Artificial intelligence (AI) and robotics are digital technologies that will have significant impact on the development of humanity in the near future. They have raised fundamental questions about what we should do with these systems, what the systems themselves should do, what risks they involve, and how we can control these. - After the Introduction to the field (§1), the main themes (§2) of this article are: Ethical issues that arise with AI systems as objects, i.e., tools made and used (...) by humans. This includes issues of privacy (§2.1) and manipulation (§2.2), opacity (§2.3) and bias (§2.4), human-robot interaction (§2.5), employment (§2.6), and the effects of autonomy (§2.7). Then AI systems as subjects, i.e., ethics for the AI systems themselves in machine ethics (§2.8) and artificial moral agency (§2.9). Finally, the problem of a possible future AI superintelligence leading to a “singularity” (§2.10). We close with a remark on the vision of AI (§3). - For each section within these themes, we provide a general explanation of the ethical issues, outline existing positions and arguments, then analyse how these play out with current technologies and finally, what policy consequences may be drawn. (shrink)

Some authors have recently suggested that it is time to consider rights for robots. These suggestions are based on the claim that the question of robot rights should not depend on a standard set of conditions for ‘moral status’; but instead, the question is to be framed in a new way, by rejecting the is/ought distinction, making a relational turn, or assuming a methodological behaviourism. We try to clarify these suggestions and to show their highly problematic consequences. While we find (...) the suggestions ultimately unmotivated, the discussion shows that our epistemic condition with respect to the moral status of others does raise problems, and that the human tendency to empathise with things that do not have moral status should be taken seriously—we suggest that it produces a “derived moral status”. Finally, it turns out that there is typically no individual in real AI that could even be said to be the bearer of moral status. Overall, there is no reason to think that robot rights are an issue now. (shrink)

The standard argument to the conclusion that artificial intelligence (AI) constitutes an existential risk for the human species uses two premises: (1) AI may reach superintelligent levels, at which point we humans lose control (the ‘singularity claim’); (2) Any level of intelligence can go along with any goal (the ‘orthogonality thesis’). We find that the singularity claim requires a notion of ‘general intelligence’, while the orthogonality thesis requires a notion of ‘instrumental intelligence’. If this interpretation is correct, they cannot be (...) joined as premises and the argument for the existential risk of AI turns out invalid. If the interpretation is incorrect and both premises use the same notion of intelligence, then at least one of the premises is false and the orthogonality thesis remains itself orthogonal to the argument to existential risk from AI. In either case, the standard argument for existential risk from AI is not sound.—Having said that, there remains a risk of instrumental AI to cause very significant damage if designed or used badly, though this is not due to superintelligence or a singularity. (shrink)

Quine's early arguments in favor of "Ontological Relativity" depend on wild but interesting alternatives to standard ontology,most apparent when viewing his unusual idea of undetached object parts. In Quine's later philosophy, by contrast, he invokes trivial proxy functions and simple permutations to standard ontology, and in so doing paves the way for his claim of "Inscrutability of Reference". Nevertheless, Quine's more recent alternatives to standard ontology have thus far remained uninteresting for ontological questions, as his later arguments fail to offer (...) any real alternative to our standard identity relation. For this reason, I have chosen to return to Quine's original idea of "Ontological Relativity" and put it to the test. In my investigation, development and subsequent defense of Quine's original presentation, I attempt to show that it is in fact possible to read Quine's ontology of undetached object parts into a large sphere of our language. (shrink)

A prominent version of emotional cognitivism is the view that emotions are preceded by awareness of value. In a recent paper, Jonathan Mitchell (2019) has attacked this view (which he calls the content-priority view). According to him, extant suggestions for the relevant type of pre-emotional evaluative awareness are all problematic. Unless these problems can be overcome, he argues, the view does not represent a plausible competitor to rivaling cognitivist views. As Mitchell supposes, the view is not mandatory since its core (...) motivations can be accommodated by competing views, too. I argue that Mitchell's case against the content-priority view is unconvincing as it misconceives the principal motivation for the view. As I show, properly reconstructed, this motivation provides a strong case for the indispensability of the view to any adequate cognitivist treatment of emotion. Moreover, Mitchell's survey of candidates for pre-emotional value awareness can be seen to rest on problematic phenomenological assumptions. (shrink)

In this paper, I argue that the widely held view that Aristotle's vicious agent is a principled follower of a wrong conception of the good whose soul, just like the soul of the virtuous agent, is marked by harmony between his reason and non-rational desires is an exegetical mistake. Rather, Aristotle holds – consistently and throughout the Nicomachean Ethics – that the vicious agent lacks any real principles of action and that his soul lacks unity and harmony even more than (...) the soul of the uncontrolled agent. (shrink)

I argue that on Aristotle’s account practical thinking is thinking whose origin (archē) is a desire that has as its object the very thing that one reasons about how to promote. This feature distinguishes practical from productive reasoning since in the latter the desire that initiates it is not (unless incidentally) a desire for the object that one productively reasons about. The feature has several interesting consequences: (a) there is only a contingent relationship between the desire that one practically reasons (...) about how to satisfy and the action one decides on; (b) practical thinking and action cannot be separated from the agent, whereas productive thinking and production can be outsourced to someone else. The view has consequences also for the distinction between action and production. Finally, I illustrate the usefulness and correctness of my account of practical thinking by using it to shed new light on Aristotle’s claim that the virtuous agent must decide on her virtuous actions ‘for themselves’. (shrink)

