In his article “The Existence and Irrelevance of Gratuitous Evil,” Kirk R. MacGregor has argued that the Christian theist need not demur at the existence of gratuitous evil. In fact, we are told that Christian theists have ample philosophical, theological, and biblical evidence in favor of the existence of gratuitous evil. In this brief note I examine both the general structure of his argument as well as several of his more central arguments in favor of gratuitous evil and the compatibility (...) of such evil with Christian theism. (shrink)

The standard position on moral perfection and gratuitous evil makes the prevention of gratuitous evil a necessary condition on moral perfection. I argue that, on any analysis of gratuitous evil we choose, the standard position on moral perfection and gratuitous evil is false. It is metaphysically impossible to prevent every gratuitously evil state of affairs in every possible world. No matter what God does—no matter how many gratuitously evil states of affairs God prevents—it is necessarily true that God coexists with (...) gratuitous evil in some world or other. Since gratuitous evil cannot be eliminated from metaphysical space, the existence of gratuitous evil presents no objection to essentially omnipotent, essentially omniscient, essentially morally perfect, and necessarily existing beings. (shrink)

To most of us – believers and non-believers alike – the possibility of a perfect God co-existing with the kinds of evil that we see calls out for explanation. It is unsurprising, therefore, that the belief that God must have justifying reasons for allowing all the evil that we see has been a perennial feature of theistic thought. Recently, however, a growing number of authors have argued that the existence of a perfect God is compatible with the existence of gratuitous (...) evil. Given powerful, millenia-long sensibilities about power and love and justice, it isn’t hard to find that suggestion simply incredible. Nonetheless, in this paper I will argue that the most prominent theistic alternatives to what has seemed incredible to most of us throughout most of history are themselves patently unacceptable for the theist as well. On any of the most widely accepted accounts of how God could have justifying reasons for permitting some evils, God’s existence means that we have justifying reasons for perpetrating and allowing every evil that we see. That's hard to swallow too. If I’m right about all of this, then two competing outcomes seem to present themselves as a possible result. On the one hand, for the theist, the apparently outrageous suggestion that the existence of a perfect God is compatible with gratuitous evil no longer looks like it faces a formidable, hard-to-resist alternative. On the other hand, some like me might think that my arguments go no distance at all towards dispelling the incredibility of the gratuitous evil nouvelle vague. On this line, theism may seem now to be between the rock and the hard place: it seems hard to make sense of the existence of a perfect God whether or not He has justifying reasons for allowing all the evil that we see. (shrink)

We argue that Michael Peterson's and William Hasker's attempts to show that God and gratuitous evil are compatible constitute miserable failures. We then sketch Peter van Inwagen's attempt to do the same and conclude that, to date, no one has shown his attempt a failure.

It is common these days for theists to argue that we aren’t justified in believing atheism on the basis of evil. They claim that neither facts about particular horrors nor more holistic considerations pertaining to the magnitude, kinds and distribution of evil can ground atheism since we can't tell whether any evil is gratuitous.1 In this paper we explore a novel strategy for shedding light on these issues: we compare the atheist who claims that there is no morally sufficient reason (...) for certain evils with the physicist who claims that there is no causally sufficient reason for some events. (shrink)

Many atheists argue that because gratuitous evil exists, God (probably) doesn’t. But doesn’t this commit atheists to wishing that God did exist, and to the pro-theist view that the world would have been better had God existed? This doesn’t follow. I argue that if all that evil still remains but is just no longer gratuitous, then, from an atheist perspective, that wouldn’t have been better. And while a counterfactual from which that evil is literally absent would have been impersonally better, (...) it wouldn’t have been better for anyone, not even for those who suffered such evils. (shrink)

We first survey the Catholic social justice tradition, the foundation on which Caritas in Veritate builds. Then we discuss Benedict’s addition of love to the philosophical virtues (as applied to economics), and how radical a change that makes to an ethical perspective on economics. We emphasise the reality of the interpersonal aspects of present-day economic exchanges, using insights from two disciplines that have recognized that reality, human resources and marketing. Personal encounter really is a major factor in economic exchanges in (...) professional services, such as law and medicine. Finally, we examine the prospects for an economics of gratuitousness at a level higher than the individual, that is, for businesses devoted to social ends more than profit. -/- . (shrink)

It is often argued that the great quantity of evil in our world makes God’s existence less likely than a lesser quantity would, and this, presumably, because the probability that some evils are gratuitous increases as the overall quantity of evil increases. Often, an additive approach to quantifying evil is employed in such arguments. In this paper, we examine C. S. Lewis’ objection to the additive approach, arguing that although he is correct to reject this approach, there is a sense (...) in which he underestimates the quantity of pain. However, the quantity of pain in that sense does not significantly increase the probability that some pain is gratuitous. Therefore, the quantitative argument likely fails. (shrink)

I develop a new theodicy in defense of Anselmian theism, one that has several advantages over traditional and recent replies to the Problem of Evil. To make my case, I first explain the value of a positive trajectory: a forward-in-time decrease in ‘first-order-gratuitous’ evil: evil that is not necessary for any equal-or-greater first-order good, but may be necessary for a higher-order good, such as the good of strongly positive axiological trajectory. Positive trajectory arguably contributes goodness to a world in proportion (...) to the magnitude of this trajectory, and worlds that contain first-order-gratuitous evil thereby have the potential to contain a strongly positive trajectory. This would arguably explain why God would permit first-order-gratuitous evils: he may be indifferent between a world with no first-order-gratuitous evil and a world with some first-order-gratuitous evil but a strongly positive trajectory. Next, I answer the most salient objections to this theodicy. Finally, I explain how this theodicy is superior to some common theodicies. (shrink)

According to the argument from gratuitous evil, if God were to exist, then gratuitous evil wouldn’t; but gratuitous evil does exist, so God doesn’t. We can evaluate different views of divine providence with respect to the resources they are able to bring to bear when encountering this argument. By these lights, theological determinism is often seen as especially problematic: the determinist is seen as having an impoverished set of resources to draw from in her attempts to respond to the argument (...) from gratuitous evil. In particular, there is an important resource – an appeal to free will – that many have claimed is unavailable to the determinist. I argue that the determinist does not in fact suffer from this particular resource deficit. I do so by examining some recent work on determinist responses to the problem of evil, analyzing some of the ways in which they fall short, and proposing a new response that is informed by those shortcomings. This new response is built on an appeal to the reactive attitudes. (shrink)

The history of philosophy risks a self-opacity whereby we overestimate or underestimate our proximity to prior modes of thinking. This risk is relevant to assessing Hegel’s appropriation by McDowell and Priest. McDowell enlists Hegel for a quietist answer to the problem with assuming that concepts and reality belong to different orders, viz., how concepts are answerable to the world. If we accept Hegel’s absolute idealist view that the conceptual is boundless, this problem allegedly dissolves. Priest enlists Hegel for a dialetheist (...) answer to the problem with assuming that truth and falsity are mutually exclusive, viz., how certain sentences are both true and false. If we accept Hegel’s dialectical view that certain contradictions are necessary, this problem allegedly dissolves. For both McDowell and Priest, we find a true friend in Hegel. I argue that McDowell’s and Priest’s appropriations of Hegel overestimate Hegel’s affinity with quietism and dialetheism. McDowell reads Hegel as a quietist who silences metaphysical claims and the skeptical questions they raise against commonsense, but neglects Hegel’s adaptation of ancient skepticism against commonsense. Priest reads Hegel as a dialetheist who subordinates formal logic to dialectical logic by affirming the truth of certain contradictions, but neglects Hegel’s commitment to resolving contradictions for the sake of truth qua whole. I diagnose their misreadings in terms of what Hegel regards as the three moments of logic and argue that while McDowell jumps to its third moment, Priest stalls at its second moment. According to Hegel’s Encyclopedia Logic, logic has three “moments”: the abstractive moment of the understanding, which “stops short” at fixed categories; the negative moment of dialectic, which discovers the “genuine nature” of the categories, viz., that each “passes over, of itself, into its opposite”; and the positive moment of speculation, which grasps the “unity” of categories through the “dissolution” of their inner opposition. Hegel warns that if these moments are “kept separate from each other […] they are not considered in their truth”. I suggest that quietist and dialetheist readings of Hegel fail to consider truthfully the unified moments of his logic. In his quietist critique of metaphysics, McDowell enlists Hegel to dissolve the problem with assuming the duality of concept and reality. But McDowell helps himself directly to the third moment of logic, where the unity of the categories, and hence the boundlessness of the conceptual, would be fully articulated. Since he arrives at the third moment prematurely, ignoring its prior moments, he obscures its truth (§1). In his dialetheist critique of formal logic, Priest enlists Hegel to dissolve the problem with assuming the duality of truth and falsity. But Priest restricts himself gratuitously to the second moment of logic, where contradictions within the categories are not yet resolved. Since he stalls at the second moment, severed from its final moment, he obscures its truth (§2). I argue we can extricate Hegel from quietist and dialetheist misreadings only if we grasp the truth of the three moments of logic. (shrink)

