The work described in this report is motivated by the desire to test the expressive possibilities of action language C+. The Causal Calculator (CCalc) is a system that answers queries about action domains described in a fragment of that language. The Zoo World and the Traffic World have been proposed by Erik Sandewall in his Logic Modelling Workshop—an environment for communicating axiomatizations of action domains of nontrivial size. -/- The Zoo World consists of several cages and the exterior, gates between (...) them, and animals of several species, including humans. Actions in this domain include moving within and between cages, opening and closing gates, and mounting and riding animals. The Traffic World includes vehicles moving continuously between road crossings subject to a number of restrictions, such as speed limits and keeping a fixed safety distance away from other vehicles on the road. We show how to represent the two domains in the input language of CCalc, and how to use CCalc to test these representations. (shrink)

I argue—contra moderate grounding pluralists such as Kit Fine and more extreme grounding pluralists such as Jessica Wilson—that there is fundamentally only one grounding/in-virtue-of relation. I also argue that this single relation is indispensable for normative theorizing—that we can’t make sense of, for example, the debate over consequentialism without it. It follows from what I argue that there is no metaethically-pure normative ethics.

Amaç: Kanserle yaşayan bireylerin (KYB) bakımında, resmiyette görünür olmayan ve çoğunlukla herhangi bir profesyonel donanıma sahip olmayan, ama sürecin başından sonuna, hasta bireye eşlik eden bakım verenler kritik öneme sahiptir. Baş etmesi zor bir hastalık olan kanserle mücadele eden bireylerin bakımında, bakım verenler fiziksel, zihinsel ve sosyal birtakım zorluklarla karşılaşmaktadır. Bu araştırma, KYB’lere bakım veren, yakınlarının karşılaştıkları zorlukları gündeme getirmeyi ve ihtimam etiği perspektifinden, bakım verenlerin bakımına yönelik öneriler sunmayı amaçlamaktadır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu araştırma tanımlayıcı ve kesitsel olup araştırmanın (...) evreni Marmara Üniversitesi Pendik Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi (MÜPEAH) Onkoloji kliniğinde takip edilen, 15 Mart-5 Nisan tarihleri arasında kemoterapi ünitesine ve servis hizmetlerine başvuran KYB’lerin bakım veren yakınlarıdır. KYB’lere bakım verenlerin umutsuzluk derecelerini tespit etmek ve bunu etkileyen faktörleri ölçmek için, veri toplama aracı olarak; sosyodemografik sorular, bakım alan bireyin hastalık derecesine yönelik sorular ve Beck Umutsuzluk Ölçeği sorularından oluşan bir anket elden dağıtılmıştır. Anket bakım verene yönelik sosyodemografik sorular 8, KYB’nin hastalığının durumu ile ilgili sorular 7, Beck Umutsuzluk Ölçeği 20 olmak üzere 35 sorudan oluşmaktadır ve yaklaşık 10 dakikada tamamlanmaktadır. Elde edilen veriler önce Microsoft Excel aracılığıyla dijitalleştirilmiş, ardından IBM SPSS 27.0.1 sürümüyle analiz edilmiştir. Verilerin analizinde Ki-kare, Fisher’s Exact testi ve Pearson Korelasyon analizi kullanılmış, istatistiksel anlamlılık değeri için p<0.05 kabul edilmiştir. Bulgular: Ankete katılan 151 bakım verenin 83’ü (%55,3) kadın, 67’si (%44,7) erkektir. Katılımcıların yaş ortalaması 40,09’dur. Bakım verenlerin %41,1’i umutsuzluk düzeyi ölçeğinde “minimal ya da yok”, %39,7'si "hafif düzeyde", %13.2'si orta düzeyde ve %6’sı “aşırı düzeyde” skorunu almıştır. KYB’lere bakım verenlerin demografik özellikleri ile umutsuzluk düzeyi arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmamıştır. Bakım verenlerin yaşı, cinsiyeti, medeni durumu, gelir durumu ve bakım verme süresi ile umutsuzluk skorları arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmazken, eğitim seviyesi ile umutsuzluk skorları arasında anlamlı bir ilişki bulunmuştur. (p=0,019). Sonuç: Bakım verenlerin, umutsuzluk düzeyleri göz önüne alındığında, önemli psikolojik yükler taşıdığına ve bu yükün, özellikle bakım verenin eğitim seviyesi ile hastanın sağlık durumu arasında belirgin ilişkiler gösterdiğine ulaşılmıştır. Bu bilgiler ışığında, sosyodemografik özelliklerin bakım verenleri önemli ölçüde etkilediği görülmüştür. Bakım verenlerin duygusal yükleri, bakım alıcılarla olan ilişkileri ve bu sürecin hem bireysel hem toplumsal düzeyde getirdiği zorluklar ve sorumluluklar, ihtimam etiği kapsamında ele alınmıştır. Araştırma neticesinde bakım verenlerin karşılaştığı zorluklar ve ihtiyaçlarının daha geniş bir toplumsal ve etik perspektiften ele alınmasının gerekliliği ortaya konmuştur. Bakım verenlerin bakımına yönelik öneriler, duygusal destek; teorik eğitim ve bilgilendirme desteği; pratik ve uygulamalı destek; kaynak erişimi ve tahsisi; tanıma ve doğrulama başlıkları altında sunulmuştur. (shrink)