Animal ethics has often been criticized for an overreliance on “ideal” or even “utopian” theorizing. In this article, I recognize this problem, but argue that the “nonideal theory” which critics have offered in response is still insufficient to make animal ethics action-guiding. I argue that in order for animal ethics to be action-guiding, it must consider agent-centered theories of change detailing how an ideally just human-animal coexistence can and should be brought about. I lay out desiderata that such a theory (...) of change should suffice so as to be helpful in guiding action. Specifically, a theory of change should determine (1) who needs to do what in order for ideal justice to be achieved in the long run, (2) who should be expected to refuse compliance and how they should be moved to comply, and (3) why specific intermediate steps are necessary. I show how previous “nonideal” contributions, though helpful in other ways, are insufficiently determinate on these points and I sketch a (still somewhat utopian) theory of change for one specific context. This brings animal ethics a crucial step closer to being action-guiding in the real world. (shrink)

The paper presents a paradoxical feature of computational systems that suggests that computationalism cannot explain symbol grounding. If the mind is a digital computer, as computationalism claims, then it can be computing either over meaningful symbols or over meaningless symbols. If it is computing over meaningful symbols its functioning presupposes the existence of meaningful symbols in the system, i.e. it implies semantic nativism. If the mind is computing over meaningless symbols, no intentional cognitive processes are available prior to symbol grounding. (...) In this case, no symbol grounding could take place since any grounding presupposes intentional cognitive processes. So, whether computing in the mind is over meaningless or over meaningful symbols, computationalism implies semantic nativism. (shrink)

It is popular to hold that emotions are evaluative. On the standard account, the evaluative character of emotion is understood in epistemic terms: emotions apprehend or make us aware of value properties. As this account is commonly elaborated, emotions are experiences with evaluative intentional content. In this paper, I am concerned with a recent alternative proposal on how emotions afford awareness of value. This proposal does not ascribe evaluative content to emotions, but instead conceives of them as evaluative at the (...) level of intentional mode or attitude. I first argue that this proposal fails to make emotions intelligible as value apprehensions. There are reasons to suppose that emotions do not apprehend value to begin with, but are related to values in a different, non-epistemic sense. I then go on to show that the notion of an evaluative intentional mode can still help elucidate the evaluative character of emotion. I argue that there is a plausible non-epistemic understanding of the view that emotions are evaluative modes. On this account, emotions are not ways of apprehending values, but ways of acknowledging values. (shrink)

This open access book revises Kant’s ethical thought in one of its most notorious respects: its exclusion of animals from moral consideration. The book gives readers in animal ethics an accessible introduction to Kant’s views on our duties to others, and his view that we have only ‘indirect’ duties regarding animals. It then investigates how one would have to depart from Kant in order to recognise that animals matter morally for their own sake. Particular attention is paid to Kant’s ‘Formula (...) of Humanity,' the role of autonomy and the moral law, as well as Kant’s notions of practical reason and animal instinct. The result is a deliberately amended version of Kantianism which nevertheless remains faithful to central aspects of Kant’s thought. The book’s final part illustrates the framework’s use in applied contexts, addressing the issues of using animals as mere means, the ethics of veganism and vegetarianism, and environmental protection. Nico Dario Müller shows how, when furnished with duties to animals, Kant's moral philosophy can be a powerful resource for animal ethicists. (shrink)

This paper investigates the prospects of Rodney Brooks’ proposal for AI without representation. It turns out that the supposedly characteristic features of “new AI” (embodiment, situatedness, absence of reasoning, and absence of representation) are all present in conventional systems: “New AI” is just like old AI. Brooks proposal boils down to the architectural rejection of central control in intelligent agents—Which, however, turns out to be crucial. Some of more recent cognitive science suggests that we might do well to dispose of (...) the image of intelligent agents as central representation processors. If this paradigm shift is achieved, Brooks’ proposal for cognition without representation appears promising for full-blown intelligent agents—Though not for conscious agents. (shrink)

This paper presents the main topics, arguments, and positions in the philosophy of AI at present (excluding ethics). Apart from the basic concepts of intelligence and computation, the main topics of ar-tificial cognition are perception, action, meaning, rational choice, free will, consciousness, and normativity. Through a better understanding of these topics, the philosophy of AI contributes to our understand-ing of the nature, prospects, and value of AI. Furthermore, these topics can be understood more deeply through the discussion of AI; so (...) we suggest that “AI Philosophy” provides a new method for philosophy. (shrink)

There is, in some quarters, concern about high–level machine intelligence and superintelligent AI coming up in a few decades, bringing with it significant risks for humanity. In other quarters, these issues are ignored or considered science fiction. We wanted to clarify what the distribution of opinions actually is, what probability the best experts currently assign to high–level machine intelligence coming up within a particular time–frame, which risks they see with that development, and how fast they see these developing. We thus (...) designed a brief questionnaire and distributed it to four groups of experts in 2012/2013. The median estimate of respondents was for a one in two chance that high-level machine intelligence will be developed around 2040-2050, rising to a nine in ten chance by 2075. Experts expect that systems will move on to superintelligence in less than 30 years thereafter. They estimate the chance is about one in three that this development turns out to be ‘bad’ or ‘extremely bad’ for humanity. (shrink)