Because factory-farmed meat production inflicts gratuitous suffering upon animals and wreaks havoc on the environment, there are morally compelling reasons to become vegetarian. Yet industrial plant agriculture causes the death of many field animals, and this leads some to question whether consumers ought to get some of their protein from certain kinds of non factory-farmed meat. Donald Bruckner, for instance, boldly argues that the harm principle implies an obligation to collect and consume roadkill and that strict vegetarianism is thus immoral. (...) But this argument works only if the following claims are true: all humans have access to roadkill, roadkill would go to waste if those who happen upon it don’t themselves consume it, it’s impossible to harvest vegetables without killing animals, the animals who are killed in plant production are all-things-considered harmed by crop farming, and the best arguments for vegetarianism all endorse the harm principle. As I will argue in this paper, each claim is deeply problematic. Consequently, in most cases, humans ought to strictly eat plants and save the roadkill for cats. (shrink)

Satisficing Consequentialism is often rejected as hopeless. Perhaps its greatest problem is that it risks condoning the gratuitous prevention of goodness above the baseline of what qualifies as "good enough". I propose a radical new willpower-based version of the view that avoids this problem, and that better fits with the motivation of avoiding an excessively demanding conception of morality. I further demonstrate how, by drawing on the resources of an independent theory of blameworthiness, we may obtain a principled specification of (...) what counts as "good enough". (shrink)

Kit Fine has replied to my criticism of a technical objection he had given to the version of Millianism that I advocate. Fine evidently objects to my use of classical existential instantiation in an object-theoretic rendering of his meta-proof. Fine’s reply appears to involve both an egregious misreading of my criticism and a significant logical error. I argue that my rendering is unimpeachable, that the issue over my use of classical EI is a red herring, and that Fine’s original argument (...) commits the straw-man fallacy. I argue further that contrary to Fine’s gratuitous attribution, what Kripke’s Pierre lacks and a typical bilingual has is not knowledge of a “manifest-making” premise, but the capacity to recognize London when it is differently designated. Fine’s argument refutes a preposterous theory no one advocates while leaving standard Millianism unscathed. The failure of his argument threatens to render Fine’s central notion of “coordination” redundant or empty. (shrink)

Justification depends on context: even if E on its own justifies H, still it might fail to justify in the context of D. This sort of effect, epistemologists think, is due to defeaters, which undermine or rebut a would-be justifier. I argue that there is another fundamental sort of contextual feature, disqualification, which doesn't involve rebuttal or undercutting, and which cannot be reduced to any notion of screening-off. A disqualifier makes some would-be justifier otiose, as direct testimony sometimes does to (...) distal testimony, and as manifestly decisive evidence might do to gratuitous evidence on the same team. Basing a belief on disqualified evidence, moreover, is distinctively irrational. One is not necessarily irresponsible. Instead one is turning down a free upgrade to a sleeker, stabler basis for one's beliefs. Such an upgrade would prevent wastes of epistemic effort, since someone who bases her belief on a disqualified proposition E will need to remember E and rethink her belief should E ever be defeated. The upgrade might also reduce reliance on unwieldy evidence, if E is relevant only thanks to some labyrinthine argument; and if even ideal agents should doubt their ability to follow such arguments, even they should care about disqualifiers. (shrink)

The problem of evil is the most prominent argument against the existence of God. Skeptical theists contend that it is not a good argument. Their reasons for this contention vary widely, involving such notions as CORNEA, epistemic appearances, 'gratuitous' evils, 'levering' evidence, and the representativeness of goods. We aim to dispel some confusions about these notions, in particular by clarifying their roles within a probabilistic epistemology. In addition, we develop new responses to the problem of evil from both the phenomenal (...) conception of evidence and the knowledge-first view of evidence. (shrink)

One paradigmatic argument from evil against theism claims that, (1) if God exists, then there is no gratuitous evil. But (2) there is gratuitous evil, so (3) God does not exist. I consider three deontological strategies for resisting this argument. Each strategy restructures existing theodicies which deny (2) so that they instead deny (1). The first two strategies are problematic on their own, but their primary weaknesses vanish when they are combined to form the third strategy, resulting in a promising (...) new approach to the problem of evil. (shrink)

I argue that Stephen Wykstra’s much discussed Parent Analogy is helpful in responding to the evidential problem of evil when it is expanded upon from a positive skeptical theist framework. This framework, defended by John Depoe, says that although we often remain in the dark about the first-order reasons that God allows particular instances of suffering, we can have positive second-order reasons that God would create a world with seemingly gratuitous evils. I respond to recent challenges to the Parent Analogy (...) by arguing that God, like a good parent, wants a rightly ordered relationship of mutual love with created beings. (shrink)

Skeptical theists are seeking for some reasonable solutions to the evidential problem of evil. One of the most fundamental responses of skeptical theism is that the concept of “gratuitous evil”, which cannot be a proof of the absence of God. Therefore, it is not the existence of God that skeptical theism suspects. Instead, skeptical theism contemplates whether the evil in the world really has a “gratuitous” basis. This paper focuses on Peter van Inwagen's “no-minimum claim”. No-minimum claim” stands in opposition (...) to the views that assume that God minimizes the evils that exist in the world in order to achieve justice. “No-minimum claim” acknowledges that these evils still have enormous amounts to people. Thus “no-minimum claim” suggests that the evils experienced in the world are incompatible with the “best of all possible worlds” views or the other explanations of classical theodicy. According to the “no minimum claim”, the reason why the amount of evil in the world still seems so high may be God’s deliberate calculations in effecting the distribution of these evils. In order to reach these calculations, it is not necessary for the amount of evil that God allowed to reflect on the world to be perfectly manifested at the minimum level. The purpose of this paper is to consider the skeptical theism approach within the framework of Peter van Inwagen's “no-minimum claim” and to limit his arguments to an alternative approach to skeptic theism. Our claim is that such view coincides with skeptical theism, but the “no- minimum claim” still has some ambiguities at the point of the limits of evil. From this, we can conclude that the “no minimum claim” has received many objections in the skeptical theism literature and these objections are justified at certain points. (shrink)

This paper considers whether victims can justify what appears to be unnecessary defensive harming by reference to an honour-based justification. I argue that such an account faces serious problems: the honour-based justification cannot permit, first, defensive harming, and second, substantial unnecessary harming. Finally, I suggest that, if the purpose of the honour based justification is expressive, an argument must be given to demonstrate why harming threateners, as opposed to opting for a non-harmful alternative, is the most effective means of affirming (...) one’s honour. Along the way, I also suggest why I think that internalism about the constraints on defensive harming (the view that the satisfaction of the necessity constraint is a necessity condition of a threatener’s liability) is correct. Most importantly, externalism implies that threateners can be liable to suffer gratuitous harm. I take this to be an unattractive consequence of the view. (shrink)

In this journal Steve Maitzen has recently advanced an argument for atheism premised on theodical individualism, the thesis that God would not permit people to suffer evils that were underserved, involuntary, and gratuitous for them. In this paper I advance reasons to think this premise mistaken.

Trent Dougherty argues (contra Jonathan Matheson) that when taking into consideration the probabilities involving skeptical theism (ST) and gratuitous evils, an agent may reasonably affirm both ST and that gratuitous evils exist. In other words, Dougherty thinks that assigning a greater than .5 probability to ST is insufficient to defeat the commonsense problem of evil. I argue that Dougherty’s response assumes, incorrectly, that ST functions solely as an evidential defeater, and that, when understood as a closure of inquiry defeater, ST (...) may still defeat reasonable belief in gratuitous evils, even in the face of strong evidence that gratuitous evils exist. (shrink)

What Ivan Illich regarded in his Medical Nemesis as the ‘expropriation of health’ takes place on the surfaces and in the spaces of the screens all around us, including our cell phones but also the patient monitors and (increasingly) the iPads that intervene between nurse and patient. To explore what Illich called the ‘age of the show’, this essay uses film examples, like Creed and the controversial documentary Vaxxed, and the television series Nurse Jackie. Rocky’s cancer in his last film (...) (submitting to chemo to ‘fight’ cancer) highlights what Illich along with Petr Skrabanek called the ‘expropriation of death’. In contrast to what Illich denotes as ‘Umsonstigkeit’ – i.e., a free gift, given undeservedly, i.e., gratuitously – medical science tends to be tempted by what Illich terms scientistic ‘black magic’, taking over (expropriating) the life and the death of the patient in increasingly technological ways, a point underscored in the concluding section on the commercial prospects of xenotransplants using factory farm or mass-produced (and already for some time) human-pig mosaics or chimeras. (shrink)