Gender and populism have been extensively theorized separately, but there has not been sufficient study of the way that gender undergirds populism, strengthening its diverse manifestations. Focusing on the cases of Vladimir Putin and Recep T. Erdoğan, we argue that their political performance allows them to project a right-wing populism that hides much of its political program in an ostentatious masculine posturing that has the virtue of being relatively malleable. This political masculinity allows them to position themselves at different (...) points in time as outsiders yet insiders, bad boys yet good fathers. In their early years Putin and Erdogan established themselves as transgressive outsiders who developed a profile of power by building up their masculine, working-class biographies. As their power became consolidated, they turned to a more paternal role, fostering a conservative gender order while attacking the masculinity of their opponents and casting them as outsiders. In this way over the years they have combined political performances that have both breached the conventional gender norms and also upheld and reinforced them. The result is a Janus-faced masculinity of outsiders-yet-insiders, bad-boys-yet-good-fathers, which establishes that the leader is both the same as other men and also different from them, standing above the citizenry, mediating and fostering a conservative political order. Understanding this gender performance also helps to explain the paradox of “electoral authoritarianism” (Levitsky and Way Journal of Democracy, 13(2), 51–65, 2002; Schedler 2006), demonstrating how performed political masculinity can support and connect the cult of a popularly elected leader with conservative social and political gender norms. (shrink)

İslam hukuk doktrininde bir fiilin veya sözün hükmünü belirleme noktasında kasıt esas alınır. Kasıt; hukuki işlemlerden elde edilmek istenen neticedir. Bununla birlikte mükellefin söz veya fiillerinin kasıt sonucu meydana gelmesi halinde söz ve fiillerine hüküm bağlanır. Bu takdirde bir akdin esasını onunla elde edilmek istenen hukuki neticeye yöneltilmiş olan tarafların kastı teşkil eder. İslam dini mükelleflerden bir davranışı ortaya koyduğu zaman bunun bilinçli olarak yapılmasını ve o işe kalben yönelmesini istemiştir. Dini emir ve yasakların tamamı bir maksadı gerçekleştirmek için vazedilmiştir. (...) Şari’in emir ve yasaklardaki maksadı da ya kulların maslahatını temin etmek yada onlardan bir mefsedeti gidermektir. Mükelleften istenen de bu maksat doğrultusunda hareket etmesi ve Şari’in maksadından başka bir şeyi kastetmemesidir. Hukuki tasarrufların geçerli olması noktasında bütün mezheplerin kasta önem verdikleri görülmektedir. (shrink)

Are there practical reasons for and against belief? For example, do the practical benefits to oneself or others of holding a certain belief count in favor of that belief? I argue "No." My argument involves considering how practical reasons for belief, if there were such things, would combine with other reasons for belief in order to determine all-things-considered verdicts, especially in cases involving equally balanced reasons of either a practical or an epistemic sort.

Suppose we grant that evolutionary forces have had a profound effect on the contours of our normative judgments and intuitions. Can we conclude anything from this about the correct metaethical theory? I argue that, for the most part, we cannot. Focusing my attention on Sharon Street’s justly famous argument that the evolutionary origins of our normative judgments and intuitions cause insuperable epistemological difficulties for a metaethical view she calls "normative realism," I argue that there are two largely independent lines of (...) argument in Street’s work which need to be teased apart. The first of these involves a genuine appeal to evolutionary considerations, but it can fairly easily be met by her opponents. The second line of argument is more troubling; it raises a significant problem, one of the most difficult in all of philosophy, namely how to justify our reliance on our most basic cognitive faculties without relying on those same faculties in a question-begging manner. However, evolutionary considerations add little to this old problem, and rejecting normative realism is not a way to solve it. (shrink)

It has been claimed that the recent wave of neuroscientific research into the physiological underpinnings of our moral intuitions has normative implications. In particular, it has been claimed that this research discredits our deontological intuitions about cases, without discrediting our consequentialist intuitions about cases. In this paper I demur. I argue that such attempts to extract normative conclusions from neuroscientific research face a fundamental dilemma: either they focus on the emotional or evolved nature of the psychological processes underlying deontological intuitions, (...) in which case the arguments rely on a blatantly fallacious inference, or they appeal to the (alleged) moral irrelevance of the factors to which deontological intuitions respond, in which case the neuroscientific results end up playing no role in the overall argument. (shrink)