The contribution of the body to cognition and control in natural and artificial agents is increasingly described as “off-loading computation from the brain to the body”, where the body is said to perform “morphological computation”. Our investigation of four characteristic cases of morphological computation in animals and robots shows that the ‘off-loading’ perspective is misleading. Actually, the contribution of body morphology to cognition and control is rarely computational, in any useful sense of the word. We thus distinguish (1) morphology that (...) facilitates control, (2) morphology that facilitates perception and the rare cases of (3) morphological computation proper, such as ‘reservoir computing.’ where the body is actually used for computation. This result contributes to the understanding of the relation between embodiment and computation: The question for robot design and cognitive science is not whether computation is offloaded to the body, but to what extent the body facilitates cognition and control – how it contributes to the overall ‘orchestration’ of intelligent behaviour. (shrink)

Cumulative cultural knowledge [CCK], the knowledge we acquire via social learning and has been refined by previous generations, is of central importance to our species’ flourishing. Considering its importance, we should expect that our best epistemological theories can account for how this happens. Perhaps surprisingly, CCK and how we acquire it via cultural learning has only received little attention from social epistemologists. Here, I focus on how we should epistemically evaluate how agents acquire CCK. After sampling some reasons why extant (...) theories cannot account for CCK, I suggest that things aren’t as bleak as they might look. I explain how agents deserve epistemic credit for how CCK is transmitted in cultural learning by promoting a central need of their social group: The efficient and safe transmission of CCK. A good initial fit exists between this observation and Greco’s knowledge-economy framework. Ultimately, however, Greco’s account doesn’t straightforwardly account for CCK because of its strict focus on testimony. I point out two issues in the framework due to this focus. The resulting view advocates giving epistemic credit to agents when they act to promote their communities’ epistemic needs in the right way and highlights the various ways in which agents come to do this. (shrink)

A shared narrative in the literature on the evolution of cooperation maintains that social _learning_ evolves early to allow for the transmission of cumulative culture. Social _norms_, whilst present at the outset, only rise to prominence later on, mainly to stabilise cooperation against the threat of defection. In contrast, I argue that once we consider insights from social epistemology, an expansion of this narrative presents itself: An interesting kind of social norm — an epistemic coordination norm — was operative in (...) early and important instances of specialised social learning. I show how there’s a need for such norms in two key social learning strategies and explain how this need is constituted. In assessor-teaching (e.g. Castro et al., 2019b, 2021), epistemic coordination norms allow agents to coordinate around the _content_ of social learning, i.e., what is to be known and how this is to be done. These norms also allow agents to coordinate around the form of cultural learning in what’s sometimes called strategic social learning (Laland, 2004; Hoppitt & Laland, 2013; Heyes, 2018, Chap. 5) and elsewhere. Broadly speaking, this concerns how cultural learning is organised within the social group. The upshot is that the evolution of social learning and social norms are intertwined in important and underappreciated ways from early on. The above matters as it informs our views about the evolution of social norms more generally. Truly _social_ norms emerged to coordinate a plurality of complex behaviours and interactions, amongst them specialised social learning. I substantiate this view by contrasting it with Jonathan Birch’s views on the evolution of norms. What results is a general but cohesive narrative on the early evolution of social norms. (shrink)

Dieser Forschungsbericht gibt einen Überblick über die aktuelle Debatte über motivierende Gründe in der Handlungs- und Erkenntnistheorie. Folgende drei Fragen werden schwerpunktmäßig behandelt: a) Was für eine Art von Entität sind motivierende Gründe? b) Welche Beziehung besteht zwischen einer Handlung oder Einstellung und ihren motivierenden Gründen? c) Welche kognitiven Bedingungen gelten für die Zuschreibung motivierender Gründe?

Neuroscience is a fascinating discipline – its dynamic progress has led to the emergence of new interdisciplinary research programmes with great potential. One of these research areas is neuroeconomics. As will be shown in this article, this discipline, which is difficult to clearly characterize and define, is faced with many problems. This paper argues that social scientists should be interested in the problems and tendencies in social neuroscience for several reasons. Neuroeconomics, and other disciplines inspired by neuroscience, will compete with (...) their parent disciplines in many fields of interest. On one hand it will be necessary for scientists to define and defend the irreplaceable roles of their disciplines, but also critically evaluate the potential of new approaches on the other. In the context of this discussion, which reopens questions about the scientific status of economics and its roles, this paper introduces the main problems related to neuroeconomics. This paper concludes that these problems represent a wide domain for social scientists and methodologists of science. (shrink)

Digital ethics, also known as computer ethics or information ethics, is now a lively field that draws a lot of attention, but how did it come about and what were the developments that lead to its existence? What are the traditions, the concerns, the technological and social developments that pushed digital ethics? How did ethical issues change with digitalisation of human life? How did the traditional discipline of philosophy respond? The article provides an overview, proposing historical epochs: ‘pre-modernity’ prior to (...) digital computation over data, via the ‘modernity’ of digital data processing to our present ‘post-modernity’ when not only the data is digital, but our lives themselves are largely digital. In each section, the situation in technology and society is sketched, and then the developments in digital ethics are explained. Finally, a brief outlook is provided. (shrink)

While the consequences of mathematically-based software, algorithms and strategies have become ever wider and better appreciated, ethical reflection on mathematics has remained primitive. We review the somewhat disconnected suggestions of commentators in recent decades with a view to piecing together a coherent approach to ethics in mathematics. Calls for a Hippocratic Oath for mathematicians are examined and it is concluded that while lessons can be learned from the medical profession, the relation of mathematicians to those affected by their work is (...) significantly different. There is something to be learned also from the codes of conduct of cognate but professionalised quantitative disciplines such as engineering and accountancy, as well as from legal principles bearing on professional work. We conclude with recommendations that professional societies in mathematics should sponsor an (international) code of ethics, institutional mission statements for mathematicians and syllabuses of ethics courses for incorporation into mathematics degrees. (shrink)

