This essay examines the implications Wikipedia holds for theories of deliberative democracy. It argues that while similar in some respects, the mode of interaction within Wikipedia represents a distinctive form of “collaborative editing” that departs from many of the qualities traditionally associated with face-to-face deliberation. This online mode of interaction overcomes many of the problems that distort face-to-face deliberations. By mitigating problems that arise in deliberative practice, such as “group polarization” and “hidden profiles,” the wiki model often realizes the epistemic (...) and procedural aspirations of deliberative democracy. These virtues of the Wikipedia model should not, however, lead to the simple conclusion that it ought to replace traditional face-to-face deliberation. Instead, this essay argues that the collaborative editing process found within Wikipedia ought to be viewed as a promising supplement to traditional deliberation. These two modes of communication ought to be viewed in Madisonian terms – as distinctive forms of interaction that check and balance the vices of one another. When combined, the wiki model promotes the virtues of inclusion and accuracy at large scales, while the face-to-face model excels in conditions of localism and promotes the virtues of solidarity and social capital. (shrink)

Psychopathic individuals display a callous-coldhearted approach to interpersonal and affective situations and engage in impulsive and antisocial behaviors. Despite early conceptualizations suggesting that psychopathy is related to enhanced cognitive functioning, research examining executive functioning (EF) in psychopathy has yielded few such findings. It is possible that some psychopathic trait dimensions are more related to EF than others. Research using a 2-factor or 4-facet model of psychopathy highlights some dimension-specific differences in EF, but this research is limited in scope. Another complicating (...) factor in teasing apart the EF–psychopathy relationship is the tendency to use different psychopathy assessments for incarcerated versus community samples. In this study, an EF battery and multiple measures of psychopathic dimensions were administered to a sample of male prisoners (N. (shrink)

Aworkshop was held August 26–28, 2015, by the Earth- Life Science Institute (ELSI) Origins Network (EON, see Appendix I) at the Tokyo Institute of Technology. This meeting gathered a diverse group of around 40 scholars researching the origins of life (OoL) from various perspectives with the intent to find common ground, identify key questions and investigations for progress, and guide EON by suggesting a roadmap of activities. Specific challenges that the attendees were encouraged to address included the following: What key (...) questions, ideas, and investigations should the OoL research community address in the near and long term? How can this community better organize itself and prioritize its efforts? What roles can particular subfields play, and what can ELSI and EON do to facilitate research progress? (See also Appendix II.) The present document is a product of that workshop; a white paper that serves as a record of the discussion that took place and a guide and stimulus to the solution of the most urgent and important issues in the study of the OoL. This paper is not intended to be comprehensive or a balanced representation of the opinions of the entire OoL research community. It is intended to present a number of important position statements that contain many aspirational goals and suggestions as to how progress can be made in understanding the OoL. The key role played in the field by current societies and recurring meetings over the past many decades is fully acknowledged, including the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life (ISSOL) and its official journal Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres, as well as the International Society for Artificial Life (ISAL). (shrink)

Law and Authority Under the Guise of the Good, by Rodriguez-BlancoVeronica. Oxford : Hart Publishing, 2014. Pp. 215.

