Most proponents of conscientious objection accommodation in medicine acknowledge that not all conscientious beliefs can justify refusing service to a patient. Accordingly, they admit that constraints must be placed on the practice of conscientious objection. I argue that one such constraint must be an assessment of the reasonability of the conscientious claim in question, and that this requires normative justification of the claim. Some advocates of conscientious object protest that, since conscientious claims are a manifestation of personal beliefs, they (...) cannot be subject to this kind of public justification. In order to preserve an element of constraint without requiring normative justification of conscientious beliefs, they shift the justificatory burden from the belief motivating the conscientious claim to the condition of the patient being refused service. This generally involves a claim along the lines that conscientious refusals should be permitted to the extent that they do not cause unwarranted harm to the patient. I argue that explaining what would constitute warranted harm requires an explanation of what it is about the conscientious claim that makes the harm warranted. ‘Warranted’ is a normative operator, and providing this explanation is the same as providing normative justification for the conscientious claim. This shows that resorting to facts about the patient’s condition does not avoid the problem of providing normative justification, and that the onus remains on advocates of conscientious objection to provide normative justification for the practice in the context of medical care. (shrink)

In this paper, I take a critical stance on the emerging field of nanoethics. After an introductory section, “Conceptual Foundations of Nanotechnology” considers the conceptual foundations of nanotechnology, arguing that nanoethics can only be as coherent as nanotechnology itself and then discussing concerns with this latter concept; the conceptual foundations of nanoethics are then explicitly addressed in “Conceptual Foundations of Nanoethics”. “Issues in Nanoethics” considers ethical issues that will be raised through nanotechnology and, in “What’s New?”, it is argued that (...) none of these issues is unique to nanotechnology. In “It’s a Revolution!”, I express skepticism about arguments which hold that, while the issues themselves might not be unique, they nevertheless are instantiated to such a degree that extant moral frameworks will be ill-equipped to handle them. In “What’s Different?”, I draw plausible distinctions between nanoethics and other applied ethics, arguing that these latter might well identify unique moral issues and, as such, distinguish themselves from nanoethics. Finally, in “What Now?”, I explore the conclusions of this result, ultimately arguing that, while nanoethics may fail to identify novel ethical concerns, it is at least the case that nanotechnology is deserving of ethical attention, if not a new associative applied ethic. (shrink)

Transmission of justification across inference is a valuable and indeed ubiquitous epistemic phenomenon in everyday life and science. It is thanks to the phenomenon of epistemic transmission that inferential reasoning is a means for substantiating predictions of future events and, more generally, for expanding the sphere of our justified beliefs or reinforcing the justification of beliefs that we already entertain. However, transmission of justification is not without exceptions. As a few epistemologists have come to realise, more or (...) less trivial forms of circularity can prevent justification from transmitting from p to q even if one has justification for p and one is aware of the inferential link from p to q. In interesting cases this happens because one can acquire justification for p only if one has independent justification for q. In this case the justification for q cannot depend on the justification for p and the inferential link from p to q, as genuine transmission would require. The phenomenon of transmission failure seems to shed light on philosophical puzzles, such as Moore's proof of a material world and McKinsey's paradox, and it plays a central role in various philosophical debates. For this reason it is being granted continued and increasing attention. (shrink)

Building Better Beings: A Theory of Moral Responsibility argues that the normative basis of moral responsibility is anchored in the effects of responsibility practices. Further, the capacities required for moral responsibility are socially scaffolded. This article considers criticisms of this account that have been recently raised by John Doris, Victoria McGeer, and Michael Robinson. Robinson argues against Building Better Beings’s rejection of libertarianism about free will, and the account of desert at stake in the theory. considers methodological questions that arise (...) from the account of desert, providing some additional resources for thinking about these issues within the framework of the account. McGeer objects to the particular mode of justification used to motivate the prescriptive aspect of the account. This article presents replies to each of these lines of response. (shrink)

본 연구에서는 정치적 의무를 규범적으로 정당화하려는 주요한 이론들을 유형별로 분류·검토하였다. 주요 이론들을 유형화하는 틀은 자발적 및 비자발적 요구 그리고 일반적 및 특수적 요구를 조합하여 특수적-비자발적, 특수적-자발적, 일반적-비자발적, 일반적-자발적 범주를 활용하였다. 그 결과 정치적 의무에 대한 결사 이론을 특수적-비자발적 범주로, 상호계약적 설명을 특수적-자발적 범주로, 자연적 의무 이론을 일반적-비자발적 범주로, 그리고 자기-절제 이론을 일반적-자발적 범주로 분류하였고, 각각의 유형이 가지는 장점과 약점을 논의하였다. 대체적으로 볼 때, 정치적 의무를 비자발적 범주에서 파악하려는 이론들은 자발성의 부족으로 인한 동기화의 문제를 가지고 있으며, 자발적 범주의 이론들은 자발성을 확보하는 (...) 방안과 관련하여 문제가 있었다. 또한 정치적 의무를 일반적 범주에서 파악하려는 이론들은 개별성의 문제가 있었으며, 특수적 범주에서 파악하려는 이론들은 의무의 내용에 대한 특정화의 어려움 그리고 혜택과 의무의 비대칭성에서 발생하는 문제들을 가지고 있는 것처럼 보인다. 향후 정치적 의무에 대한 정당화 이론이 4개 범주의 강점을 비교적 포괄하면서도 약점을 보완하는 내적 정합성을 가진 거대 이론으로 발전하기를 기대한다. (shrink)

In this essay we criticise Rainer Forst's attempt to draw a connection between power and justification, and thus ground his normative theory of a right to justification. Forst draws this connection primarily conceptually, though we will also consider whether a normative connection may be drawn within his framework. Forst's key insight is that if we understand power as operating by furnishing those subjected to it with reasons, then we create a space for the normative contestation of any exercise (...) of power. He calls this the noumenal understanding of power. Against the conceptual connection between power and justification, we argue that (i) on most plausible accounts of political freedom, some freedom-restrictions commonly attributed to the successful exercise of power would perplexingly count as failures of power on Forst's view, and that (ii) on the most plausible account of reason-recognition, namely an appropriateness of response account, a justification relation is only a sufficient but not necessary condition for recognition. Against the normative connection, we argue that (iii) Forst can establish the existence of a right to justification only if he reconsiders the transcendental aspirations of his theory. (shrink)

휴머가 직접적 실재론에 근거해서 구축한 현상적 보수주의가 기존의 내재주의 이론들에 대한 대안으로서 입지를 확보할 수 있느냐는 문제에 대해 버그만은 부정적인 논거를 제시했다. 이 논문의 목적은 버그만의 비판적 논거가 타당한지를 확인하는 데에 있다. 이를 위해 1절에서 현상적 보수주의의 기본적인 논지를 개관하고, 2절에서는 버그만의 비판적 논거의 주요 내용을 살펴보겠다. 3절에서는 버그만의 논거를 반박함으로써 내재주의적 정당화 이론으로서의 현상적 보수주의가 건재할 수 있음을 보인 후, 4절에서 전반적인 논점을 추리고 글을 맺겠다.

In Without Justification,[1] Jonathan Sutton undermines the orthodox view that a justified belief needn’t constitute knowledge; develops a battery of arguments for the unorthodox thesis that you justifiedly believe P iff you know P; and explores the topics of testimony and inference in light of his equation of justification and knowledge (J=K). This book is essential reading at epistemology’s cutting edge. In §I, we’ll take an extended tour of the book, raising various questions and objections along the way. (...) In §II, we’ll assess Sutton’s three main arguments for J=K, which form the heart of his project. (shrink)