Moral disagreement arises when two agents assign conflicting truth values to a moral statement, such as whether lying is ever permissible. While moral universalists argue that such disagreements result from at least one party being mistaken about an objective moral truth, their approach faces an epistemological challenge: the need to identify the true moral theory. In contrast, moral relativists claim that the truth of moral statements depends on the perspectives of attributors, enabling coexistence but raising questions about how to justify (...) resolutions across divergent perspectives. This essay proposes an alternative explanation: approximate interpretation. This approach avoids the universalists' epistemological burden of finding objective moral truths while offering a framework for justifiable resolutions based on the quality of interpretative approximations. Unlike relativists, who maintain that truth values do not converge, and universalists, who argue they do, this explanation remains neutral on the convergence debate. The essay demonstrates the orthogonality between the universalism-relativism debate and the challenge of explaining moral disagreements, concluding that neither universalism nor relativism offers a definitive resolution to the phenomenon of widespread moral disagreement. (shrink)

This thesis argues against the claim that AI is intelligent due to instrumental rationality, refuting both the reduction and emergence thesis. It contends that intelligence cannot be reduced to instrumental rationality and highlights issues in AI development and application. Instead, it proposes the motivation adaptation approach, where intelligence arises from network of generative motivations and the ability to adapt. This alternative is conceptually intuitive, avoids counterexamples, and provides clear development goals and foundations for ethical development. Thus, the thesis concludes that (...) AI's intelligence is not due to instrumental rationality but rather its motivation adaptability. (shrink)

In the following essay, I will argue that the current AIs are not moral agents. I will first criticize the influential argument from sentience accounted by Véliz. According to Véliz, AIs are not moral agents because AIs can not feel pleasure and pain. However, I will show that moral agency does not necessarily require the ability to be sentient and refute Véliz’s argument. Instead, I will propose an argument from responsibility. First, I will establish the truth that moral agents necessarily (...) have the ability to bear moral responsibility. Next, I will explain three major accounts of responsibility introduced in the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy. Then for each of the three accounts, I will show that current AIs do not have the ability to bear responsibility. In conclusion, this argument shows that current AIs can not be moral agents. Finally, this essay will discuss the possibility of AIs being partial moral agents and institutional moral agents. (shrink)

The ongoing evolution of advanced AI systems will have profound, enduring, and significant impacts on human existence that must not be overlooked. These impacts range from empowering humanity to achieve unprecedented transcendence to potentially causing catastrophic threats to our existence. To proactively and preventively mitigate these potential threats, it is crucial to establish clear redlines to prevent AI-induced existential risks by constraining and regulating advanced AI and their related AI actors. This paper explores different concepts of AI existential risk, connects (...) the enactment of AI red lines to broader efforts addressing AI's impacts, constructs a theoretical framework for analyzing the direct impacts of AI existential risk, and upon that proposes a set of exemplary AI red lines. By contemplating AI existential risks and formulating these red lines, we aim to foster a deeper and systematic understanding of the potential dangers associated with advanced AI and the importance of proactive risk management. We hope this work will contribute to the strengthening and refinement of a comprehensive AI redline system for preventing humanity from AI existential risks. (shrink)

Liver transplantation (LT) activities during the COVID-19 pandemic have been curtailed in many countries. The impact of various policies restricting LT on outcomes of potential LT candidates is unclear. We studied all patients on the nationwide LT waitlists in Hong Kong and Singapore between January 2016 and May 2020. We used continuous time Markov chains to model the effects of different scenarios and varying durations of disruption on LT candidates.

The aim of the paper is to critically assess the idea that reasons for action are provided by desires (the Model). I start from the claim that the most often employed meta-ethical background for the Model is ethical naturalism; I then argue against the Model through its naturalist background. For the latter purpose I make use of two objections that are both intended to refute naturalism per se. One is G. E. Moore’s Open Question Argument (OQA), the other is Derek (...) Parfit’s Triviality Objection (TO). I show that naturalists might be able to avoid both objections in case they can vindicate the reduction proposed. This, however, leads to further conditions whose fulfillment is necessary for the success of vindication. I deal with one such condition, which I borrow from Peter Railton and Mark Schroeder: the demand that naturalist reductions must be tolerably revisionist. In the remainder of the paper I argue that the most influential versions of the Model are intolerably revisionist. The first problem concerns the picture of reasons many recent formulations of the Model advocate. By using an objection from Michael Bedke I show that on this interpretation obvious reasons won’t be accounted for by the Model. The second problem concerns idealization that is also often part of the Model. Invoking an argument by Connie Rosati, I show that the best form of idealization, the ideal advisor account, is inadequate. Hence, though not knock down arguments as they were intended to be, OQA and TO do pose a serious threat to the Model. (shrink)

This study used a flame atomic absorption spectrometer (FAAS) and atomic fluorescence spec-trophotometer (AFS) to detect the concentrations of chromium (Cr), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), hy-drargyrum (Hg) and arsenic (As) in soils and three genotypes of vegetables in greenhouse, as well as analyzed the physical and chemical properties of soils, including soil pH, soil organic matter (OM), basic nutrients, electrical conductivity (EC) and cation exchange capacity (CEC) in Guan- zhong areas, Shaanxi province, China. The results showed that comparing to (...) subsoil, the sampled topsoil is enriched in Cr, Cd, Pb, As and Hg. Cd (0.83 - 3.17 mg·kg-1) and Hg (0.40 - 1.44 mg·kg-1) are exceeding the limited value stated in “the 2006 Greenhouse Vegetable Producing Environmental Quality Evaluation Standards” of 0.40 mg·kg-1 and 0.35 mg·kg-1 respectively. However, Nanzhuang greenhouse soil is within the limits. The heavy metal pollution index (HPI) of soil in Sanyuan (8.10) is the highest and in Dongzhang (4.23) is the lowest. The contents of Pb (0.201 - 0.376 mg·kg-1) were exceeding the limited value (0.20 mg·kg-1) in vegetables species, and Cd (0.0363 - 0.0572 mg·kg-1) in some place were also exceeding the limited value (0.05 mg·kg-1). Greenhouse soils were becoming acidified year after year; the ratios of N, P and K in soil were seriously imbalanced. According to the impacting factors, OM, pH, available P, EC and CEC have obviously effected the accumulation of Cr and Hg. However, there was not enough evidence for the effects of available nitrogen and available potassium. (shrink)

Regulative virtue epistemology argues that intellectual virtues can adjust and guide one’s epistemic actions as well as improve on the quality of the epistemic actions. For regulative virtue epistemologists, intellectual virtues can be cultivated to a higher degree; when the quality of intellectual virtue is better, the resulting quality of epistemic action is better. The intellectual virtues that regulative epistemologists talk about are character virtues (such as intellectual courage and open-mindedness) rather than faculty virtues (such as sight and hearing), since (...) they don’t think that faculty virtues could be cultivated. This article refers to Xunzi’s philosophy, explaining how a regulative faculty-based virtue epistemology is possible. If this explanation works, on the one hand, a new branch of contemporary virtue epistemology is shown, and, on the other hand, a clear theoretical framework of Xunzi’s epistemology is constructed. (shrink)