In a world where meat is often a token of comfort, health, hospitality, and abundance, one can be forgiven for raising an eyebrow at the conjunction “meat and evil.” Why pull meat into the orbit of harm, pestilence, ill-will, and privation? From another perspective, the answer is obvious: meat—the flesh of slaughtered animals taken for food—is the remnant of a feeling creature who was recently alive and whose death was premature, violent, and often gratuitous. The truth is that meat has (...) a checkered history in the West. From its origin-story in Abrahamic religion to its industrial production in today’s world, meat is well-marbled with evil and its minions: sin, violence, injustice, destruction, suffering, and death. Beyond keeping company with these obtrusive forms of evil, meat’s success at remaining, nevertheless, in our collective good graces illuminates some of evil’s subtler shades too. We might learn something of insidiousness, self-deception, rationalization, and bad faith by exploring why the ever-strengthening consensus that habitual meat-eating is unhealthful, morally dubious, and environmentally damaging is often still no match for a philosopher’s savor of cheeseburgers. My aim is to consider meat’s fitness for a place in the Western history of evil by reflecting briefly on its outsized roles at the bookends of this narrative: meat’s primeval history in Genesis, and its contribution today to ethical and environmental problems of arguably apocalyptic proportions. (shrink)

The inductive argument from evil to the non-existence of God contains the premise that, probably, there is gratuitous evil. Some skeptical theists object: one's justification for the premise that, probably, there is gratuitous evil involves an inference from the proposition that we don't see a good reason for some evil to the proposition that it appears that there is no good reason for that evil, and they use a principle, "CORNEA," to block that inference. The common sense problem of evil (...) threatens the CORNEA move, because the common sense problem of evil does not involve any inference to justify the belief that there is gratuitous evil. In this paper, I argue that the common sense problem of evil doesn't avoid CORNEA. CORNEA, or a reformulated version of it, can still prevent one from having justification for the belief that there is gratuitous evil. (shrink)

After examining the problem that gratuitous suffering poses for Nietzsche's notion of life affirmation, I mount a skeptical response to this problem on Nietzsche's behalf. I then consider an orthogonal objection to Nietzschean life affirmation, which argues that the need to justify life is symptomatic of life denial and show how strengthening the skeptical defense sidesteps this worry. Nietzsche's skepticism about our all‐too‐human, epistemic position thus aids his project of life affirmation in two ways. First, it suggests that we are (...) unable to determine reliably whether a given instance of suffering is, in fact, gratuitous. Second, it provides a corrective to the moralistic need to redeem life, showing that all attempts to justify life as a whole are epistemically fraught. Before concluding, I examine Nietzsche's reasons for advancing such an epistemological argument and suggest how we might approach life affirmation in nonrational terms. (shrink)

Over the last three decades, a vast literature has amassed debating the merits of skeptical theism, and it is easy to get the sense that the rationality of theism itself depends crucially on the viability of the skeptical theist response. I will argue that this is mistaken, as there is no need for theists to maintain that non-theists are wrong to treat inscrutable evils as compelling evidence for atheism. I will show that theists instead need only take themselves to have (...) grounds for rejecting the existence of gratuitous evils and that they may look for these grounds among their more personal reasons for sustaining their trust in the theistic God rather than the more generally available skeptical considerations appealed to by skeptical theists. Accordingly, I call this alternative approach “trusting theism.” I will also show that the viability of trusting theism seems crucial to the rationality of theism whether or not skeptical theism is successful. Finally, I will show that trusting theism does not render theism impervious to possible counterevidence in the way skeptical theism has been accused of doing. (shrink)

Aquinas’s thought is often considered an exemplary balance between Christian faith and natural reason. However, it is not always sufficiently clear what such balance consists of. With respect to the relation between philosophical topics and the Christian faith, various scholars have advanced perspectives that, although supported by Aquinas’s texts, contrast one another. Some maintain that Aquinas elaborated his philosophical view without being under the influence of faith. Others believe that the Christian faith constitutes an indispensable component of Aquinas’s view; at (...) least when Aquinas focused on those statements that, though maintainable by mere reason, belong to the Christian revelation. In this essay I intend to show that the aforementioned perspectives can be reconciled on the basis of Aquinas’s concept of faith. If we do not limit ourselves to considering faith as the assent to the revealed truth, but also look at what leads the believer to assent—i.e., charity that unites the believer with God and is gratuitously conceded by God himself—then the relation between faith and reason appears to be twofold. On the one hand, the truths of faith cannot participate in the rational inquiry, because according to Aquinas faith lacks the evidence searched for by natural reason. On the other hand, since Aquinas holds that faith is the assent to the revelation due to the love for God that is granted by God himself, the believer will take faith as more certain than intellect and science, and the truths of faith will constitute the orientation and criterion of her/his rational investigation. The truths shall constitute orientation because the believer aims to confirm by reason what she/he already believes. They will also be criterion, because in case of a contradiction between rational arguments and revealed truths, reason must be considered mistaken and the rational investigation must start anew from the beginning. (shrink)

How could it be wrong to exploit—say, by paying sweatshop wages—if the exploited party benefits? How could it be wrong to do something gratuitously bad—like giving to a wasteful charity—if that is better than permissibly doing nothing? Joe Horton argues that these puzzles, known as the Exploitation Problem and All or Nothing Problem, have no unified answer. I propose one and pose a challenge for Horton’s take on the Exploitation Problem.

Since March of 2020, the world has been brought to its knees by unscientific and unethical mandates. These mandates have destroyed the world economy and the lives of countless innocent individuals. The “cure” that has been offered by medical bureaucrats and politicians has been more deadly than the disease (COVID-19). The imposition of ludicrous lockdowns, mask-wearing, coerced vaccination, and vaccine passports have not only proved to be ineffective, but also much more harmful than SARS-CoV-2 and all its variants. COVID-19 has (...) a recovery rate of close to 99% for most of the world’s population, however, despite this, institutions and power-hungry individuals have trampled upon our civil liberties and ignored our inalienable human rights. It is precisely as Thomas Paine famously stated: “The greatest tyrannies are always perpetrated in the name of the noblest causes.” -/- Many lives have been gratuitously lost because of the administration of deadly medical treatments, and the rejection of effective treatments that follow genuine science. In the process, informed consent has been disparaged and desecrated. For over two years, we were instructed to “trust the science,” but the “science” advocated by medical bureaucrats and greedy politicians was the reason why the world was turned upside-down. In the face of these crimes against humanity, justice will only be brought by real courts and real judges, but this will require the awakening of a critical mass. This book serves as an instrument for this awakening. (shrink)

(Wide) pro-theism is the view that the world is better overall if theism is true. (Wide) anti-theism is the view that our world would be better overall if atheism is true. Arguments for pro-theism and anti-theism typically make use of traditional theism (the view that an omni-God exists) and generic atheism (the view that an omni-God doesn’t exist). In my view, when the debate between pro-theists and anti-theists makes use of traditional theism and generic atheism, pro-theism clearly comes out on (...) top. In this paper, I consider whether this result (i.e. pro-theism’s advantage over anti-theism) changes if we bring axiarchism into the mix: I compare axiarchistic theism and axiarchistic atheism. General axiarchism is the view that the world exists because it is good that it exists, and extreme axiarchism is the view that the world exists because it is the best possible world. When we take general axiarchistic theism and general axiarchistic atheism as our worldviews for comparison, I argue that there is no significant change with respect to anti-theism and pro-theism: neither position is able to capture goods that are traditionally associated with the other position, and so pro-theism still wins out. However, if we instead compare extreme axiarchistic atheism with extreme axiarchistic theism there is a significant change: while the case for pro-theism remains the same (because, I argue, it is not able to capture any of the goods of anti-theism), the case for anti-theism is greatly strengthened, because it is able to capture nearly all of the goods of pro-theism (e.g. the good of an afterlife, of cosmic justice, of there being no gratuitous evil). In other words, given extreme axiarchism, atheistic worlds can (and will) house goods that are traditionally associated with theistic worlds (e.g. those listed prior). This means that, given extreme axiarchism, pro-theists can’t appeal to those goods as favoring their position: they obtain whether our world is atheistic or theistic. Thus, they don’t favor pro-theism over anti-theism; the case for anti-theism has been strengthened. (Alternatively, we may say that the case for pro-theism has been weakened.) Ultimately, there is one good that extreme axiarchistic atheism does not enable anti-theism to capture—namely, God’s intrinsic unlimited goodness—and I argue that this shows that there is still a gap between pro-theism and anti-theism; while the gap has been substantially narrowed, it has not been eliminated. Thus, I suggest that the best route forward for anti-theists is to cast doubt on the view that God’s intrinsic goodness is unlimited. (shrink)