-/- DOS PROBLEMAS FILOSÓFICOS E SUAS CARACTERÍSTICAS -/- OF PHILOSOPHICAL PROBLEMS AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS -/- Emanuel Isaque Cordeiro da Silva -/- l. A TENDÊNCIA FILOSÓFICA - A Filosofia surgiu graças à curiosidade humana. Os primeiros filósofos buscavam encontrar as respostas para perguntas perturbadoras sobre a verdade, o ser, a existência autêntica, o absoluto, a transcendência do espírito, a ideia de bem e mal, além de compreender esse mundo binário (o dilema: bem e mal) que tanto inquieta a humanidade desde seus (...) primórdios; toda essa busca pela explicação de tais inquietações é fazer filosofia. A tendência para investigar, para conhecer o sentido último das coisas, teve gênese com os filósofos gregos (ditos cosmólogos, físicos, etc.), e para compreender os complexos dilemas da natureza e da realidade suprassensível existiu um homem (o filósofo) que buscou analisar e entender os problemas ao longo de toda a sua história. No mundo ocidental, essa tendência surgiu a partir do século VI a.C., precisamente na Grécia. A História da Filosofia é o traço deixado por essa tendência de investigação do homem, é a série de aspectos e soluções que os filósofos descobriram, em suas investigações sobre a realidade. Lembre-se que, de acordo com a definição tradicional, a Filosofia estuda as causas supremas de todas as coisas, isto é, os fundamentos últimos de toda a realidade. É, além disso, um conhecimento científico e, portanto, deve conter o rigor característico de uma ciência. Na História da Filosofia, você terá a oportunidade de capturar os diferentes aspectos que essas fundações supremas oferecem, e também será possível julgar a validade e o rigor dos pensadores expostos. Mas entender essas soluções significa ter apreendido os problemas que animam o intelecto e o movem para a resposta. Levantar esses problemas é, então, a primeira tarefa no estudo da Filosofia e sua História. 2. PROBLEMAS RELATIVOS AO CONHECIMENTO - Trata-se de determinar a validade do conhecimento. Em que condições isso é verdade? Quando é que nós enquanto filósofos efetivamente alcançamos a verdade? Quão longe alcançam e se limitam nossas faculdades cognitivas? A importância desses problemas se destacam a partir do momento em que os filósofos antigos oferecem várias soluções para a mesma pergunta. O fato de cada filósofo ter uma própria resposta e, por vezes, completamente oposta à de outros, não deixa de ser perturbador, pelo que procura aprofundar-se na realidade. Por que não há uma única e universal resposta para os problemas da alma, liberdade, Deus, bem e mal? A mesma História da Filosofia, com sua cadeia de sistemas e soluções, é motivo de preocupação para o espírito filosófico. Na história da humanidade, houve cinco soluções principais para o problema do conhecimento: o ceticismo, o empirismo, o racionalismo, o idealismo e o realismo. O ceticismo nega validade a tudo, conhecimento; nele a melhor posição cognitiva do pensador é duvidar de tudo e de todos. O empirismo só concede capacidade cognitiva às faculdades sensíveis; ou melhor, um conhecimento é válido apenas quando está alicerçado por alguma experiência sensível. O racionalismo, pelo contrário, finge que os sentidos enganam, e que a necessidade e a universalidade do conhecimento científico só é alcançada através das faculdades intelectuais. O idealismo, por sua vez, nega que possamos conhecer as coisas, independentemente do sujeito conhecedor; nós só capturamos nossas próprias ideias. O realismo, finalmente, sustenta que temos conhecimento válido, alcançado pelos sentidos e a inteligência, e que atingem a mesma realidade, que é independente do sujeito que a conhece. 3. O PROBLEMA DO SER - Este é o problema central da Metafísica, e busca investigar e questionar acerca da totalidade e a existência do ser, o que consiste o ser (como um verbo). Desde o começo você tem que saber distinguir o ser e os seres. Estes são as coisas e as pessoas (qualquer objeto que exista ou possa existir), e em Filosofia esses termos são reduzidos apenas pela palavra entidade. Em vez disso, o ser (no singular) deve ser entendido como um verbo, como um ato, e, precisamente, a questão é: em que consiste o ato de ser? o que é o ser? A partir dessas inquietações universais, surgem problemas análogos, como: o que é existir?, o que é uma essência?, qual é a essência da realidade? A Metafísica tem sido o centro das preocupações dos filósofos; mas também tem sido o centro dos ataques contra a Filosofia, precisamente através das críticas de Kant. No entanto, na filosofia contemporânea, alguns filósofos existencialistas, como Heidegger e Marcel, trataram de investigar o ser em sua máxima generalidade e profundidade. 4. O PROBLEMA DO ABSOLUTO - Trata do problema da existência e essência de Deus. Todos os filósofos lidaram com o assunto de alguma forma, seja ela direta ou indireta. Até os ateus tiverem e ainda teem que fundamentar ou explicar o motivo de sua recusa da crença em uma entidade suprassensível e divina. Por enquanto, o importante é perceber que esse problema é estudado em Filosofia, independentemente da religião que é professada. As possíveis soluções que os filósofos encontram são mantidas no plano das faculdades naturais do homem, de preferência em um nível racional. A Fé e a Revelação são assumidas mais tarde, como fundamentos da Teologia. Ultimamente, o ateísmo se disseminou pelo mundo e encontra-se em constante ascensão; mas isso não significa que a única resposta atual a esse problema é a negação de Deus. Existem inumeráveis sábios deste século cuja postura é perfeitamente teísta, por exemplo: Bergson, Marcel, Husserl, Scheler, Jaspers, etc. 5. A EXISTÊNCIA AUTÊNTICA DO HOMEM – Na atualidade, o existencialismo configurou seu maior auge, tendo como tema central a busca pela elucidação das características da existência autêntica do homem. Trata-se do problema mais humano que pode afetar cada um de nós enquanto seres; A tônica da vida que se pretende seguir depende da resolução dessas inquietações corriqueiras. A liberdade é essencial na vida humana? São, talvez, os valores morais os mais importantes? Em que consiste a autenticidade? Como deve-se levar em conta a interrelação e a comunicação humana? Como é o nível humano de existência autêntica? Estas são as principais questões que eles tentam resolver nessa corrente. 