particular account of consciousness--the global workspace view--and argues that consciousness plays an especially important role in action. There are good reasons to think that the naïve assumption, that consciousness is needed for moral responsibility, is in fact true.

This is a controversial work of applied legal theory, addressing urgent contemporary questions about law and the state, about the character of the UK as a state, and about the juridical character of the European Union.

The thesis that propositions of law are intrinsically arguable is opposed by the antithesis that the Rule of Law is valued for the sake of legal certainty. The synthesis considers the insights of theories of rhetoric and proceduralist theories of practical reason, then locates the problem of indeterminacy of law in the context of the challengeable character of governmental action under free governments. This is not incompatible with, but required by the Rule of Law, which is misstated as securing legal (...) certainty. Defeasible certainty is the most that is desirable or achievable. (shrink)

In a recent paper “Safety, Sensitivity, and Differential Support” (Synthese, December 2017), Jose Zalabardo argues that (contra Sosa in Philos Perspect 33(13):141–153,1999) sensitivity can be differentially supported as the correct requirement for propositional knowledge. Zalabardo argues that safety fails to dominate sensitivity; specifically: some cases of knowledge failure can only be explained by sensitivity. In this paper, I resist Zalabardo’s conclusion that domination failure confers differential support for sensitivity. Specifically, I argue that counterexamples to sensitivity undermine differential support for sensitivity. (...) Using Zalabardo’s modal framework, I consider a less demanding modal condition, what I call weak sensitivity, and I explain how weak sensitivity avoids an influential counterexample to sensitivity. However, I argue that we can subvert that counterexample only by abandoning Zalabardo’s case for domination failure. So either way, we cannot differentially support sensitivity. (shrink)

This introduction traces the philosophical achievements of a thinker sonfluential that his death in 1980 brought 50,000 people on to the streets ofaris. The account of Jean-Paul Sartre - writer, journalist and intellectualornerstone of the 20th century - stretches from his early existential phaseo his later Marxist beliefs. With coverage of such major contemporary issuess human liberty, sociobiology, the ethics of work, and the influence ofenetics on ideas of individual freedom, Neil Levy uses a range of originalaterial not only (...) to introduce Sartre and his work, but also to highlight hisontinuing relevance to today's moral and scientific climate. At the heart ofhis study is a focus on the ethical dimension of Jean-Paul Sartre'shilosophical thought: a focus which challenges us to consider more closelyhe shape of our lives, and the manner in which human beings should treat onenother. (shrink)

A general method is provided whereby bizarre revisions of consistent theories with respect to contingent sentences that they refute can be delivered by revision-functions satisfying both the basic and the supplementary postulates of the AGM-theory of theory-revision.

An old Arab proverb runs as follows: He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool; shun him. He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is a child; teach him. He who knows, and knows not that he knows, is asleep; wake him. But he who knows, and knows that he knows, is a sage; follow him.

In many jurisdictions, adolescents acquire the right to consent to treatment; but in some cases their refusals – e.g. of life-saving treatment – may not be respected. This asymmetry of adolescent consent and refusal seems puzzling, even incoherent. The aim here is to offer an original explanation, and a justification, of this asymmetry. Rather than trying to explain the asymmetry in terms of a variable standard of competence – where the adolescent is competent to consent to, but not refuse, certain (...) interventions – the account offered here focuses more closely on the normative power to render actions permissible. Where normative powers are shared they can readily give rise to an asymmetry between consent and refusal. We then turn to why it is justifiable that normative powers be shared in adolescence. Transitional paternalism holds that the acquisition of normative powers by competent adolescents should not be an instant one, achieved in a single step, but that there should be a transitional period where paternalistic protection is rolled back, but not entirely withdrawn until a later date. Transitional paternalism could be implemented without generating the asymmetry between consent and refusal but, it is argued, the asymmetric version of transitional paternalism is to be preferred insofar as it offers a greater respect for the adolescent's decisions than the symmetrical alternative. (shrink)

It is a surprising fact that moral philosophers have rarely examined the distinction between what I shall call ‘positive’ or ‘social’ morality on the one hand and ‘autonomous’ or ‘individual’ morality on the other. Accordingly, conceptual and moral issues of the greatest importance have been neglected. The distinction is, I take it, recognised by Hegel, when he contrasts Sittlichkeit with Moralität . However, the rival sides who give a conceptual or a moral preference to one concept over the other rarely (...) come to grips with one another, and the deep conflicts between them are concealed instead of being brought out into the open. Only in Burke's diatribe against Rousseau, Bradley's critique of Sidgwick , Hobhouse's crusade against Bosanquet , Prichard's attack on Green , Hart's criticism of Hare , and above all in Oakeshott's onslaught on Rationalism do we get a glimpse of one of the main issues of moral philosophy and of morality. For just as we have two concepts, so we have two moral conceptual schemes, each of which gives a central place to one concept at the expense of the other. Those who suppose that morality is or ought to be wholly or mainly a social concept may recommend submission to a tradition. Those, on the other hand, who suppose morality to be primarily an individual or independent concept will recommend independent decisions. I want in this paper, firstly, to explain the differences between the two concepts, secondly, to show that neither of them is conceptually illegitimate or degenerate, and lastly, to determine what place, if any, each ought to have in a rational morality. (shrink)