James Sterba has constructed a powerful argument for there being a conflict between the presence of evil in the world and the existence of God. I contend that Sterba’s argument depends on a crucial assumption, namely, that God has an obligation to act according to the principle of meticulous providence. I suggest that two of his analogies confirm his dependence on this requirement. Of course, his argument does not rest on either of these analogies, but they are illustrative of the (...) role that meticulous providence plays in his argument. I then investigate the ethical principles Sterba invokes in his use of meticulous providence and suggest that not only do we often not predicate goodness of human persons based on these principles of obligation, but that these principles are much too stringent to function to determine moral obligations and moral goodness. From there, I contend that to think that God has a similar obligation regarding meticulous providence in order to be good encounters several serious problems, especially with respect to the soul-building Sterba wants to preserve. I conclude by considering Sterba’s reply in terms of a limited application of meticulous providence. (shrink)

This paper addresses several reasons why students may be uninterested or unwilling to engage with the problem of evil and discusses a method of teaching it which overcomes these difficulties. This strategy, first, distinguishes between evil and gratuitous evil. This prevents students from thinking that the task of theodicy is fulfilled by a reconciliation of God with mundane evil (e.g. immunizations). Second, the goal of theodicy is framed as the reconciliation of God with the appearance of evil. Emphasizing appearance in (...) this way clearly frames the work of arguments from evil and theodicies as arguments for or against the reality of this appearance. Third, it is made explicit that all candidate theodicies must attempt to cover all evil and that the reasons supporting their conclusions must compass morally sufficient reasons (a moral reason which justifies suffering) and the greater good (a good which is sufficiently good to justify the evil necessary for its achievement). (shrink)

Theistic and analytic philosophers of religion typically privilege classical theism by ignoring or underestimating the great threat of alternative monotheisms. [1] In this article we discuss numerous god-models, such as those involving weak, stupid, evil, morally indifferent, and non-revelatory gods. We find that theistic philosophers have not successfully eliminated these and other possibilities, or argued for their relative improbability. In fact, based on current evidence – especially concerning the hiddenness of God and the gratuitous evils in the world – many (...) of these hypotheses appear to be more probable than theism. Also considering the – arguably infinite – number of alternative monotheisms, the inescapable conclusion is that theism is a very improbable god-concept, even when it is assumed that one and only one transcendent god exists. [1] I take ‘theism’ to mean ‘classical theism’, which is but one of many possible monotheisms. Avoiding much of the discussion around classical theism, I wish to focus on the challenges in arguing for theism over monotheistic alternatives. I consider theism and alternative monotheisms as entailing the notion of divine transcendence. (shrink)

The environmental costs and energy constraints have become emerging issues for the future development of Machine Learning (ML) and Artificial Intelligence (AI). So far, the discussion on environmental impacts of ML/AI lacks a perspective reaching beyond quantitative measurements of the energy-related research costs. Building on the foundations laid down by Schwartz et al., 2019 in the GreenAI initiative, our argument considers two interlinked phenomena, the gratuitous generalisation capability and the future where ML/AI performs the majority of quantifiable inductive inferences. The (...) gratuitous generalisation capability refers to a discrepancy between the cognitive demands of a task to be accomplished and the performance (accuracy) of a used ML/AI model. If the latter exceeds the former because the model was optimised to achieve the best possible accuracy, it becomes inefficient and its operation harmful to the environment. The future dominated by the non-anthropic induction describes a use of ML/AI so all-pervasive that most of the inductive inferences become furnished by ML/AI generalisations. The paper argues that the present debate deserves an expansion connecting the environmental costs of research and ineffective ML/AI uses (the issue of gratuitous generalisation capability) with the (near) future marked by the all-pervasive Human-Artificial Intelligence Nexus. (shrink)

The paper argues that given the defining features of the God of “perfect being” theology, God would not create any contingently existing things. To do so would introduce a kind of gratuitous metaphysical imperfection in an otherwise metaphysically perfect universe. Given that in fact there are contingent things, it follows that the God of perfect being theism does not exist.

We utilize contemporary cognitive and social science of religion to defend a controversial thesis: the human cognitive apparatus gratuitously inclines humans to religious activity oriented around entities other than the God of classical theism. Using this thesis, we update and defend two arguments drawn from David Hume: (i) the argument from idolatry, which argues that the God of classical theism does not exist, and (ii) the argument from indifference, which argues that if the God of classical theism exists, God is (...) indifferent to our religious activity. (shrink)

Contrary to dictionaries, a non sequitur isn’t “any statement that doesn’t follow logically from previous statements”. Otherwise, every opening statement would be a non sequitur: a non sequitur is a statement claimed to follow from previous statements but that doesn’t follow. If the sentence making a given statement doesn’t contain ‘thus’, ‘so’, ‘hence’, ‘therefore’, or something else indicating an implication claim, the statement isn’t a non sequitur in this sense. But this is only one of several senses of that expression, (...) which, contrary to appearances, is a unitary common noun more properly written as one word: non-sequitur or nonsequitur. Above a nonsequitur was, roughly speaking, a conclusion of an invalid premise- conclusion argument, but not every such, only those that were stated to follow from premises that had been stated. Every informative proposition is the conclusion of an invalid argument. Anyway, nonsequiturs were not arguments. However, the expression ‘nonsequitur’ also means “invalid premise- conclusion argument”. It also means something like “fallacious reasoning” as in ‘Abe’s proof of the big-bang hypothesis is a nonsequitur’. The English noun is also used for an irrelevancy, an abrupt change of topic, or for any of many other expressions that are gratuitous, inappropriate, incongruous, or in some other way out of place. The English noun is derived from the Latin expression ‘non sequitur’, which is not a common noun but a sentence variously meaning “it isn’t in sequence ”, “it doesn’t follow”, “it is out of order”, etc. A statement that begins ‘in the second place’ is a nonsequitur if the previous sentence lacked implication of something like ‘in the first place’ or if it contained something similar to ‘in the third place’. In fact, a true implication claim can be a nonsequitur if there is no reason for making it. If Ben says ‘Hence, Abe swims and Abe swims’ in reply to Carl’s statement ‘Abe swims‘, then Ben may well be committing a nonsequitur. Many conversation stoppers are nonsequiturs. This lecture surveys and analyses a wide selection of uses of ‘nonsequitur’ in logic and logic-related literature. -/- END OF DRAFT 4 -/- NOTE 091215: When Rick Perry was discussing possible withdrawal from the race—unfortunately not the human race but the Republican race—a reporter reminded him that just last week Donald Trump predicted the Perry withdrawal. Perry interrupted with “A broken clock is right once a day”. -/- If you did not know Perry you might think his reply was a brilliant diversionary nonsequitur. If you know Perry you might think his reply was a stupid nonsequitur. -/- For the record, he did say ‘once a day’, not ‘twice a day’. BTW, my interjection ‘unfortunately not the human race but the Republican race’ was also a nonsequitur. (shrink)

Typically, philosophers interested in evil have typically been concerned with reconciling (or not) the apparent existence of gratuitous suffering with the existence of an omnipotent and omniscient and supremely loving and caring Deity. Undeniably, ‘evil’ functions as a mass noun: note the intelligibility of asking “Why is there so much evil in the world?” But ‘evil’ sometimes functions as an adjective and is used variously to describe persons, actions, desires, motives, and intentions; Joel Feinberg even speaks of “evil smells.” In (...) what follows, I shall consider the relationship between evil actions, evildoers—that is, persons disposed to perform evil actions—and evil people. Roughly, I defend the simple thesis that being an evil person just is being an evildoer. (shrink)

Increased participation in public affairs by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops during the highly contentious 2012 Presidential election has seemingly brought the traditions of Catholic social teaching and socialism into a high profile conflict. While it is clear that President Obama is not what most academics would consider a “socialist,” modern discourse still presents what I argue is a false dichotomy- one can be either endorse natural law (especially of the Catholic variety) or socialism, but not both. While my (...) goal in this article is to refute the alleged incompatibility, not to determine its historical roots, some speculation about its origin may be illuminating. Recent work on religious identity in the United States suggests that Americans largely identify Christianity with the right wing of the American culture war. Additional research is required to fully grasp where this perception comes from, but one can venture several guesses: the rise of the “Christian Right” in Republican Party politics of the late 1990s and early 2000s, the concept of “social justice” being lampooned by Right-wing talk show hosts, and decades of a Catholic Church that firmly opposed Cold War-era Soviet Communism. The contrast between left-wing and right-wing thought on social issues (same-sex marriage, abortion, etc.) is very well documented and widely discussed. Differences between leftists and natural lawyers on economic issues, however, are more often assumed than argued for. Perhaps this is a matter of “guilt by association,” with those arguing that leftist social policy is at odds with natural law simply assuming that the same must be the case with leftist economic policy as well. Thus, natural law, long tied to Christianity throughout its history, is gratuitously appropriated by right-wing political ideology. Against this claim of incompatibility, I argue that one can rationally hold both socialism and natural law to be true. In his landmark Natural Law and Natural Rights, John Finnis offers what is arguably the twentieth century’s most complete theory of natural law. I will argue that the conception of socialism laid out by G.A. Cohen in hisWhy Not Socialism? is compatible with Finnis’s account of the human goods, and that natural lawyers can therefore reasonably endorse Cohen’s prescription for socialism. (shrink)