6. O PROBLEMA DA CONSTITUIÇÃO E EVOLUÇÃO DO UNIVERSO - O problema do tempo e do espaço, da evolução e da essência da matéria, constituem um dos temas centrais nas obras e investigações de físicos modernos. Geralmente são os cientistas que se dedicam a penetrar filosoficamente em tais assuntos. O importante é esclarecer que, no momento para o qual uma pessoa tenta basear seu conhecimento como tal, em seu próprio ramo, naquele dado momento a pessoa estará fazendo Filosofia. A Cosmologia é o ramo filosófico que lida com estas questões do universo e da relação com o homem e a natureza, e foi uma das primeiras correntes cultivadas entre os gregos na tentativa de achar as possíveis respostas para demasiados problemas. 7. OS PROBLEMAS DA LÓGICA, DA ÉTICA E DA ESTÉTICA - O tema típico da Lógica é a ordem dos conceitos. Para ela corresponde a governança sobre as estruturas mentais, os processos corretos no raciocínio, as leis de todo pensamento bem estruturado, como definições, divisões, categorizações, a conversão de proposições, as inferências imediatas com base em oposições, etc. A Ética corresponde a lidar com questões sobre o bem e o mal. Sua importância deriva do papel orientador que a ciência adquire na mente de quem ela examina e chega a soluções fundamentadas. Junto com esse problema, é interconectado com o da obrigação em harmonia com a liberdade, o das categorias de valores, o das virtudes, o da autonomia em correlação com a heteronomia, etc. Por sua vez, cabe à Estética o estudo de arte e beleza. Da mesma forma, os problemas relacionados ao da atividade artística, a intuição estética, projeção sentimental, categorias estéticas, etc. Uma vez revisadas as principais abordagens filosóficas, podemos descrever suas características gerais. 8. CARACTERÍSTICAS DOS PROBLEMAS FILOSÓFICOS, QUANTO À SUA ORIGEM: a) A filosofia é baseada em uma atitude inata do homem, em uma tendência que pertence à sua natureza, e pelo qual é lançado para procurar soluções aos problemas que o afetam. Essa tendência para a verdade, bem como a ânsia para conquistar o desconhecido, além da busca por um elemento que dá sentido a vida de uma pessoa é a origem a priori da Filosofia. Na história da filosofia, a Metafísica pode ser negada como uma ciência - tal é a tese kantiana -, nada obstante, não pode-se negar a tendência humana de fazer Metafísica. O mesmo Kant que tanto a criticou na modernidade, aceitou essa tendência. Consequentemente, a origem da Filosofia deve procurar algo a priori, algo que caracterize o homem em sua essência: a tendência a buscar o atemático dentro do temático, do implícito no explícito, no fundamento, nas teses científicas. b) Por outro lado, a posteriori, pode-se observar que todo sistema filosófico tem sua origem a partir de uma intuição geral, que serve como uma estruturação no resto das teses do autor. Essa intuição filosófica é uma doadora de sentido, é universal, é integral e alcança, com sua captura, a síntese de elementos, à primeira vista, dispersos. Um exemplo famoso de uma síntese filosófica é a de Platão, que, com sua distinção entre o mundo das Ideias e o mundo da matéria (Inteligível e Sensível), engendrou para sempre uma discussão sobre seus relacionamentos, suas interações, distinções e unificações. Bem como, São Tomás de Aquino, com seu teocentrismo, proveniente do cristianismo, ou Kant, com a sua revolução copernicana, alcançaram todo um sistema filosófico, baseado em sua brilhante intuição. 9. CARACTERÍSTICAS DOS PROBLEMAS FILOSÓFICOS, QUANTO AO SEU OBJETO - Os problemas filosóficos apresentam características muito nítidas, devido ao objeto com o qual lidam. Podemos distinguir três: fundamentação, universalidade e humanismo. a) Antes de mais nada, a Filosofia busca uma fundamentação suprema de todas as teses que sustenta. Filosofar consiste em aprofundar até chegar a fundamentação ou bases sobre as quais se constrói a estrutura das teses afirmadas. Isto é o mesmo que estudar as causas supremas, tal qual diz a definição tradicional da Filosofia. b) E não só em profundidade, mas também em extensão, a Filosofia quer abranger tudo o que existe, toda entidade, todos os questionamentos que há sobre os mais diversos temas, desde o questionamento da formação do universo ante uma divindade suprassensível até os complexos dilemas políticos contemporâneos,. É assim que a Metafísica, o núcleo da Filosofia, tem como objetivo de ser. Essa filosofia engloba tudo absolutamente, isso significa que a Metafísica alcança um nível transcendental e vai além dos níveis categóricos e peculiares. c) E finalmente, a Filosofia é um conhecimento plenamente humano, no sentido que penetra precisamente nas questões e, questões essas que afetam intimamente a vida pessoal de cada homem. Assim por exemplo, a Filosofia lida com questões existenciais, como liberdade, amor, intercomunicação pessoal, fidelidade, obrigação, bem e mal, objetivo supremo e felicidade. Desta forma, ao mesmo tempo que preenche os requisitos de uma ciência em quanto ao rigor e ordem que é exigido, também preenche os assuntos apropriados de um estudo propriamente humanista. Filosofia é, então, uma síntese equilibrada do conhecimento humano. 10. CARACTERÍSTICAS DOS PROBLEMAS FILOSÓFICOS, QUANTO À SUA RESOLUÇÃO: a) A Filosofia, em termos de resolução de seus problemas, segue um método eminentemente racional. O que não significa que os dados empíricos sejam descartados, pelo contrário, eles constituem, precisamente, o material que a inteligência aprofunda-se e encontra sua causa ou razão. O método filosófico é, então, um uso equilibrado da experiência sensata e da razão, é experimental-racional. b) E finalmente, a Filosofia é desinteressada, em quanto o próprio conhecimento de suas teses, problemas e soluções fornece, por si só, uma satisfação plena ao intelecto que ele contempla. Logo, a Filosofia constitui, por si só, um objeto valioso, para o qual tende a inteligência como sua suprema finalidade. Obtê-la, contemplá-la e ser saciado nela é a mesma coisa. Ao qual não é um obstáculo para que, mais tarde, em uma atitude prática, seja possível obter aplicações, utilizações e derivações, para apoiar outras ciências, para governar e ordenar a vida. -/- REFERÊNCIAS BIBLIOGRÁFICAS BLANCO, A. D. La filosofía y sus problemas. Barcelona: Ed. Scientia, 1966. 234 pps. HIDELBRAND, D. V. ¿Qué es la filosofía? Madrid: Razón y fe, 1965. 294 pps. MARITAIN, J. Introduccion a la filosofía. Buenos Aires: Club de lectores, 1963. 240 pps. OCHOA, O. R. Propedéutica filosófica. México: Porrúa, 1943. 222 pps. VERNEAUX, R. Epistemología general: o crítica del conocimiento. Barcelona: Herder, 1985. 248 pps. (shrink)

