Using yet untapped resources from moral and political philosophy, this book seeks to answer the question of whether an all good God who is presumed to be all powerful is logically compatible with the degree and amount of moral and natural evil that exists in our world. It is widely held by theists and atheists alike that it may be logically impossible for an all good, all powerful God to create a world with moral agents like ourselves that does not (...) also have at least some moral evil in it. James P. Sterba focuses on the further question of whether God is logically compatible with the degree and amount of moral and natural evil that exists in our world. The negative answer he provides marks a new stage in the age-old debate about God's existence. (shrink)

The study reports on the results of an empirical investigation of the education and recruitment processes used in HIV vaccine trials conducted in South Africa. Interviews were conducted with 21 key informants involved in HIV vaccine research in South Africa and three focus groups of community advisory board members. Data analysis identified seven major themes on the relationship between education and recruitment: the process of recruitment, the combined dual role of educators and recruiters, conflicts perceived by field staff, pressure to (...) achieve recruitment targets, problems in achieving comprehension, accountability and education as capacity building. The results raise ethical concerns about the adequacy of current informed consent processes in these settings. The study findings bear directly on current debates about issues of exploitation and the scope of moral responsibilities of researchers and funding agencies to assure that HIV clinical prevention research is conducted ethically. (shrink)

This book conveys the breadth and interconnectedness of questions of justice - a rarity in contemporary moral and political philosophy. James P. Sterba argues that a minimal notion of rationality requires morality, and that a minimal libertarian morality requires the welfare and equal opportunity endorsee by welfare liberals and the equality endorsed by socialists, as well as a full feminist agenda. Feminist, racial, homosexual, and multicultural justice, are also shown to be mutually supporting. The author further shows the compatibility (...) between anthropocentric and biocentric environmental ethics, as between just war and pacifist theories. Finally, he spells out when normal politics, legal protest, civil disobedience, revolutionary action, and criminal disobedience are morally permitted by justice for here and now. This highly original and potentially controversial book is ideal for courses in moral and political philosophy, applied ethics, women's studies, environmental studies, and peace studies. (shrink)

Charles Darwin questions whether conflicts between species palpably captured by the conflict between Ichneumonidae and the caterpillars on which they prey could be compatible with the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God. He also questioned whether the suffering of millions of lower animals throughout our almost endless prehistory could be compatible with an all-good, all-powerful God. In this paper, I show that these two problems of natural evil that Darwin raised in his work can be resolved so as to present (...) no objection to theism once it is recognized what the moral principles are that should govern our relationship to the natural world and analogously should govern God’s relationship to the natural world. (shrink)

The rediscovery of Russia's non-Marxist philosophical heritage continues at a steady pace in the Soviet Union, particularly in the pages of the country's principal philosophy journal, the monthly Voprosy filosofii [Problems of Philosophy]. Not a number now goes by without articles by or about earlier Russian philosophers whose idealist, religious, or simply non-Marxist views had denied them a place in their country's philosophical life for over half a century.

A previous issue of this journal examined the contemporary resurgence, as Russians reflect on the historical fate of their country and its prospects, of the old theme of "Russia and the West," and in particular the question of the relevance and value to Russia of Western ideas and institutions. The articles in that issue, for the most part, reflected the position of thinkers who find the West an appropriate model for Russia's future. The present issue, by contrast, is devoted to (...) the view of those who contend that the Western experience is either dangerous or of questionable value in application to Russia, because Russia has a unique identity that must guide the rebuilding of the country from the ashes of communism. (shrink)

Among the principal manifestations of glasnost' in Soviet intellectual life today is the publication of writers who earlier were denied a broad forum for the expression of their views. In the sphere of philosophy, one such writer is Iakov Mil'ner-Irinin, with whose article on the concept of human nature in ethics the present issue begins. Mil'ner-Irinin, a philosopher who has worked as an editor at the publishing house of the Soviet Academy of Sciences, has long advocated an approach to ethics (...) that is heretical by orthodox Marxist-Leninist standards—a Kantian treatment of the field as a purely normative science that elaborates the universally necessary, prescriptive laws of conscience. In 1963 the Academy considered publishing a book on the subject by Mil 'ner-Irinin, but the project was dropped after heated debate, and when some of Mil 'ner-Irinin's views did find an outlet in an article he published in the Georgian republic, they were criticized severely by the Soviet philosophical establishment. (shrink)

The articles included in the present issue of Soviet Studies in Philosophy are drawn entirely from two recent issues of Voprosy filosofii, the oldest and most widely read Soviet philosophy journal. The items have been selected in an effort to provide a picture of that journal's current status and objectives, both as described by its editors and as reflected in the scope and character of some of its philosophically most interesting contents.

