The aim of this paper is to critically discuss the plausibility of legal moralism with an emphasis on some central and recent versions. First, this paper puts forward and defends the thesis that recently developed varieties of legal moralism promoted by Robert P. George, John Kekes and Michael Moore are more plausible than Lord Devlin's traditional account. The main argument for this thesis is that in its more modern versions legal moralism is immune to some of the forceful challenges made (...) to Devlin by Hart, Dworkin and Feinberg among others. Second, however, the paper challenges the new generation of legal moralists and suggests some areas for further development. Although Devlin's position has been scrutinized thoroughly in the literature on the philosophy of law, there has, to my knowledge, been no comparable, systematic critique of these different proponents of legal moralism. (shrink)

Freedom of association, as I understand it, refers to the liberty a person possesses to enter into relationships with others—for any and all purposes, for a momentary or long-term duration, by contract, consent, or acquiescence. It likewise refers to the liberty to refuse to enter into such relationships or to terminate them when not otherwise compelled by one's voluntary assumption of an obligation to maintain the relationship. Freedom of association thus is a quite capacious liberty.

According to US law, insurance companies can lawfully differentiate individual health insurance premiums on the basis of non-genetic medical information, but not on the basis of genetic information. The article reviews the case for such genetic exceptionalism. First, I critically assess some standard justifications. Next, I scrutinize an argument appealing to the view that genetically based premium differentiation expresses that persons do not all merit equal concern and respect. In the final section, I argue that even if genetic exceptionalism is (...) unjustified, there is a forceful luck egalitarian argument against basing premiums on genetic risks, to wit, that this tends to make some individuals worse off than others as a result of the bad brute luck involved in having a genetically determined, above-average risk of developing health problems. (shrink)

_Purpose._ This article aims to provide a philosophical analysis of disharmonious relations between people in society, to reveal the causes of existing conflicts and to find ways to reduce the manifestations of chaos in human relations._ Theoretical basis _of the article is socio-cultural anthropology, the principles of the unity of the historical and logical, the ascent from the abstract to the concrete, the unity of analysis and synthesis. To solve the tasks set, authors also used the principles of objectivity, systematicity, (...) and comprehensive development._ Originality._ The article goes beyond one-sided views on the relationship between people in society, reveals the causes of existing conflicts from a philosophical perspective and searches for ways to reduce chaosogenic manifestations in society. It is assumed that chaos and order in human relations arise not only due to the contradictory interaction between the fundamental components of the Universe – matter and energy, but also due to a lack of understanding of the laws of information use. Therefore, without the discovery and rational use of the basic laws and principles governing the functioning of information in the Universe, it is impossible to overcome chaos in human relations._ Conclusions._ Given the profound impact of information on human relations, it is possible to help reduce the manifestations of chaos in human relationships. The proper handling of information, along with the rational use of matter and energy, is crucial for overcoming the current state of disharmony and creating a more favourable and orderly future for humanity. Thus, the vector of harmonisation of human relations lies in the plane of comprehensive knowledge of mass-energy and information processes occurring in the Universe, focusing not on subjective, ill-considered short-term goals, but submitting to them for consistent inclusion in these processes. (shrink)