The linchpin of Williamson (2000)'s radically externalist epistemological program is an argument for the claim that no non-trivial condition is luminous—that no non-trivial condition is such that whenever it obtains, one is in a position to know that it obtains. I argue that Williamson's anti-luminosity argument succeeds only if one assumes that, even in the limit of ideal reflection, the obtaining of the condition in question and one's beliefs about that condition can be radically disjoint from one another. However, no (...) self-respecting defender of the luminosity of the mental would ever make such an assumption. Thus Williamson can only secure his controversial claims in epistemology by taking for granted certain equally controversial claims in the philosophy of mind. What emerges is that the best bet for defending an internalist epistemology against Williamson's attack is to take there to be a tight, intimate connection between (to take one example) our experiences and our beliefs upon reflection about the obtaining of those experiences, or between (to take another example) the rationality of our beliefs and our beliefs upon reflection about the rationality of those beliefs. (shrink)

Quasi-realists aim to account for many of the trappings of metanormative realism within an expressivist framework. Chief among these is the realist way of responding to the Euthyphro dilemma: quasi-realists want to join realists in being able to say, "It’s not the case that kicking dogs is wrong because we disapprove of it. Rather, we disapprove of kicking dogs because it’s wrong." However, the standard quasi-realist way of explaining what we are up to when we assert the first of these (...) two sentences rests on a mistaken identification of metaphysical dependence (or grounding) with counterfactual covariation. This chapter proposes a better way for expressivists to understand such sentences, on which they serve to express complex states of mind in which an attitude bears a relation of psychological dependence (or basing) to another state of mind. It is argued that this proposal is a natural, versatile, and fruitful approach for expressivists to take that helps them secure the first half of the Euthyphro contrast—but at the cost of making it difficult to see how expressivists can make sense of that contrast’s second half. (shrink)

When it comes to epistemic normativity, should we take the good to be prior to the right? That is, should we ground facts about what we ought and ought not believe on a given occasion in facts about the value of being in certain cognitive states (such as, for example, the value of having true beliefs)? The overwhelming answer among contemporary epistemologists is “Yes, we should.” This essay argues to the contrary. Just as taking the good to be prior to (...) the right in ethics often leads one to sanction implausible trade-offs when determining what an agent should do, so too, this essay argues, taking the good to be prior to the right in epistemology leads one to sanction implausible trade-offs when determining what a subject should believe. Epistemic value—and, by extension, epistemic goals—are not the explanatory foundation upon which all other normative notions in epistemology rest. (shrink)

A quasi-sequel to "Epistemic Teleology and the Separateness of Propositions." Covers some of the same ground, but also extends the basic argument in an important way.

Moral properties are explained by other properties. And moral principles tell us about moral properties. How are these two ideas related? In particular, is the truth of a given moral principle part of what explains why a given action has a given moral property? I argue “No.” If moral principles are merely concerned with the extension of moral properties across all possible worlds, then they cannot be partial explainers of facts about the instantiation of those properties, since in general necessitation (...) does not suffice for explanation. And if moral principles are themselves about what explains the moral properties under their purview, then by their own lights they are not needed in order to explain those moral properties’ instantiation—unless, that is, the principles exhibit an objectionable form of metaphysical circularity. So moral principles cannot explain why individual actions have moral properties. Nor, I also argue, can they explain why certain other factors explain why those actions have the moral properties that they do, or in some other way govern or mediate such first-order explanations of particular moral facts. When it comes to the explanation of an individual action’s specific moral features, moral principles are explanatorily idle. (shrink)

Once upon a time, coherentism was the dominant response to the regress problem in epistemology, but in recent decades the view has fallen into disrepute: now almost everyone is a foundationalist (with a few infinitists sprinkled here and there). In this paper, I sketch a new way of thinking about coherentism, and show how it avoids many of the problems often thought fatal for the view, including the isolation objection, worries over circularity, and concerns that the concept of coherence is (...) too vague or metaphorical for serious theoretical use. The key to my approach is to take a familiar tool from discussions of the regress problem -- namely, directed graphs depicting the support relations between beliefs -- and to use that tool in a more sophisticated manner than it is standardly employed. (shrink)

Moral particularists argue that because reasons for action are irreducibly context-dependent, the traditional quest in ethics for true and exceptionless moral principles is hopelessly misguided. In making this claim, particularists assume a general framework according to which reasons are the ground floor normative units undergirding all other normative properties and relations. They then argue that there is no cashing out in finite terms either (i) when a given non-normative feature gives rise to a reason for or against action, or (ii) (...) how the reasons that are present in a given context play off each other to determine one’s overall duties. However, the conjunction of these two theses leaves particularists without a coherent notion of a reason for action: posit too much irreducible context-dependence in the behavior of reasons, and the reasons-based framework breaks down. One upshot is that the particularists’ challenge to principle-based approaches to ethics has not, at present, been successfully made out; another upshot is that perhaps the best way to formulate that challenge involves renouncing the reasons-based framework all together. (shrink)