"Data mining is not an invasion of privacy because access to data is only by machines, not by people": this is the argument that is investigated here. The current importance of this problem is developed in a case study of data mining in the USA for counterterrorism and other surveillance purposes. After a clarification of the relevant nature of privacy, it is argued that access by machines cannot warrant the access to further information, since the analysis will have to be (...) made either by humans or by machines that understand. It concludes that the current data mining violates the right to privacy and should be subject to the standard legal constraints for access to private information by people. (shrink)

Wie müsste eine faire Lösung des Klimaproblems aussehen? Wie sollten wir Pflichten und finanzielle Lasten der nötigen CO2-Reduktionen verteilen, wenn es dabei gerecht zugehen soll und keiner übervorteilt werden darf? In meiner Antwort auf diese ethischen Fragen stütze ich mich auf einen Grundsatz, den Angela Merkel formuliert hat: Jeder Mensch hat das Recht, genauso viel CO2-Emissionen zu verursachen wie jeder andere. Anders als die Bundeskanzlerin, die den Grundsatz nur langfristig in die Tat umsetzen will, plädiere ich dafür, dass die Gleichberechtigung (...) aller in Sachen CO2-Ausstoß schon unter dem Nachfolge-Regime des Kyoto-Vertrags gelten soll. In einem ersten Schritt soll die Steigerung der weltweiten CO2-Emissionen angehalten werden. Um das auf gerechte Weise zu bewerkstelligen, werden in feiner Stückelung Rechte zum CO2-Ausstoß (die sog. Mikro-Zertifikate) ausgegeben, und zwar zunächst für genau so viel CO2, wie die Menschheit zur Zeit insgesamt pro Jahr in die Luft bläst. Wer CO2 emittieren will, gleichgültig wo, wie und wozu, darf das nur gegen Entwertung einer entsprechenden Anzahl an Mikro-Zertifikaten, sonst macht er sich strafbar. Die Mikro-Zertifikate werden auf einer weltweiten Börse gehandelt; ihr Preis ergibt sich aus Angebot und Nachfrage. Mein Vorschlag unterscheidet sich in zweierlei Hinsicht von den Versteigerungen der CO2-Zertifikate, wie sie bislang konzipiert und organisiert worden sind. Einerseits sollen am Ende alle Emissionen klimaschädlicher Gase in den Handel mit Mikro-Zertifikaten einbezogen werden. Andererseits wird das Geld, das durch die Versteigerung der Mikro-Zertifikate zusammenkommt, in regelmäßigen Abständen und ohne Abzüge an jeden einzelnen Menschen ausgezahlt. Das ist einfach, fair und transparent. In einem zweiten Schritt sind die weltweiten CO2-Emissionen drastisch zu verringern: Nach einer siebenjährigen Verschnaufpause (in der sich Produzenten und Verbraucher auf die erforderlichen Anpassungen vorbereiten können) beginnen die sieben dürren Jahre der CO2-Politik: Jahr für Jahr werden 10% weniger Mikro-Zertifikate ausgegeben. Am Ende dieser Durststrecke haben sich die weltweiten CO2-Emissionen halbiert, und die Klima-Investitionen sind dahin geflossen, wo sie dem Klima am stärksten nutzen und wo das am wenigsten Kapital verschlingt. (shrink)

According to a well-known view in the philosophy of mind, intentional attitudes by their very nature satisfy requirements of rationality (e.g. Davidson 1980; Dennett 1987; Millar 2004). This view (which I shall call Constitutivism) features prominently as the ‘principle of minimal rationality’ in de Sousa’s monograph The Rationality of Emotion (1987). By explicating this principle in terms of the notion of the formal object of an attitude, de Sousa articulates an interesting and original version of Constitutivism, which differs in important (...) respects from other extant versions. In this paper, I explore this version of Constitutivism against the background of recent developments in the theory of rationality and make explicit its ramifications for the long-standing dispute over whether the mind is essentially normative. My focus will be on how to conceive of the form of the rationality requirements that attitudes as such must satisfy according to this principle. I argue that, although de Sousa seems officially to endorse a structuralist conception of rationality, according to which these requirements are requirements of coherence, his considerations on formal objects suggest that they are more aptly conceived in terms of a reasons-responsive conception of rationality. I further argue that which of these two readings we choose makes a significant difference to the prospect of vindicating the essential normativity of mind by invoking the principle of minimal rationality. (shrink)

In its reaction on the terroristic attacks of September 9th, 2001, the US-government threatened Afghanistan's Taleban with war in order to force them to extradite terrorist leader Bin Laden; the Taleban said that they would not surrender to this kind of blackmail – and so, they were removed from Kabul by means of military force. The rivalling versions of this story depend crucially on notions such as "terrorism" and "blackmail". Obviously you'll gain public support for your preferrend version of the (...) story if you are able to determine how those notions are to be used. So we had better reflect about their very meaning and about the moral implications of their proper usage. To gain a deeper understanding of our notions of "blackmail" and "terrorism" I shall propose an extreme thought experiment: Cassandra's plan. Cassandra foresees that sooner or later one of the nuclear powers might take the liberty to use atomic bombs. From fright she founds an NGO for blackmailing the statesmen who are in charge of nuclear weapons; she announces in public that all ministers and leaders of any government shall be hunted down, and executed, whose soldiers drop but one atomic bomb. (Cassandra's NGO keeps killer teams in constant training so as to increase the effect of the threat; this is being financiated from private donations). In my paper I shall raise two questions (without claiming to provide definite answers). First, would we have to say that Cassandra's NGO was a terrorist organisation? Second, would it be morally wrong if Cassandra blackmailed statesmen in the way indicated? (shrink)