Although Soviet philosophers today are virtually unanimous in condemning Stalinism, which they see as not only a failed ideology but the source of monstrous evils in Soviet life, they disagree sharply on the intellectual sources of that ideology. Was it a perversion of authentic Marxism, a departure from the true principles of Marx and Lenin, for which only the megalomaniac Stalin and his followers can be blamed? Or was it a logical continuation of tendencies inherent in Marxism-Leninism, so that Stalin's (...) guilt must be shared, at least, by Lenin and perhaps by Marx himself? (shrink)

Although heavily overshadowed by renewed study of the religious tradition in Russian philosophy, another tradition that paralleled and sometimes intersected with it is also drawing attention among contemporary Russian philosophers interested in mining the intellectual legacy of the past for ideas applicable to their postcommunist situation. This is the tradition of liberalism in Russian political and legal philosophy, neglected thus far in this journal except for an article on Boris Chicherin by Sergei Chizhkov in the Winter 1991-92 issue and an (...) article on Petr Struve by Piama Gaidenko in the Fall 1994 issue. The present issue is entirely devoted to the liberal strain in Russia's philosophical heritage and its implications for the present day. (shrink)

The years since the collapse of Communist authority in Russia have seen the public emergence of several outstanding scholars whose non-Marxist or anti-Marxist views did not allow them to pursue professional careers in philosophy, or even to publish their philosophical writings, during the Soviet era. One of the most respected of these figures is Sergei Sergeevich Khoruzhii, an associate of the Steklov Mathematics Institute in Moscow, who is known to philosophers as one of the new Russia's foremost authorities on the (...) history of Russian religious philosophy and Orthodox theological thought. Khoruzhii's stimulating essays now appear regularly in Russian journals and books, and a number of them were collected last year in a volume with the apt title After the Intermission: Paths of Russian Philosophy. (shrink)

The astonishingly rapid and complete collapse of Communist ideology in Russia was accompanied, understandably, by the collapse of the philosophical authority of Karl Marx. Initially only Stalin was blamed for Russia's ills, on grounds that he had distorted Marxism-Leninism; soon, however, Lenin was blamed for distorting Marxism; and the regress quickly ended when Marx himself was charged with a share of the responsibility for the evils that were perpetrated in Russia in his name. From his position as font of all (...) wisdom Marx was demoted to false prophet, and today the majority of philosophers in Russia either openly reject his views or simply ignore them. (shrink)

Russian social and political philosophy of the post-Soviet period continues to be dominated by the vexed question, already featured in the Fall 1992 and several subsequent issues of this journal, of Russia's likeness or unlikeness to the developed democratic societies of the West. The articles in the present issue focus on several closely interrelated aspects of this broad question: Is there a peculiarly Russian route to social reconstruction? What are the prospects, if any, for liberalism and civil society in Russia? (...) To what extent, if any, should Russia remain socialist in some form? Do the doctrines of pre-Revolutionary, non-Marxist Russian philosophers, now widely available to the reading public, have special relevance to Russia's problems? (shrink)

In recent years, Robert Adams and Richard Swinburne have developed an argument for God’s existence from the reality of mental phenomena. Call this the argument from consciousness (AC). My purpose is to develop and defend AC and to use it as a rival paradigm to critique John Searle’s biological naturalism. The article is developed in three steps. First, two issues relevant to the epistemic task of adjudicating between rival scientific paradigms (basicality and naturalness) are clarified and illustrated. Second, I present (...) a general version of AC and identify the premises most likely to come under attack by philosophical naturalists. Third, I use the insights gained in steps one and two to criticize Searle’s claim that he has developed an adequate naturalistic theory of the emergence of mental entities. I conclude that AC is superior to Searle’s biological naturalism. (shrink)

After thirty years as Soviet Studies in Philosophy, this journal begins a new volume year with a new name—Russian Studies in Philosophy. The title change reflects not a shift in content but simply the disappearance of the term "Soviet" from the world map. Even before the dissolution of the USSR, items selected for translation in this journal were drawn exclusively from Russian-language Soviet publications, though the authors were not always Russians: they have included Ukrainians, Armenians, Georgians, and representatives of other (...) former Soviet republics. This same range of publications and contributors will provide the contents of the journal under its new name, with appropriate additions as new Russian-language publications arise in the increasingly open post-Soviet world. (shrink)

Along with other Soviet publications, Soviet philosophy journals are opening their pages to a greater variety of points of view as part of the campaign for perestroika and glasnost' in the USSR. Mikhail Gorbachev has personally criticized Soviet journals for limiting themselves to like-minded contributors, and has urged the introduction of new voices in the interest of what he calls "socialist pluralism.".

Two of the principal preoccupations of Soviet philosophers in the present day are topics that could not be subjected to serious philosophical examination in the preglasnost period—one because it was considered devoid of intellectual merit, and the other because its merit was held to be beyond question. The first topic is Russian religious philosophy of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and the second is the philosophy of Karl Marx.