Evil acts are not merely wrong; they belong to a different moral category. For example, telling a minor lie might be wrong but it is not evil, whereas the worst act of gratuitous torture that you can imagine is evil and not merely wrong. But how do wrongs and evils differ? A theory or conception of evil should, among other things, answer that question. But once a theory of evil has been developed, how do we defend or refute it? The (...) most commonly used method for doing this in the literature has been to, respectively, provide pro-examples or counter-examples. While this method might be sufficient for establishing that a theory is at least a prima facie plausible theory of evil, it is often insufficient for making fine-grained distinctions between otherwise plausible theories of evil. To supplement this insufficiency I propose that we also focus on five theoretical virtues that a theory of evil should have. These virtues are: 1) meshing well with important theories of moral wrongdoing; 2) being based on a plausible moral psychology; 3) explaining the basis of our judgments about evil; 4) being able to alter, revise and expand our judgments about evil; and 5) being pitched at the right level of generality. The main result of this paper will be to show that these five theoretical virtues provide a useful analytical tool for interrogating plausible theories of evil. The secondary result will be to show that my theory of evil has these five virtues. (shrink)

« Ce petit livre est un bijou d’intelligence, de finesse, de culture, qui prend un objet technique sans rechigner et le tourne et le retourne comme Heidegger nous avait appris à le faire avec les chaussures de Van Gogh. Ce qui frappe, c’est l’ambition d’une méditation sur les cartes de la modernité contemporaine, sur le fameux Grand Paris, sur le sujet, sur le pluriel, sans les faux-fuyants du postmoderne, de la citation absurde. Luis de Miranda se promène, il vous conte (...) qu’il se promène, mais il vous mène avec une grande maîtrise et sait où il veut aller. Rien de gratuit dans cette rencontre de l’enseigne de kebabs sur la table de dissection de la Ville Néon. C’est plutôt une nouvelle méditation cartésienne après Descartes et Husserl : où le poêle et sa chaleur ont fait place au bruit vrillant du gaz dans un tube. Je suis, je crée, donc j’entends. » Yann Moulier-Boutang, ancien élève de l’ENS, professeur agrégé d’économie à l’université de technologie de Compiègne, directeur de la revue Multitudes. Né d’une rencontre inopinée avec un néon sur le quai du Louvre, ce livre a été composé à partir d’un séminaire donné par l’auteur à l’hiver 2012. Un voyage inspiré à travers la nuit, qui déchiffre les halos du passé et les reflets du présent pour donner à entendre une certaine magie du futur. Luis de Miranda, philosophe, romancier, révélateur du créalisme, est notamment l’auteur d’un essai remarqué, L’art d’être libres au temps des automates (Max Milo, 2010). (shrink)

Cartea prezintă modele de afaceri, management, analize și strategii care ajută la dezvoltarea și punerea în valoare a unei organizații, în contexte specifice economice, sociale, culturale sau de altă natură, prin elaborarea și implementarea unor planuri personalizate. Capacitatea unei organizații de a procesa informații este în centrul competențelor organizatorice și manageriale, iar strategiile unei organizații trebuie să fie proiectate pentru a îmbunătăți funcționalitatea și eficiența corporativă și, întrucât sistemele de management care furnizează această capabilitate au devenit formalizate și automatizate, competențele (...) sunt testate dur la mai multe niveluri. Organizațiile trebuie să fie capabile să învețe și să se adapteze în moduri care nu au fost niciodată atât de evidente înainte. Managementul strategic implică formularea și punerea în aplicare a obiectivelor și inițiativelor majore luate de conducerea de vârf a unei companii în numele proprietarilor, luând în considerare resursele și o evaluare a mediilor interne și externe în care organizația evoluează. El implică conceptele conexe de planificare strategică și gândire strategică. Prin analiza afacerii se identifică nevoile de afaceri și se stabilesc soluțiilor la problemele de afaceri. Soluțiile includ adesea o componentă de dezvoltare sisteme-software, dar pot consta și în îmbunătăţirea procesului, schimbarea organizațională sau planificarea strategică și elaborarea politicilor. CUPRINS: Afaceri - Formele de bază de proprietate - Clasificări - Management - - Restructurarea întreprinderilor de stat - Reglementări organizaţionale şi legislative - Evidenţa contabilă - - Procesul - Marketing - - Orientarea spre client - - Orientarea organizaţională - - - Comportamentul de turmă - - - Alte orientări - - Cercetarea în marketing - - - Mediul de marketing - - - Segmentarea pieţei - - - Tipuri de cercetare de piață - Publicitate - - Teoria publicităţii - - - Modele ierarhia-efectelor - - - Marketing mix - - Medii pentru publicitate - - Semiotica - - Efecte de gen în procesarea publicității - Inteligența în afaceri (Business intelligence) - - Componente - - Istorie - - Depozitarea datelor - - Comparație cu inteligența competitivă - - Comparație cu cercetarea analitică de afaceri - - Aplicații într-o întreprindere - - Prioritizarea proiectelor - - Factori de succes în implementare - - - Suportul afacerii - - - Nevoile afacerii - - - Cantitatea și calitatea datelor disponibile - - Aspect utilizator - - Date semistructurate sau nestructurate - - - Date nestructurate vs. date semistructurate - - - Probleme cu date semistructurate sau nestructurate - - - Utilizarea de metadate - Antreprenoriat - - Definiţie - - Decizii antreprenoriale - - - Antreprenoriatul ca o proiectare a relațiilor individuale/oportunități - - - Percepţia antreprenorială - - - Stiluri antreprenoriale - - Aspecte psihologice - Franciza - - Cele mai mari lanțuri de franciză - - Taxe și termeni contractuali - - Justificare și comutarea riscului - - Obligațiile părților - - Francize sociale - - Franciza logistică de la terți - - Franciza de evenimente - - Francize la domiciliu Managementul afacerii - Managementul informațiilor - - Aspecte teoretice - - - Teorii comportamentale și organizaționale - - - Teoria economică - - Managementul informațiilor strategice - - - Alinierea tehnologiilor și strategiilor de afacere cu managementul informațiilor - - - Un model de portofoliu contemporan pentru informații - - - Competențe pentru gestionarea calității informațiilor - - - Rezumat - - Operaționalizarea managementului informațiilor - - - Gestionarea schimbării necesare - - - Opera timpurie a lui Galbraith - - - Organizații matriceale - - Informații în sursă deschisă - - - Surse deschise pentru informații - - - Definiții pentru OSINT - - - Informații competitive - - - OSINT în afaceri - Managementul strategic - - Definiţie - - - Formularea - - - Implementarea - - - Diverse definiții ale strategiei - - Concepte și cadre - - - Analiza SWOT - - - Curba de experiență - - - Strategia corporativă și teoria portofoliului - - - Avantaj competitiv - - - Structura industriei și a rentabilitatea - - - Strategii competitive generice - - - Lanțul valoric - - - Competențe de bază - - - Teoria afacerii - - Gândirea strategică - - Planificarea strategica - - - Analiza mediului - - - Planificarea scenariului - - - Măsurarea și controlul implementării - - - Evaluarea - - Limitări - - Abordări pentru managementul strategic - - - Ierarhia de strategie - Managementul relațiilor de afaceri - - Tendințe în dezvoltarea MRA - - Prezentare generală și obiective - - - Ca disciplină - - - Ca rol organizațional - - - Ca model - - Ciclurile de viață ale MRA - - Principiile MRA - - - Măsurare și analiză - - - Scop - - - Reputație și încredere - - - Guvernare - - - Limite - - - Schimb și reciprocitate - Managementul relațiilor de intreprindere - - Instrumente și metodologii - Software de afaceri - - Tipuri de instrumente de afaceri Analiza afacerii - Tehnici de analiză de afaceri - - PESTLE - - Heptaliza - - MOST - - SWOT - - CATWOE - - Cele şase pălării în gândire ale lui de Bono - - Cinci "De ce" - - MoSCoW - - VPEC-T - - SCRS - Cercetarea analitică - - Cercetarea analitică vs. analiză - - Exemple - - - Optimizarea de marketing - - - Cercetarea analitică de portofoliu - - - Cercetarea analitică de risc - - - Cercetarea analitică digitală - - - Cercetarea analitică de securitate - - - Cercetarea analitică în software - - Provocări - - Riscuri - Evaluarea afacerii - - Standardul și premisa valorii - - Standardele de valoare - - Premise de valoare - - Elemente ale evaluării afacerii - - - Condițiile economice - - - Analize financiare - - - Normalizarea situațiilor financiare - - - Venituri, active și abordări de piață Strategia de afaceri - Cele trei procese ale strategiei în afaceri - - Formularea strategiei - - Implementarea strategiei - - Evaluarea strategiei - - - Adecvarea - - - Fezabilitatea - - - Acceptabilitatea - Planificarea strategică - - Procesul - - - Prezentare generală - - - Intrări - - - Activităţi - - - Ieşiri - - - Rezultate - - Instrumente și abordări - - Planificarea strategică vs planificarea financiară - - Critici - - - Planificarea strategică vs gândirea strategică - Gândirea strategică - - Gândirea strategică vs planificarea strategică - - Competențe de gândire strategică - Modele de afaceri - - Perspective teoretice și empirice ale modelelor de afaceri - - - Logica proiectării și coerență narativă - - - Complementarități ale modelelor de afaceri între firme partenere - - Clasificarea modelelor de afaceri - - - Cadrul V4 BM - - - Trecerea de la conducte la platforme - - - Modele de afaceri platformă - - Aplicații - - Proiectarea modelului de afaceri - - - Definiții ale modelului de afaceri - - Definiții ale proiectării sau dezvoltării modelului de afaceri - - - Evidențierea temelor de proiectare a modelului de afaceri - - - Evidențierea conținutului de proiectare pentru proiectarea modelului de afaceri - - Exemple de modele de afaceri - - - Model de afaceri clasic - - - Modele de afaceri colective - - - Modelul renunțării la intermediari - - - Modelul de vânzări directe - - - Modele de afaceri de distribuție - - - Modelul revânzării cu valoare adăugată - - - Primul plătește, apoi gratuit - - - Franciza - - - Modelul de afaceri în aprovizionare - - - Modelul de afaceri cu gratuități - - - Plătești ce poți - - - Plătești ce dorești - - Cadrele pentru model de afaceri - - Concepte înrudite Documente în afaceri - Planul de afaceri - - Audiența - - Conținut - - Prezentare - - Revizuirea planului de afaceri - - - Depășiri de costuri și scăderi ale veniturilor - - Probleme juridice și de responsabilitate - - - Cerințe de publicare - - - Limitări privind conținutul și audiența - - Planuri de afaceri deschise - - Utilizări - - Planul de afaceri pentru organizațiile non-profit - Elaborarea unui plan de afaceri - - Rezumatul - - Context organizațional - - - Declarația de misiune și modelul de afaceri - - - Statusul curent - - - Istorie - - - Echipa de management - - Planul de marketing - - - Stabilirea prețului - - - Managementul cererii - - - Distribuirea - - - Promovare și dezvoltare de brand - - Planul operațional - - - Planul de cercetare și dezvoltare - - - Planul de fabricație/de implementare - - - Planul de tehnologia informației și comunicațiilor - - - Planul de personal - - - Modelul alocării costurilor - - Planul financiar - - - Finanțarea actuală - - - Nevoile de finanțare - - - Planul de finanțare - - - Istoria financiară - - - Previziuni financiare - - - Evaluarea - - Analiza de risc - - - Evaluarea riscurilor - - - Planul de management al riscului - - Criterii de decizie - Planuri și strategii de marketing - - Procesul de planificare a marketingului - - Scopurile și obiectivele planificării marketingului - - - Planuri și programe detaliate - - Conținutul planului de marketing - - - Firmele mijlocii și mari - - Măsurarea progresului - - Analiza performanței - - - Analiza vânzărilor - - - Analiza cotei de piață - - - Analiza cheltuielilor - - - Analiza financiară - - - Folosirea planurilor de marketing - - Bugetele ca instrumente manageriale - - Strategia de marketing - - - O parte esențială a strategiei corporative generale - - - Tactici și acțiuni sectoriale - - - Tipuri de strategii - - - Modele strategice - Propuneri de afaceri - - Tipuri de propuneri - - - Propunerea solicitată informal - - - Propunerea nesolicitată - - Componente - - - Propunerea formal solicitată - - - Propunere de afaceri solicitată informal - - Gestionarea propunerilor de afaceri - - - Procesul de management al propunerilor - - Scrierea propunerilor - - - Propunerile interne - - - Contract de sursă unică - - - Format - - - Titlu - - - Rezumat - - - Declarația și Metoda - - - Buget - - - Informații biografice - - - Valori ale sponsorilor - - - Credibilitatea solicitantului - - - Logica propunerii - - - Psihologia propunerii - - Strategia de marketing - - - O parte esențială a strategiei corporative generale - - - Tactici și acțiuni sectoriale - - - Tipuri de strategii - - - Modele strategice Referinţe Despre autor - Nicolae Sfetcu - - De același autor - - Contact Editura - MultiMedia Publishing . (shrink)