The paper addresses the following question: why do human beings, on Aristotle’s view, have an innate tendency to badness, that is, to developing desires that go beyond, and often against, their natural needs? Given Aristotle’s teleological assumptions (including the thesis that nature does nothing in vain), such tendency should not be present. I argue that the culprit is to be found in the workings of rationality. In particular, it is the presence of theoretical reason that necessitates the limitless nature of (...) human non-rational desires. (shrink)

Moritz Schlicks Plädoyer für ein empirisches Fundament unserer Erkenntnis enthält weder reduktionistische noch phänomenalistische Extrempositionen. Seine Beispiele für Fundamentalsätze haben allesamt die Form: Hier jetzt so und so; aber nicht alle diese Sätze sind Fundamentalsätze. Was muss man für die letzten drei Wörter dieses Schemas einsetzen, um wirklich beim Fundament anzukommen? Ich schlage vor, die Frage durch Rückgriff auf das interpretationstheoretische Prinzip des Wohlwollens zu beantworten. Demzufolge sind diejenigen Sätze (der Form Hier jetzt so und so) Fundamentalsätze, über die kein (...) inhaltlicher Streit aufkommen kann; wer bei solchen Sätzen – unter denselben Umständen – zu einem anderen Urteil kommt als wir, der bezeugt dadurch keine Meinungsverschiedenheit in der Sache, sondern nur einen anderen Gebrauch sprachlicher Ausdrücke. Bei welchen Ausdrücken funktioniert dieses Kriterium besonders gut? Einerseits bei Ausdrücken, die mit Gesichtsfeldern zu tun haben; noch besser bei Ausdrücken aus dem eindeutig phänomenalistischen Bereich unserer Sprache. (shrink)

Sprachliche Ausdrücke, mit deren Hilfe wir Spiele beschreiben und vorantreiben, sind in ihrer Verwendungsweise so vielfältig wie kaum irgendwelche anderen Ausdrücke. Und sie haben eine Eigenschaft, die man mit dem Thema Spiel eher nicht in Verbindung bringen würde: Sie eignen sich dazu, auf substantive Weise Metaphysik zu treiben oder wieder ingangzubringen. Diese Art der Starthilfe hat die jahrtausendealte Metaphysik (metaphysica specialis) neuerdings nötig. Seit knapp hundert Jahren steht sie im Verdacht, auf nichts besseres hinauszulaufen als leeres, unverständliches Wortgeklingel. Wer diesen (...) sprachphilosophischen Verdacht auszuräumen wünscht, tut gut daran, unverdächtige Redebereiche zu bemühen. In der Tat, mithilfe unserer höchst robusten, völlig alltäglichen Rede vom Spielen und beim Spielen können wir tiefe metaphysische Möglichkeiten verständlich machen, etwa die Möglichkeit einer Wirklichkeit jenseits oder oberhalb des Bereichs derjenigen Wirklichkeit, die wir Natur oder physisches Universum nennen. Dazu betrachte ich ein philosophisches Gedankenspiel (das den Matrix-Filmen zugrundeliegt und all unsere Wissensansprüche zu unterminieren scheint): Wir sind Gehirne im Tank, d.h. wir haben keinen vollständigen menschlichen Körper, sondern nur ein Gehirn, das in einem Tank mit Nährflüssigkeit schwebt; die Nerven-Enden dieser Gehirne sind mit einem Supercomputer verbunden, der uns die Illusion verschafft, dass alles in Ordnung sei. Hiergegen hat Hilary Putnam folgende sprachphilosophische Schwierigkeit aufgeworfen: Wie soll ein Gehirn im Tank seine eigene Situation treffend auf den Punkt bringen, wenn doch seine Ausdrücke "Tiger", "Gehirn", "Tank" usw. allesamt nicht mit echten Tigern, Gehirnen usw. verknüpft sind, sondern mit Nullen und Einsen im Computer? Putnam trieb diese Schwierigkeit bis an den Punkt, an dem sich zweifelsfrei beweisen lässt, dass wir keine Gehirne im Tank sein können. Und da hatte er meiner Ansicht nach recht. Wie ich meine, sollten wir uns nicht darüber den Kopf zerbrechen, ob wir ein Gehirn im Tank sind, sondern darüber, ob wir in einer analogen Situation stecken, um eine Ebene nach oben verschoben. Um die Metaphern dieser Formulierung des Problems auszupacken, setze ich Spielvokabeln ein. Wegen ihrer atemberaubenden Flexibilität brauchen sie (im Unterschied zur naturwissenschaftlichen Sprache) bei Übersetzung aus der Tanksprache in unsere Sprache nicht verändert zu werden; solche Ausdrücke heißen semantisch stabil. Mit ihrer Hilfe können wir gravierende metaphysische Möglichkeiten aufwerfen, z.B.: "Jemand, der nicht aus Materie besteht und nicht in meinem physischen Universum vorkommt, treibt mit mir von außerhalb seine Machtspielchen". Damit beziehen wir uns vielleicht auf die außerirdische Programmiererin der Simulation, in der wir möglicherweise doch stecken. Weniger respektlos formuliert, wäre das die Frage eines allmächtigen Schöpfergottes außerhalb unserer physikalischen Raumzeit: Metaphysik pur. (shrink)