I argue that Alvin Goldman has failed to save process reliabilism from my critique in earlier work of consequentialist or teleological epistemic theories. First, Goldman misconstrues the nature of my challenge: two of the cases he discusses I never claimed to be counterexamples to process reliabilism. Second, Goldman’s reply to the type of case I actually claimed to be a counterexample to process reliabilism is unsuccessful. He proposes a variety of responses, but all of them either feature an implausible restriction (...) on process types, or fail to rule out cases with the sort of structure that generates the worry, or both. (shrink)

Projects conducted at primary schools are of great importance in environmental education. In this study, interviews were carried out with teachers who were theparticipants of particular environmental projects. This survey study is conducted through a descriptive research method, namely, semi-structured interviews. The data were analyzed descriptively. The study revealed that teachers felt environmental education projects made various contributions to students, schools, school staff, teachers, parents, and the school environment. However, it was discovered that teachers experienced some problems in project implementation. (...) The solutions offered by teachers who experienced these problems were also determined. (shrink)

Guilt and fear today have developed an unexpected quality: they contribute powerfully to the survival of humanity. The feeling of guilt proceeds from an elementary awareness: although the unequaled progress of science and technology in the twentieth century has undoubtedly ameliorated the conditions of human life, it also has given rise to an infernal logic of genocide and crimes against humanity, in which almost all nations, directly or indirectly, have participated and participate still. This awareness is joined to another, which (...) is itself accompanied by a primordial fear: for the first time in history, science and technology have endowed humanity with the power to destroy itself and the planet, without furnishing humans with the means of escaping their destined role as sorcerer's apprentice, for no science can tell us what to do with science. It is this double feeling of guilt and fear that pushes contemporary man to search feverishly for ethical foundations capable of furnishing discreet regulatory principles to underpin decisions and actions. From the point of view of contemporary humanity, ethics must be able to confer meaning and perspective on an existence which apparently has neither: “Now,” writes Hans Jonas, “we shiver in the nakedness of nihilism in which near-omnipotence is paired with near-emptiness, greatest capacity with knowing least for what ends to use it.”. (shrink)

Ten years ago, an issue of the journal L'Homme et la Société was entitled “La Mode des identités.” Most of the articles were about cultural identity, but the basic thrust of the work was “a critique of the ‘fashion’ of identity calling into question the validity of a notion as striking as it is uncertain.” Recently, a special issue of the journal Sciences Humaines, entitled “Identité et identités,” dealt with personal, familial, social, professional identities and only spoke of cultural identity (...) marginally and in a roundabout way. Finally, in a manual of Sociologie politique published by the Presses Universitaires de France, the author takes to task the notion of ethnicity inherent to cultural identity and pushes the critique of the ethnic group to the point of negating its objective existence. Must we think then that the notion of cultural identity is henceforth obsolete, that it has lost all pertinence? (shrink)

After summarizing the essential details of Anil Gupta’s account of perceptual justification in his book _Empiricism and Experience_, I argue for three claims: (1) Gupta’s proposal is closer to rationalism than advertised; (2) there is a major lacuna in Gupta’s account of how convergence in light of experience yields absolute entitlements to form beliefs; and (3) Gupta has not adequately explained how ordinary courses of experience can lead to convergence on a commonsense view of the world.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} After Kant’s strict separation of the fields of pure reason and practical reason and his demonstration that reason cannot know anything apart from phenomena including the existence of God there was a continuous desire to reestablish the unity of both. The most successful attempt in that direction so far was (...) Hegel’s phenomenology of the Spirit where he claimed he succeeded to establish the unity of the two as the Absolute. Yet, even this was problematic for it was the faith itself which supplied the basis of unity while the character of reason (pure insight) was particularity of the self-consciousness. In the late modernity where everything has imploded postmodern theory have successfully destroyed the metanarratives that hold the modernist ideals together. Under these conditions in which the assertion of any kind of subjectivity is impossible there is now a growing interest again in the theories trying to establish the basis of a post-secular society where finally faith and knowledge are hoped to be reconciled and supply a new meaning instead of the lost ones. Particularly the theories developed by Jacques Derrida and Jürgen Habermas try to legitimize the return of the spirit or the ‘religious’ under the aegis of a still secular state. However, such a desire remains problematical as in Hegel’s case for with its totalizing tendency the return of the spirit would tend to eradicate all difference as the basis of conflict and render the effective political action impossible. (shrink)