Odată cu creșterea volumului de date pe Internet, în media socială, cloud computing, dispozitive mobile și date guvernamentale, Big Data devine în același timp o amenințare și o oportunitate în ceea ce privește gestionarea și utilizarea acestor date, menținând în același timp drepturile persoanelor implicate. În fiecare zi, folosim și generăm tone de date, alimentând bazele de date ale agențiilor guvernamentale, companiilor private și chiar cetățenilor privați. Beneficiem în multe feluri de existența și utilizarea Big Data, dar trebuie să ne (...) amintim de asemenea că „nu există nimic gratuit”. Există riscuri în utilizarea Big Data, un fel de parte întunecată. Schimbările de piață pot fi obținute prin utilizarea Big Data: în timp ce acestea pot fi pozitive pentru cineva, ele pot dăuna altcuiva. Riscurile potențiale provin și de la agențiile publice. Este clar că datele mari pot aduce beneficii cetățenilor și companiilor, dar trebuie să fie echilibrate de o conștientizare sporită a „părții întunecate” a Big Data în exploatarea noilor capacități și oportunități pe care le oferă tuturor . -/- CUPRINS -/- 1. Big Data - Definiție - Caracteristici - Clasificarea datelor mari - Arhitectura - Tehnologii - Oportunități - Provocări - Critici - - Criticile paradigmei Big Data - - Criticile modelului "V" - - Criticile de noutate - - Criticile execuției Big Data - 1.1 Viața datelor mari - - Nașterea - - Copilăria - - - Educație - - - Divertisment - - Adolescența - - - Servicii online - - - Comunicații mobile - - - Servicii de streaming - - Adulți tineri - - - Căutarea de locuri de muncă - - - Servicii bancare și asigurări - - - Utilități - - - Dating online și pornografie - - Vârsta medie - - - Servicii de sănătate - - - Aplicații pentru îngrijire și aplicații pentru sănătate și fitness - - - Căutarea de locuri de muncă - - - Dating online - - Bătrânețea - - - Îngrijirea sănătății - - Moartea - 1.2 Aplicații - - Guvern - - Dezvoltare internațională - - Fabrici - - Sănătate - - Educaţie - - Mass-media - - Asigurare - - Internetul obiectelor (IoT) - - Tehnologia informației - 1.3 Studii de caz - - Guvern - - - China - - - India - - - Israel - - - Regatul Unit - - - Statele Unite ale Americii - - Cu amănuntul - - Ştiinţă - - Sport - - Tehnologie - - Activități de cercetare - - - Prelevarea de date mari - 1.4 Agenda europeană privind societatea digitală - - Cadrul juridic - - Peisajul opiniei părților interesate - 1.5 GDPR - - Etapele procesării datelor personale - - Principiile procesării datelor - - Politica de confidențialitate și transparența - - Scopurile procesării datelor - - Confidențialitate prin design și implicită - - - Paradoxul (legal) al Big Data - - Domeniul teritorial al GDPR - - Definirea datelor mari, a datelor personale și a datelor anonime - - Etapele procesării datelor cu caracter personal - - Principii de prelucrare a datelor - - Politica de confidențialitate și Transparența - - Scopuri de prelucrare a datelor - - Confidențialitate prin design și confidențialitate în mod implicit - - Paradoxul (legal) al datelor mari 2. Analiza Big Data - 2.1 Analitica - - Analitica vs. analiză - - Aplicații ale analiticii - - - Optimizarea marketingului - - - Analiza oamenilor - - - Analiza portofoliului - - - Analitica riscurilor - - - Analitica digitală - - - Analitica securității - - - Analitica software-ului - - Provocări - - Riscuri - 2.2 Analitica predictivă - - Definiție - - Procesul de analitica predictivă - - Tipuri - - - Modele predictive - - - Modele descriptive - - - Modele de decizie - - Aplicații - - - Managementul relațiilor cu clienții analitic (CRM) - - - Protecția copilului - - - Sisteme de suport decizional clinic - - - Analiticile colecțiilor - - - Vânzări încrucișate - - - Retenția clienților - - - Marketing direct - - - Detectarea fraudelor - - - Prezicerea rezultatelor deciziilor legale - - - Previziuni privind portofoliul, produsele sau economia - - - Managementul riscului de proiect - - - Acceptanța (Underwriting) - - Tehnologia și influențele big data - - Tehnici analitice - - - Tehnici de regresie - - - - Model de regresie liniară - - - - Modele de alegere discretă - - - - Regresie logistică - - - - Regresie logistică multinomială - - - - Regresie probit - - - - Logit versus probit - - - - Modele pentru serii de timp - - - - Analiza supraviețuirii sau a duratei - - - - Arborele de clasificare și regresie (CART) - - - - Funcții spline adaptive de regresie multivariate - - - Tehnici de învățare automată - - - - Rețele neuronale - - - - Perceptron multistrat (MLP) - - - - Funcții radiale de bază - - - - Mașini cu vectori de suport - - - - Bayesiene naive - - - - Vecinul k-cel mai apropiat - - - - Modelarea predictivă geospațială - - Instrumente - - - PMML - - Critici - 2.3 Analitica prescriptivă - - Istorie - 2.4 Studiul critic al datelor - - Perspective critice - - Abordare: Pragmatismul și etica discursului 3. Etica Big Data - Datele personale ale copiilor - Rolul instituțiilor - - State naționale - - Bănci - Articole relevante de știri despre etica datelor - Legislație relevantă privind etica datelor - 3.1 Principii ale eticii Big Data - - Etica în cercetare - - Conștientizarea - - Consimţământul - - Controlul - - Transparența - - Încrederea - - Proprietatea - - Supravegherea și securitatea - - Identitatea digitală - - Realitatea ajustată - - De-anonimizarea - - Inegalitatea digitală - - Confidențialitatea - - Financiar - - - Cât de mult merită datele? - - Deschidere - 3.2 Probleme etice în cercetare - - Etica cercetării pentru cercetarea socială - - Principalele aspecte etice ale cercetării sociale - - - Intimitate - - - Consimțământ informat - - - De-identificarea - - - Inegalitate – Diviziune digitală - - Integritatea cercetării - - Probleme emergente - - Aviz legal - 3.3 Aspecte filosofice - 3.4 10 reguli de bază în lucrul cu Big Data - - Concluzie Referințe Despre autor - Nicolae Sfetcu - - De același autor - - Contact Editura - MultiMedia Publishing . (shrink)