Was sollen wir von einem seelischen Leben außerhalb der Natur halten? In seinem Kommentar zu meiner metaphysischen Provokation „Jenseits" legt Thomas Sukopp nahe, dass jede Evidenz gegen jene Möglichkeit spreche. Ich sehe das anders; weder spricht irgendwelche apriorische Evidenz gegen ein seeli­sches Leben außerhalb unserer Körper, noch spricht empirische Evidenz dagegen. Nicht einmal Wahrscheinlichkeiten können wir gegen das Jenseits ins Feld führen, denn Wahrscheinlichkeitsbehauptungen beruhen auf Naturbeobachtung- und der Streit dreht sich um etwas außerhalb der Natur. Genauso wenig helfen Kriterien (...) wie Einfachheit oder Sparsamkeit. Unsere Erkenntnismittel reichen nicht hin, um zu einem Ergebnis oder auch nur zu einer begründeten Hypothese über Unsterblich­keit zu gelangen. Unsterblichkeit ist eine Frage der Hoffnung, keine Frage ratio­naler Erkenntnis. (shrink)

Goethe und Schelling begannen ihre Zusammenarbeit mit intensiven optischen Experimenten. Schelling lernte von Goethe, dass sich viele Farbphänomene bipolar anordnen lassen und dass eine optische Symmetrie bzw. Dualität zwischen weißem Licht und schwarzem Schatten besteht. Goethe lernte von Schelling, dass man das Prinzip der Bipolarität als forschungsleitende Idee verstehen kann (als eine regulative Idee in Kants Sinn). In der optischen Forschung kommt man mit dieser Idee wesentlich weiter, als gemeinhin angenommen wird; ihr Potential ist bis heute nicht ausgeschöpft. Sie ist (...) u.a. deshalb in der Versenkung verschwunden, weil ihre Verfechter mit ihr unseriös über die Stränge schlugen – außerhalb der Optik. Wenn sich das hätte vermeiden lassen, wäre Goethes Farbenlehre von Physikern möglicherweise weniger feindselig aufgenommen worden. Pech für Goethe. (shrink)

Nur weil Goethes letzter Brief an den Aufklärer und versierten Experimentalphysiker Lichtenberg nicht mehr beantwortet worden ist, sind viele Interpreten zu dem Ergebnis gelangt, dass Lichtenberg den Briefwechsel aus Unwillen über Goethes unbelehrbare Newton-Kritik abgebrochen hätte; Goethe selbst hat diese Interpretation nahegelegt. Doch bei gründlicher Neulektüre ergibt sich ein optimistischeres Bild. Goethe stand damals am Anfang seiner Farbenforschung, äußerte sich zu Newton weit weniger polemisch als später, gegenüber Lichtenberg aber voller Respekt – und zeigte sich offen für Kritik. In einem (...) seiner fünf Briefe reagierte Lichtenberg mit der erwünschten Kritik, und zwar so, wie sie unter Fachwissenschaftlern idealerweise aussehen sollte: voller Schwung, hinreichend skeptisch und doch konstruktiv. Goethe hat Lichtenbergs Kritik beherzigt, aufgegriffen, weitergedacht. Umgekehrt ließ sich Lichtenberg vom Briefpartner wissenschaftlich anregen; in der Tat bot Goethe ihm mit großer Sorgfalt eine Reihe von Anregungen, die gut zu Lichtenbergs Arbeit passten. Ja, Goethe ist möglicherweise zu anregend für ihn gewesen. Jedenfalls hat Lichtenberg es trotz gut dokumentierter Anzeichen von Begeisterung für Goethes gewagtes Projekt nicht vermocht, den Gedankenaustausch auf dem hohen Niveau fortzusetzen, das er zunächst geboten hatte. Ob der Briefwechsel am Ende aus gesundheitlichen Gründen, aus Willensschwäche oder einfach nur wegen Überarbeitung versandet ist, lässt sich den Dokumenten nicht entnehmen. Selbst die Hypothese einer wissenschaftlichen Entfremdung bleibt im Reich des Denkbaren. Unwahrscheinlich erscheint sie u.a. deshalb, weil an mindestens zwei Stellen eine Geistesverwandtschaft zwischen den beiden Protagonisten bestanden hat, die Goethe wohl ahnte und die heute angesichts damals unzugänglicher Texte deutlich in den Blick genommen werden kann: Erstens waren beide gleichermaßen von naturwissenschaftlichen Anwendungen des Polaritätsgedankens fasziniert, der seinerzeit viele neue Entdeckungen geliefert hatte und weitere verhieß; zweitens haben sie wichtige Einsichten der Wissenschaftsphilosophie des 20. Jahrhunderts vorweggenommen, etwa die Skepsis gegenüber eindeutig aus der Empirie abzulesenden Theorien und die These von der Theoriebeladenheit der Beobachtung. Goethe hatte Pech, dass diese Gemeinsamkeiten nicht vor Lichtenbergs Tod (und bis heute nicht) ans Tageslicht gekommen sind. Seine Kooperation mit Lichtenberg hätte zum Erfolg führen können; und der fatale Eindruck seiner Unbelehrsamkeit hätte sich vermeiden lassen. (shrink)