I am aware of the red and orange autumn leaves. Am I aware of my awareness of the leaves? Not so according to many philosophers. By contrast, many meditative traditions report an experience of awareness itself. I argue that such a pure awareness experience must have a non-sensory phenomenal character. I use Douglas Harding’s first-person experiments for assisting in recognising pure awareness. In particular, I investigate the gap where one cannot see one’s head. This is not a mere gap because (...) I seem to be looking from here. Critically, I claim, the experience of looking from here has a non-sensory phenomenal character. I argue that this sense of being aware cannot be reduced to egocentric visual-spatial relations nor the viewpoint because it continues when I close my eyes. Neither is a multisensory origin sufficient to explain why I seem to be at this central point rather than elsewhere. Traditionally, claims of a pure awareness experience have been restricted to highly trained individuals in very restricted circumstances. The innovation of Harding’s approach is that it reliably isolates a candidate for pure awareness using methods which can be replicated at any time. (shrink)

Public discussions of political and social issues are often characterized by deep and persistent polarization. In social psychology, it’s standard to treat belief polarization as the product of epistemic irrationality. In contrast, we argue that the persistent disagreement that grounds political and social polarization can be produced by epistemically rational agents, when those agents have limited cognitive resources. Using an agent-based model of group deliberation, we show that groups of deliberating agents using coherence-based strategies for managing their limited resources tend (...) to polarize into different subgroups. We argue that using that strategy is epistemically rational for limited agents. So even though group polarization looks like it must be the product of human irrationality, polarization can be the result of fully rational deliberation with natural human limitations. (shrink)