L’Amérique et le monde sont en train de s’effondrer à cause d’une croissance démographique excessive, la plupart pour le siècle dernier, et maintenant tout cela, en raison des personnes du 3e monde. La consommation de ressources et l’ajout de 4 milliards d’euros supplémentaires vont effondrer la civilisation industrielle et provoquer la famine, la maladie, la violence et la guerre à une échelle stupéfiante. La terre perd au moins 1% de sa terre maximale chaque année, de sorte qu’il approche de 2100, (...) la plupart de sa capacité de culture alimentaire aura disparu. Des milliards vont mourir et la guerre nucléaire est presque certaine. En Amérique, cela est considérablement accéléré par l’immigration massive et la reproduction des immigrants, combinée avec des abus rendus possibles par la démocratie. La nature humaine dépravée transforme inexorablement le rêve de démocratie et de diversité en cauchemar de la criminalité et de la pauvreté. La Chine continuera à submerger l’Amérique et le monde, tant qu’elle maintiendra la dictature qui limite l’égoïsme. La cause profonde de l’effondrement est l’incapacité de notre psychologie innée à s’adapter au monde moderne, ce qui conduit les gens à traiter des personnes sans lien de parenté comme s’ils avaient des intérêts communs. L’idée des droits de l’homme est un fantasme maléfique promu par les gauchistes pour détourner l’attention de la destruction impitoyable de la terre par la maternité du 3e monde sans retenue. Ceci, plus l’ignorance de la biologie de base et de la psychologie, conduit aux illusions d’ingénierie sociale des personnes partiellement instruites qui contrôlent les sociétés démocratiques. Peu de gens comprennent que si vous aidez une personne, vous faites du mal à quelqu’un d’autre, il n’y a pas de déjeuner gratuit et chaque article que quelqu’un consomme détruit la terre au-delà de la réparation. Par conséquent, les politiques sociales partout sont insoutenables et une à une toutes les sociétés sans contrôle strict sur l’égoïsme s’effondreront dans l’anarchie ou la dictature. Les faits les plus élémentaires, presque jamais mentionnés, sont qu’il n’y a pas assez de ressources en Amérique ou dans le monde pour sortir un pourcentage significatif des pauvres de la pauvreté et les y maintenir. La tentative de le faire est la faillite de l’Amérique et de détruire le monde. La capacité de la terre à produire des aliments diminue chaque jour, tout comme notre qualité génétique. Et maintenant, comme toujours, de loin le plus grand ennemi des pauvres est d’autres pauvres et non les riches. Sans changements dramatiques et immédiats, il n’y a aucun espoir pour empêcher l’effondrement de l’Amérique, ou tout autre pays qui suit un système démocratique. (shrink)

All previous solutions to the problem of evil have attempted to resolve the issue by showing that God permits them in order for a greater good. However, some contest that there are some instances in which there is no greater good, while in other cases good and evil have been distributed unjustly. I intend, in this paper, to show that if God compensates the harms of evil in the afterlife, any sort of good is enough to resolve the problem of (...) evil; even if the good is not greater than the evil nor distributed appropriately. To attain this end, I have divided the theory of compensation into a weak and a more effective account. The weak account alleges that the goodness of evils is merely based upon their compensation in the afterlife. I have proposed, in this article, a new, strong account of this theory, which considers both primary goods of evils and afterlife compensation as combined elements that can justify evils. After distinguishing the weak and strong versions of compensation, the idea is explained, and the advantages of the theory are pointed out. Finally, there are two chief objections raised against the validity of this theory, both have been mentioned and answered in this paper. (shrink)

Que diriez-vous d’une autre prise sur les riches et célèbres? Tout d’abord l’évidence - les romans de Harry Potter sont la superstition primitive qui encourage les enfants à croire en la fantaisie plutôt que d’assumer la responsabilité du monde - la norme bien sûr. JKR est tout aussi désemparé sur elle-même et le monde que la plupart des gens, mais environ200 fois plus destructeur que l’Américain moyen et environ 800 fois plus que le Chinois moyen. Elle a été responsable de (...) la destruction de peut-être 30.000 hectares de forêt pour produire ces romans trash et toute l’érosion qui s’ensuit (pas trivial car il est au moins 6 et peut-être 12 tonnes / an de sol dans l’océan pour tout le monde sur terre ou peut-être 100 tonnes par Américain, et donc environ 5000 tonnes par an pour les livres de Rowling et films et ses 3 enfants). La terre perd au moins 1% de sa terre maximale chaque année, de sorte qu’il approche de 2100, la plupart de sa capacité de culture alimentaire aura disparu. Ensuite, il ya l’énorme quantité de carburant brûlé et les déchets faits pour faire et distribuer les livres et les films, poupées en plastique, etc. Elle montre son manque de responsabilité sociale en produisant des enfants plutôt que d’utiliser ses millions pour encourager la planification familiale ou acheter la forêt tropicale, et en promouvant la stupidité libérale conventionnelle de la suprématie du 3e monde qui détruit la Grande-Bretagne, l’Amérique, le monde et l’avenir de son descendant. Bien sûr, elle n’est pas si différente des 7 autres. 8 milliards désemparés - juste plus bruyant et plus destructeur. C’est le problème de déjeuner gratuit bref grand. La foule ne peut tout simplement pas voir qu’il n’y a pas une telle chose comme aider une personne sans nuire à d’autres. Les droits ou privilèges accordés aux nouveaux arrivants dans un monde surpeuplé ne peuvent que s’affaiblir dans ceux des autres. Malgré les catastrophes écologiques massives qui se produisent partout tous les jours, ils ne peuvent pas les épingler à la maternité effrénée de "la diversité", qui explique la majeure partie de l’augmentation de la population du siècle dernier et tout cela dans celui-ci. Ils manquent d’une combinaison d’intelligence, d’éducation, d’expérience et de santé mentale nécessaires pour extrapoler les assauts quotidiens sur les ressources et le fonctionnement de la société à l’effondrement éventuel de la civilisation industrielle. Chaque repas, chaque voyage en voiture ou en bus, chaque paire de chaussures est un autre clou dans le cercueil de la terre. Il n’a probablement jamais traversé son esprit qu’un siège dans un avion de Londres à San Francisco produit environ une tonne de carbone qui fond environ 3 mètres carrés de glace de mer et comme l’un des surprivileged, elle a probablement volé des centaines de ces vols. Non seulement les riches et les célèbres, mais presque n’importe quelle personnalité publique du tout, y compris pratiquement tous les enseignants, sont poussés à être politiquement corrects, ce qui dans les démocraties occidentales, signifie maintenant social-démocrate (néomarxiste, c’est-à-dire communiste dilué) suprémacistes du tiers monde travaillant pour la destruction de leurs propres sociétés et de leurs propres descendants. Ainsi, ceux dont le manque d’éducation, d’expérience, d’intelligence (et de bon sens de base), qui devrait leur interdire de faire des déclarations publiques du tout, domine totalement tous les médias, créant l’impression que l’intelligent et civilisé doit favoriser la démocratie, la diversité et l’égalité, alors que la vérité est que ce sont les problèmes et non les solutions, et qu’ils sont eux-mêmes les principaux ennemis de la civilisation. Voir mon Suicide by Democracy 4th ed (2020). (shrink)