Was wissen Sie über Kosovo? Nicht genug. Nicht genug jedenfalls über objektive, wertfrei vorgegebene Fakten, mit deren Hilfe man verantwortungsethische Bewertungen des NATO-Angriffs begründen könnte. Trotzdem halte ich drei wertende Aussagen über den Kosovo-Konflikt für vernünftig. Sie lauten (in alphabetischer Reihenfolge): Der bewaffnete Kampf der Albaner im Kosovo war moralisch falsch. Die Militäreinsätze der Serben im Kosovo waren moralisch falsch (schon vor Beginn der NATO-Bombardements und erst recht danach). Und schliesslich: Die Luftschläge des Westens gegen Serbien waren moralisch falsch. Insbesondere (...) diese letzte Behauptung ist der Zielpunkt des Aufsatzes. Mein Plädoyer für diese Behauptung verläuft auf einem dritten Weg zwischen der gesinnungsethischen Position pazifistischer Rigoristen und der verantwortungsethischen Position ihrer Kontrahenten. Die grundlegende Richtlinie für meine Untersuchung besteht darin, keine Behauptungen als objektiv auszugeben, die in Wirklichkeit auf Wertungen beruhen. Schon beim Blick auf die Vorkriegs- und Kriegsgeschehnisse im Kosovo kommen wir nicht ohne die Hilfe von Werten aus; und ich plädiere dafür, diese Geschehnisse im Lichte einer verzweifelten Menschenliebe anzusehen: Daraus ergibt sich eine neue Form von Pazifismus. (shrink)

By pushing Descartes to more clearly explain the union of body and soul beyond the functioning of a ‘strong’ passion, namely sadness, Elisabeth wants Descartes to review his idea of the passions, and his understanding of the ‘theory of the four humors’. This chapter aims at showing that Descartes turns away from Galen’s theory of the humors, which he globally adopts in the 1633 Treatise of Man. With the shift in his conceptualization of the humors between this Treatise and the (...) Treatise of the Passions (1649), Descartes analyzed more specifically the inner feelings, consciousness, and the passions, by considering that a man is not simply a body, but a psychophysical being, with a body and a soul. (shrink)

While it is often said that robotics should aspire to reproducible and measurable results that allow benchmarking, I argue that a focus on benchmarking can be a hindrance for progress in robotics. The reason is what I call the ‘measure-target confusion’, the confusion between a measure of progress and the target of progress. Progress on a benchmark (the measure) is not identical to scientific or technological progress (the target). In the past, several academic disciplines have been led into pursuing only (...) reproducible and measurable ‘scientific’ results – robotics should be careful to follow that line because results that can be benchmarked must be specific and context-dependent, but robotics targets whole complex systems for a broad variety of contexts. While it is extremely valuable to improve benchmarks to reduce the distance be- tween measure and target, the general problem to measure progress towards more intelligent machines (the target) will not be solved by benchmarks alone; we need a balanced approach with sophisticated benchmarks, plus real-life testing, plus qualitative judgment. (shrink)

Pacifists and their opponents disagree not only about moral questions, but most often about factual questions as well. For example, they came to divergent descriptions of the crisis in Kosovo. According to my reconstruction of pacifism, this is not a surprise because the pacifist, legitimately, looks at the facts in the light of her system of value. Her opponent, in turn, looks at the facts in the light of alternative systems of value, and the quarrel between the two parties about (...) supposedly descriptive matters does not come to an end as there is no objective reality about the war in question that could settle the issue. If I am right, the pacifist's value-laden way of looking at reality can be reconstructed as an obedience to three epistemic imperatives. First, the Epistemic Imperative concerning Human Nature ("Resist against demonizing the other side; always try to understand the case from their point of view"). Second, the Epistemic Imperative concerning Non-Violent Alternatives ("Always search for non-violent alternatives to projected military action"). Third, the Epistemic Imperative concerning Uncontrolled Escalation ("Sharpen your attention for uncontrolled, irreversible side effects of military action, particularly for the danger of escalation to another world war"). Objective reality does not decide how far one should go in following these imperatives. Rather, the decision about this is our's—similarly as in case of the scientist who decides to search for common deep structure behind the chaos of the manifold. So the pacifist's epistemic imperatives can be compared to Kant's regulative principles that are necessary for guiding the scientific scrutiny of reality. (shrink)

Are we perhaps in the "matrix", or anyway, victims of perfect and permanent computer simulation? No. The most convincing—and shortest—version of Putnam's argument against the possibility of our eternal envattment is due to Crispin Wright (1994). It avoids most of the misunderstandings that have been elicited by Putnam's original presentation of the argument in "Reason, Truth and History" (1981). But it is still open to the charge of question-begging. True enough, the premisses of the argument (disquotation and externalism) can be (...) formulated and defended without presupposing external objects whose existence appears doubtful in the light of the very skeptical scenario which Putnam wants to repudiate. However, the argument is only valid if we add an extra premiss as to the existence of some external objects. In order to avoid circularity, we should run the argument with external objects which must exist even if we are brains in a vat, e.g. with computers rather than with trees. As long as the skeptic is engaged in a discussion of the brain-in-a-vat scenario, she should neither deny the existence of computers nor the existence of causal relations; for if she does, she is in fact denying that we are brains in a vat. (shrink)

Will future lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS), or ‘killer robots’, be a threat to humanity? The European Parliament has called for a moratorium or ban of LAWS; the ‘Contracting Parties to the Geneva Convention at the United Nations’ are presently discussing such a ban, which is supported by the great majority of writers and campaigners on the issue. However, the main arguments in favour of a ban are unsound. LAWS do not support extrajudicial killings, they do not take responsibility away (...) from humans; in fact they increase the abil-ity to hold humans accountable for war crimes. Using LAWS in war would probably reduce human suffering overall. Finally, the availability of LAWS would probably not increase the probability of war or other lethal conflict—especially as compared to extant remote-controlled weapons. The widespread fear of killer robots is unfounded: They are probably good news. (shrink)