The reforms currently under way in many spheres of Soviet social and cultural life are aimed at altering institutions and practices that have evolved over many decades. For that reason, a significant feature of the thinking behind the reforms is its attention to the past—to the missed opportunities, forgotten values, and accumulated sins and errors that have led to the present predicament of the USSR.

The collapse of Marxism has left Russia with what many describeas an "ideological vacuum," the implication being that some other single, comprehensive world view either should or inevitably will take the place of the Communist ideology. Nikolai Kosolapov addresses this subject in the lead article of the present issue, analyzing the concept of ideology and examining the question of whether any country has need of an "integrative" or commonly shared, unifying outlook. Kosolapov believes that Russia, as a great nation aspiring (...) to a position of leadership in the world, does have such a need, but he is also convinced that none of the currently available non-Marxist alternatives-Western liberalism, a "third world" ideology, or the religious orientation now enjoying such popularity in Russia-is suited for the task. Consequently he seeks to identify, in general terms, the characteristics of an integrative'ideology that would be appropriate for Russia. In his view, this would be a humanistic ideology that transcends the Slavophile-Westemist opposition, is not mystical or religious, does not reflect any particular class or state interest, draws on thefindings of the social sciences, and is tolerant of its competitors. Kosolapov also makes clear that, while he holds no brief for Marxism as such, in regard to socioeconomic organization he believes that socialism comes closest, "ideologically, practically, and politically," to providing optimum conditions for the life and development of society. (shrink)

Perhaps in no other European culture have philosophy and literature existed in such close symbiosis as in Russia. Virtually without exception the great Russian writers have had strong philosophical interests, and that circumstance, coupled with the relatively weak development of academic or "professional" philosophy in Russia, worked to produce a national philosophical culture in which literary figures loom large. Whether or not we agree with some Russian commentators that true Russian philosophy can be found only in literary works, we must (...) admit at least that Russian philosophy and literature have been bound together in an intimate and mutually enriching relationship. Various aspects of that relationship are explored in the four essays in this issue. (shrink)

For the concluding issue of the tenth and final year of my editorship of this journal, I have selected articles that reflect in different ways the changes that have taken place in Russian philosophy over the tumultuous past decade in Russian history. It is quite unlikely that any of these articles, at least in its present form, could have appeared in a Soviet philosophy journal in 1987, despite the vaunted "perestroika" of the time.

Although expressions of "new thinking," encouraged by glasnost' and perestroika, are increasingly evident in recent Soviet philosophical literature, such innovations are not universally welcomed. The clash of new ideas with established dogmas has created lively points of dispute among Soviet philosophers, who are now engaging in open philosophical debate of a kind not seen on the Soviet intellectual scene since the 1920s. The present issue of Soviet Studies in Philosophy is devoted to some of these points of dispute, with emphasis (...) on the positions taken not by the innovators but by the persistent defenders of Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy. (shrink)

With this issue, Soviet Studies in Philosophy begins its second quarter-century, now under the direction of a new editor and with a new advisory committee. At such a juncture a brief statement of editorial policy seems called for, in order to acquaint readers with the ideas that will determine the character of the journal in this new stage of its life.

Well before the attempted coup of August 1991 and the accelerated movement toward privatization that followed it, many Soviet philosophers and political figures had argued for the need to introduce private ownership of the means of production into the socialized Soviet economy, at least to a limited degree. This issue of Soviet Studies in Philosophy is devoted to four theoretical formulations of that need—formulations that differ both in the justifications they offer for private ownership and in their conceptions of the (...) extent to which private ownership should be allowed. (shrink)

Two previous issues of this journal were devoted to Soviet philosophers' explorations, then still somewhat hesitant and apologetic, of the rich traditions of non-Marxist Russian philosophy. The continuing expansion of glasnost' since that time has contributed powerfully to this enterprise, until today the investigation of intellectual roots occupies a major part of Russian philosophers' attention and is carried on with fewer and fewer nods to the ghosts of Marxism-Leninism. Most of the items chosen for the present issue—all of which were (...) written before the abortive coup of August 1991 and the subsequent banning of the Communist Party and its ideological activities—already reflect in full measure the freshness and independence of thought that are among the most prominent features of post-Soviet philosophy in Russia. (shrink)

Drawing on and inspired by Paul Taylor’s Respect for Nature, I develop a view which I call “biocentric pluralism,” which, I claim, avoids the major criticisms that have been directed at Taylor’s account. In addition, I show that biocentric pluralism has certain advantages over biocentric utilitarianism (VanDeVeer) and concentric circle theories (Wenz and Callicott).

George Berkeley (1685–1753) believed that the visible world was a series of signs that constituted a divine language through which God was speaking to us. Given the nature of language and the nature of the visual world, this paper examines to what extent the visual world could be a divine language and to what extent God could speak to us through it.