We argue that work on norms provides a way to move beyond debates between proponents of individualist and structuralist approaches to bias, oppression, and injustice. We briefly map out the geography of that debate before presenting Charlotte Witt’s view, showing how her position, and the normative ascriptivism at its heart, seamlessly connects individuals to the social reality they inhabit. We then describe recent empirical work on the psychology of norms and locate the notions of informal institutions and soft structures with (...) respect to it. Finally, we argue that the empirical resources enrich Witt’s ascriptivism, and that the resulting picture shows theorists need not, indeed should not, choose between either the individualist or structuralist camp. (shrink)

The Hong and Page ‘diversity trumps ability’ result has been used to argue for the more general claim that a diverse set of agents is epistemically superior to a comparable group of experts. Here we extend Hong and Page’s model to landscapes of different degrees of randomness and demonstrate the sensitivity of the ‘diversity trumps ability’ result. This analysis offers a more nuanced picture of how diversity, ability, and expertise may relate. Although models of this sort can indeed be suggestive (...) for diversity policies, we advise against interpreting such results overly broadly. (shrink)

The view that it is better for life to be created free of disability is pervasive in both common sense and philosophy. We cast doubt on this view by focusing on an influential line of thinking that manifests it. That thinking begins with a widely-discussed principle, Procreative Beneficence, and draws conclusions about parental choice and disability. After reconstructing two versions of this argument, we critique the first by exploring the relationship between different understandings of well-being and disability, and the second (...) by more briefly focusing on the idea of a significant reason. By placing these results against the broader historical and ongoing contexts in which the lives of those with disabilities have been deemed of inferior quality, we conclude with a call for greater humility about disability and well-being in thought and practice. (shrink)

Mark Schroeder has recently offered a solution to the problem of distinguishing between the so-called " right " and " wrong " kinds of reasons for attitudes like belief and admiration. Schroeder tries out two different strategies for making his solution work: the alethic strategy and the background-facts strategy. In this paper I argue that neither of Schroeder's two strategies will do the trick. We are still left with the problem of distinguishing the right from the wrong kinds of reasons.

Open Access: What if it doesn’t get better? Against more hopeful and optimistic views that it is not just ideal but possible to put an end to what John Rawls calls “the great evils of human history,” I aver that when it comes to evils caused by human beings, the situation is hopeless. We are better off with the heavy knowledge that evils recur than we are with idealizations of progress, perfection, and completeness; an appropriate ethic for living with such (...) heavy knowledge, which I call an ‘Imperfectionist Ethic,’ could include resisting evils, improving the lives of victims, and even enjoying ourselves. Better conceptions of the objects of hope, and the good life, inform a praxis-centered, nonideal ethic, supportive of sustained moral motivation, resilience, and even cheer. I connect elements of stoic and pessimistic philosophy in order to outline some normative recommendations for living with evils. A praxis-centered ethic would helpfully adjust our expectations from changing an uncontrollable future, to developing better skills for living in a world that exceeds our control. (shrink)

Galen Strawson’s Basic Argument is that because self-creation is required to be truly morally responsible and self-creation is impossible, it is impossible to be truly morally responsible for anything. I contend that the Basic Argument is unpersuasive and unsound. First, I argue that the moral luck debate shows that the self-creation requirement appears to be contradicted and supported by various parts of our commonsense ideas about moral responsibility, and that this ambivalence undermines the only reason that Strawson gives for the (...) self-creation requirement. Second, I argue that the self-creation requirement is so demanding that either it is an implausible requirement for a species of true moral responsibility that we take ourselves to have or it is a plausible requirement of a species of true moral responsibility that we have never taken ourselves to have. Third, I explain that Strawson overgeneralizes from instances of constitutive luck that obviously undermine moral responsibility to all kinds of constitutive luck. (shrink)