Militärtechnisch könnte der Westen (und sogar Deutschland alleine) einen Krieg gegen den Islamischen Staat (IS) gewinnen; aber es wäre ein weiterer Pyrrhussieg über radikale Kräfte unter islamischer Flagge. Wenn wir uns für die Folgen unseres Nichtstuns verantwortlich fühlen sollen, dann sind wir erst recht verantwortlich für die fatalen Neben-, Spät- und Langzeitfolgen unserer Interventionen im Nahen Osten : Die Region ist voller Waffen (die zum erheblichen Teil von uns stammen) und voller Fanatiker, die auch wegen unserer Anwesenheit immer neu radikalen (...) Zulauf finden. Nach all diesen entmutigenden Erfahrungen sollten wir uns eingestehen, dass wir uns überschätzt haben und gescheitert sind. Um der Konfrontation auf lange Sicht ein Ende zu bereiten, sollten wir aus der Region vollständig abziehen, keine Waffen liefern – und in der muslimischen Welt um Entschuldigung für unsere vormalige Hybris bitten. Der Frieden im Nahen Osten muss von den dort Wohnenden selber gefunden werden. (shrink)

This paper is a philosophical discussion about the link between utopianism and responsibility. It argues that our time demands a strong practice of political responsibility in both organizations and society based on what has been called ‘real utopianism’. It takes as a starting point Hans Jonas’ critique of utopianism. Keeping in mind the horrors of the Second World War this Jewish thinker disconnected the principle of responsibility from the idea of utopianism, and connected it to a ‘heuristics of fear’ – (...) we should be careful with ‘wild’ new technologies, but also with new utopian perspectives. In a second step Jonas’ predecessors and utopian thinkers Martin Buber, Ernst Bloch and Ernest Callenbach are revisited. They show that a fully conceptualized idea of utopianism includes at least three dimensions of responsibility: subsistence, justice and spirituality. I then argue that if one digs deeper into the work of Jonas, it seems that the concept of responsibility in fact implies the courage to overcome a heuristics of fear. This paper therefore argues that there is no need to radically disjunct responsibility from utopianism and that the concept of responsibility actually opens a path to ‘real utopianism’. Such a concept of responsibility can best be supported by a confessionally neutral but nonetheless spiritual eco-humanist worldview that develops a new attitude towards nature, in which (eco)asceticism, morality and spirituality become intertwined. (shrink)

Quine behauptet, dass uns der Holismus (d.h. die Quine/Duhem-These) daran hindert, Synonymie zu definieren. In "Word and Object" weist er einen Synonymiebegriff zurück, der selbst dann gut funktioniert, wenn der Holismus zutrifft. Dieser Begriff lässt sich so definieren: R und S sind synonym, wenn für alle Sätze T die logische Konjunktion aus R und T reizsynonym zur Konjunktion aus S und T ist. Dieser Begriff entgeht Quines bedeutungsskeptischen, holistischen Einwänden. Anders als Quine gemeint hat, ist der Begriff enger als sein (...) Begriff der Reizsynonymie – insbesondere bei Anwendung auf Sätze mit weniger als kritischer semantischer Masse. Fazit: Wir können Synonymie selbst dann sauber definieren, wenn wir Quines Holismus, Naturalismus, Behaviorismus und radikale Übersetzung mitmachen. Quines Bedeutungsskepsis sollte sogar auf Quines eigenem Territorium zurückgewiesen werden. (shrink)

It is popular to hold that our primary epistemic access to specific response-dependent properties like the fearsome or admirable (or so-called ‘affective properties’) is constituted by the corresponding emotion. I argue that this view is incompatible with a widely held meta-ethical view, according to which affective properties have deontic force. More specifically, I argue that this view cannot accommodate for the requirement that deontic entities provide guidance. If affective properties are to guide the formation of the corresponding emotion, our primary (...) access to them cannot be provided by that same emotion. (shrink)

There is a wide range of things we do out of emotion. For example, we smile with pleasure, our voices drop when we are sad, we recoil in shock or jump for joy, we apologize to others out of remorse. It is uncontroversial that some of these behaviors are actions. Clearly, apologizing is an action if anything is. Things seem less clear in the case of other emotional behaviors. Intuitively, the drop in a sad person’s voice is something that happens (...) to her, rather than something she actively performs. Perhaps more interestingly, even jumping for joy can seem a problematic case: although its execution involves the active performance of certain movements, it has been argued to contrast, e.g., with an act of apology, in that it is not performed in order to achieve some end, such as repairing a relationship. This can make this behavior seem considerably different from paradigm actions. Our central concern in this paper is with which emotional behaviors should be classed as actions and why... (shrink)

Diese klugen Reaktionen auf mein Buch unterscheiden sich erheblich. Während Susanne Burri mit meiner Grundthese sympathisiert und mir in deren Rahmen zwei knifflige Probleme vorlegt, die sich konstruktiv bearbeiten lassen, geht Christoph Lumers Kritik ans Eingemachte: Im Rahmen des von ihm bevorzugten philosophischen Ansatzes stellt sich meine Herangehensweise als haltlos dar, weil ihr jede Rationalität abgeht.