Responding to recent calls made within UK Parliament for a government-backed definition of Islamophobia, this article considers the unanticipated consequences of such proposals. I argue that, considered in the context of related efforts to regulate hate speech, the formulation and implementation of a government-sponsored definition will generate unforeseen harms for the Muslim community. To the extent that such a definition will fail to address the government’s role in propagating Islamophobia through ill-considered legislation that conflates Islamist discourse with hate speech, the (...) concept of a government-backed definition of Islamophobia appears hypocritical and untenable. Alongside opposing government attempts to define Islamophobia (and Islam), I argue that advocacy efforts should instead focus on disambiguating government counter-terrorism initiatives from the government management of controversies within Islam. Instead of repeating the mistakes of the governmental adoption of the IHRA definition of antisemitism by promoting a new definition of Islamophobia, we ought to learn from the errors that were made. We should resist the gratuitous securitization of Muslim communities, rather than use such definitions to normalize compliance with the surveillance state. (shrink)

L’Amérique et le monde sont en train de s’effondrer à cause d’une croissance démographique excessive, la plupart pour le siècle dernier et maintenant tout cela en raison de la 3e population mondiale. La consommation de ressources et l’ajout d’un ou deux milliards de dollars de plus vers 2100 vont effondrer la civilisation industrielle et provoquer la famine, la maladie, la violence et la guerre à une échelle stupéfiante. Des milliards vont mourir et la guerre nucléaire est presque certaine. En Amérique, (...) cela est considérablement accéléré par l’immigration massive et la reproduction des immigrants, combinée avec des abus rendus possibles par la démocratie. La nature humaine dépravée transforme inexorablement le rêve de démocratie et de diversité en cauchemar de la criminalité et de la pauvreté. La cause profonde de l’effondrement est l’incapacité de notre psychologie innée à s’adapter au monde moderne, ce qui conduit les gens à traiter des personnes sans lien de parenté comme s’ils avaient des intérêts communs. Ceci, plus l’ignorance de la biologie de base et de la psychologie, conduit aux illusions d’ingénierie sociale des personnes partiellement instruites qui contrôlent les sociétés démocratiques. Peu de gens comprennent que si vous aidez une personne, vous faites du mal à quelqu’un d’autre, il n’y a pas de déjeuner gratuit et chaque article que quelqu’un consomme détruit la terre au-delà de la réparation. Par conséquent, les politiques sociales partout sont insoutenables et une à une toutes les sociétés sans contrôle strict sur l’égoïsme s’effondreront dans l’anarchie ou la dictature. Sans changements dramatiques et immédiats, il n’y a aucun espoir pour empêcher l’effondrement de l’Amérique, ou tout autre pays qui suit un système démocratique. D’où mon essai "Suicide by Democracy". Il est également maintenant clair que les sept sociopathes qui gouvernent la Chine gagnent la guerre mondiale 3, et donc mon essai final sur eux. La seule plus grande menace est l’intelligence artificielle que je commente brièvement. La clé de tout ce qui nous concerne est la biologie, et c’est l’oubli qui conduit des millions de personnes instruites intelligentes comme Obama, Chomsky, Clinton, le Parti démocrate et le pape à épouser des idéaux utopiques suicidaires suicidaires qui mènent inexorablement directement à l’enfer sur Terre. Comme W l’a fait remarquer, c’est ce qui est toujours sous nos yeux qui est le plus difficile à voir. Nous vivons dans le monde du système linguistique délibératif conscient 2, mais c’est inconscient, système réflexif automatique 1 qui règne. C’est la source de la cécité universelle décrite par L’illusion phénoménologique (TPI) de Searle, Blank Slate de Pinker et Tooby et le modèle standard de science sociale de Cosmides. Le premier groupe d’articles tente de donner un aperçu de la façon dont nous nous comportons qui est raisonnablement exempt d’illusions théoriques. Dans les trois groupes suivants, je commente trois des principales illusions empêchant un monde durable : la technologie, la religion et la politique (groupes coopératifs). Les gens croient que la société peut être sauvée par eux, donc je fournis quelques suggestions dans le reste du livre quant à pourquoi cela est peu probable par le biais de courts articles et des critiques de livres récents par des écrivains bien connus. Un autre section decrit l’illusion religieuse - qu’il ya un certain super pouvoir qui nous sauvera. La section suivante décrit les délires numériques, qui confondent les jeux linguistiques du système 2 avec les automatismes du système un, et ne peut donc pas distinguer les machines biologiques (c’est-à-dire les gens) d’autres types de machines (c.-à-d. les ordinateurs). D’autres illusions numériques sont que nous serons sauvés du mal pur (égoïsme) du système 1 par les ordinateurs /AI/robotique/nanotech/génie génétique créé par le système 2. Le directeur du no Free Lunch nous dit qu’il y aura des conséquences graves et peut-être fatales. La dernière section décrit The One Big Happy Family Delusion, c’est-à-dire que nous sommes sélectionnés pour la coopération avec tout le monde, et que les idéaux euphonieux de la démocratie, de la diversité et de l’égalité nous mèneront à l’utopie, si nous gérons les choses correctement (la possibilité de la politique). Encore une fois, le principe du non-déjeuner libre devrait nous avertir qu’il ne peut pas être vrai, et nous voyons à travers l’histoireet partout dans le monde contemporain, que sans contrôles stricts, l’égoïsme et la stupidité prennent le dessus et détruisent bientôt toute nation qui embrasse ces illusions. En outre, l’esprit singe écarte fortement l’avenir, et nous coopérons donc à la vente du patrimoine de notre descendant pour des conforts temporaires, exacerbant considérablement les problèmes. (shrink)

L'Amérique et le monde sont en train de s'effondrer à cause d'une croissance démographique excessive, la plupart du temps depuis un siècle, et maintenant tout cela, en raison de la population du tiers monde. La consommation des ressources et l'ajout de 3 milliards de plus vers 2100 s'effondreront la civilisation industrielle et provoqueront la famine, la maladie, la violence et la guerre à une échelle stupéfiante. La terre perd au moins 1% de sa terre arable chaque année, de sorte qu'il (...) s'approche de 2100, la plupart de sa capacité de croissance alimentaire aura disparu. Des milliards mourront et la guerre nucléaire est presque certaine. En Amérique, cela est considérablement accéléré par l'immigration massive et la reproduction des immigrants, combinée avec des abus rendus possibles par la démocratie. La nature humaine dépravée transforme inexorablement le rêve de démocratie et de diversité en cauchemar de la criminalité et de la pauvreté. La Chine continuera à submerger l'Amérique et le monde, tant qu'elle maintiendra la dictature qui limite l'égoïsme. La cause profonde de l'effondrement est l'incapacité de notre psychologie innée à s'adapter au monde moderne, ce qui conduit les gens à traiter les personnes sans lien de parenté comme si elles avaient des intérêts communs. L'idée des droits de l'homme est un fantasme maléfique promu par les gauchistes pour détourner l'attention de la destruction impitoyable de la terre par la maternité du 3e monde sans retenue. Ceci, plus l'ignorance de la biologie et de la psychologie de base, mène aux illusions d'ingénierie sociale des partiellement instruits qui contrôlent des sociétés démocratiques. Peu de gens comprennent que si vous aidez une personne, vous faites du mal à quelqu'un d'autre— il n'y a pas de repas gratuit et chaque article que quelqu'un consomme détruit la terre irréparable. Par conséquent, les politiques sociales partout sont insoutenables et une par une toutes les sociétés sans contrôles stricts sur l'égoïsme s'effondreront dans l'anarchie ou la dictature. Les faits les plus fondamentaux, presque jamais mentionnés, sont qu'il n'y a pas assez de ressources en Amérique ou dans le monde pour sortir un pourcentage important des pauvres de la pauvreté et les y maintenir. La tentative de faire cela est la faillite de l'Amérique et de détruire le monde. La capacité de la terre à produire des aliments diminue chaque jour, tout comme notre qualité génétique. Et maintenant, comme toujours, de loin le plus grand ennemi des pauvres est d'autres pauvres et non les riches. Sans changements dramatiques et immédiats, il n'y a aucun espoir pour empêcher l'effondrement de l'Amérique, ou tout pays qui suit un système démocratique. (shrink)