Is there a 'constitutional moment' in contemporary Europe? What if anything is the constitution of the European Union; what kind of polity is the Union? The suggestion offered is that there is a legally constituted order, and that a suitable term to apply to it is a 'commonwealth', comprising a commonwealth of 'post-sovereign' states. Is it a democratic commonwealth, and can it be? Is there sufficiently a demos or 'people' for democracy to be possible? If not democratic, what is it? (...) Monarchy, oligarchy, or democracy, or a 'mixed constitution'? Argued: there is a mixed constitution containing a reasonable element of democratic rule. The value of democracy is then explored in terms of individualistic versus holistic evaluation and instrumental versus intrinsic value. Subsidiarity can be considered in a similar light, suggestively in terms of forms of democracy appropriate to different levels of self-government. The conclusion is that there is no absolute democratic deficit in the European commonwealth. (shrink)

Of the future technologies arising from the Human Genome Project, pharmacogenomics will probably be the first to have a widespread impact on the everyday practice of medicine. This technology offers great benefits but also presents some difficult ethical challenges. This paper explains what pharmacogenomics is and examines three of the issues that it raises: orphan populations, the use of ethnicity in drug trials, and potential obstacles to informed consent for genetic testing.

Is genetic information of special ethical significance? Does it require special regulation? There is considerable contemporary debate about this question. Genetic information is an ambiguous term and, as an aid to avoiding conflation in the genetic exceptionalism debate, a detailed account is given of just how and why genetic information is ambiguous. Whilst ambiguity is a ubiquitous problem of communication, it is suggested that genetic information is ambiguous in a particular way, one that gives rise to the problem of significance (...) creep. A contextual and contrastive methodology is proposed: evaluating the significance of genetic information requires us to be sensitive to the polysemy of genetic information across contexts and then examine the contrast in significance of genetic, as opposed to nongenetic, information within contexts. This, in turn, suggests that a proper solution to the regulatory question requires us to pay more attention to how and why information, and its acquisition, possession and use, come to be of ethical significance. (shrink)

I WOULD LIKE TO respond to the four commentaries in turn. In each case I have started by setting out what I think the commentaries are claiming; in doing so, I may reveal that I have misunderstood or misconstrued, and I apologize where this is the case. My responses in many cases are provisional: the commentaries have given me much to think about. Also, my responses are selective—there are many points not touched upon here that deserve consideration. Finally, the order (...) of my responses is arbitrary. (shrink)

There is growing interest in the contribution of practitioner research towards bodies of knowledge and practice change. A practitioner or group of practitioners may carry out inquiry in order to better understand their own practice and client groups and to assess or improve service effectiveness. There is also increased interest in the place of ethical review (typically encapsulated within requirements to submit to a formal ethics committee) and broader processes of research governance. Drawing on the field of social work this (...) paper seeks to explore how practitioner research should respond to calls for ethical review and greater formal consideration of research projects. We adopt a four-fold discussion. First, we explore the meaning of practitioner research and sketch its progress and the ethical implications thereof within social work; second, we trace the factors accounting for growing interest in ethics review and committees; third, we outline issues raised by practitioner research vis-à-vis ethical review, the role of ethics committees, and processes of research governance. Finally, we suggest how procedures and practices can ensure that ethical principles are considered whilst also fostering practitioner research developments. (shrink)

Kalrnaric. We set out a system T, consisting of normal proofs constructed by means of elegantly symmetrical introduction and elimination rules. In the system T there are two requirements, called ( ) and ()), on applications of discharge rules. T is sound and complete for Kalmaric arguments. ( ) requires nonvacuous discharge of assumptions; ()) requires that the assumption discharged be the sole one available of highest degree. We then consider a 'Duhemian' extension T*, obtained simply by dropping the requirement (...) ()). T* is a proper subsystem of intuitionistic relevant logic. Our main result is that T* is a double negation consistency companion to classical logic. Thus all one needs to add to T* to obtain classical logic is the (intuitionistic) absurdity rule, and the (classical) rule of double nega-. (shrink)

This article examines how the global traumas of resource-driven conflicts and acts of terrorism are mapped in 21st-century US and UK narrative cinema, and suggests that guilt, elicited in the implied Western viewer, is displaced in the films onto images of Western women. Revisiting Mulvey’s influential theory of ‘visual pleasure’ through the ‘male gaze’, this article analyses the films Traffic, a depiction of US complicity with global drug cartels, Babel, the story of a global media frenzy surrounding American tourists victimized (...) in Morocco, and three films about crises in Africa: Shooting Dogs, a dramatization of Western apathy during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, The Constant Gardener, about pharmaceutical testing in Kenya, and Lord of War, based upon the life of an arms dealer. A theoretical re-engagement with feminist film theory is followed by analyses of the films to illustrate how the guilt elicited by each of the films’ traumatic contexts conjoins with the primal psychological experience of lack. Viewers’ and their screen surrogates’ combined sense of helplessness in the face of others’ trauma is displaced ‘hysterically’ onto images of women, exposing a troubling new looking relation in our traumatic age. (shrink)

ABSTRACT The paper examines J. Glover's 1970 account of the evasion of responsibility. Attention is focused on the Eichmann case and Glover's contention that moral condemnation of Eichmann depends on the view that there is a duty to submit one's actions to moral criticism. Two uses of the word ‘moral’ are distinguished (one use for moral commitment, the other for logical diagnosis) and it is argued that Glover's thesis is accordingly ambiguous. It is contended that Glover must either abandon his (...) stipulative account of the concept of morality or accept the objectivity of moral judgements or modify his unqualified thesis that everybody ought to submit his conduct to moral criticism. An account of problems of evading responsibility involves us, it is maintained, in an area of moral philosophy, the Dialectic of Morals, where knock‐down arguments are sparse. (shrink)