The fact that someone is generous is a reason to admire them. The fact that someone will pay you to admire them is also a reason to admire them. But there is a difference in kind between these two reasons: the former seems to be the ‘right’ kind of reason to admire, whereas the latter seems to be the ‘wrong’ kind of reason to admire. The Wrong Kind of Reasons Problem is the problem of explaining the difference between the ‘right’ (...) and the ‘wrong’ kind of reasons wherever it appears. In this article I argue that two recent proposals for solving the Wrong Kind of Reasons Problem do not work. I then offer an alternative solution that provides a unified, systematic explanation of the difference between the two kinds of reasons. (shrink)

Virtue epistemology is among the dominant influences in mainstream epistemology today. An important commitment of one strand of virtue epistemology – responsibilist virtue epistemology (e.g., Montmarquet 1993; Zagzebski 1996; Battaly 2006; Baehr 2011) – is that it must provide regulative normative guidance for good thinking. Recently, a number of virtue epistemologists (most notably Baehr, 2013) have held that virtue epistemology not only can provide regulative normative guidance, but moreover that we should reconceive the primary epistemic aim of all education as (...) the inculcation of the intellectual virtues. Baehr’s picture contrasts with another well-known position – that the primary aim of education is the promotion of critical thinking (Scheffler 1989; Siegel 1988; 1997; 2017). In this paper – that we hold makes a contribution to both philosophy of education and epistemology and, a fortiori, epistemology of education – we challenge this picture. We outline three criteria that any putative aim of education must meet and hold that it is the aim of critical thinking, rather than the aim of instilling intellectual virtue, that best meets these criteria. On this basis, we propose a new challenge for intellectual virtue epistemology, next to the well-known empirically-driven ‘situationist challenge’. What we call the ‘pedagogical challenge’ maintains that the intellectual virtues approach does not have available a suitably effective pedagogy to qualify the acquisition of intellectual virtue as the primary aim of education. This is because the pedagogic model of the intellectual virtues approach (borrowed largely from exemplarist thinking) is not properly action-guiding. Instead, we hold that, without much further development in virtue-based theory, logic and critical thinking must still play the primary role in the epistemology of education. (shrink)

Public reason liberals expect individuals to have justificatory reasons for their views of certain political issues. This paper considers how groups can, and whether they should, give collective public reasons for their political decisions. A problem is that aggregating individuals’ consistent judgments on reasons and a decision can produce inconsistent collective judgments. The group will then fail to give a reason for its decision. The paper considers various solutions to this problem and defends a deliberative procedure by showing how it (...) incentivizes information sharing and leads to outcomes most acceptable to the group members. (shrink)

Epistemic instrumentalists face a puzzle. In brief, the puzzle is that if the reason there is to believe in accord with the evidence depends, as the instrumentalist says it does, on agents’ idiosyncratic interests, then there is no reason to expect that this reason is universal. Here, I identify and explain two strategies instrumentalists have used to try and solve this puzzle. I then argue that we should find these strategies wanting. Faced with the failure of these strategies, I articulate (...) a heretofore neglected solution on behalf of instrumentalism. (shrink)

Moral perception has made something of a comeback in recent work on moral epistemology. Many traditional objections to the view have been argued to fail upon closer inspection. But it remains an open question just how far moral perception might extend. In this paper, I provide the beginnings of an answer to this question by assessing the relationship between the metaphysical structure of different normative properties and a plausible constraint on which properties are eligible for perceptual awareness which I call (...) the Counterfactual Strengthening Test. Along the way I consider and reject a few other possible constraints on perceptual awareness. I defend the view that moral perception is restricted to the perception of evaluative and pro tanto deontic properties. I conclude with a few gestures toward what this limitation on moral perception may mean for broader moral epistemology. (shrink)

Can a group be morally responsible instead of, or in addition to, its members? An influential defense of corporate responsibility is based on results in social choice theory suggesting that a group can form and act on attitudes held by few, or even none, of its members. The members therefore cannot be (fully) responsible for the group’s behavior; the group itself, as a corporate agent, must be responsible. In this paper, I reject this view of corporate responsibility by showing how (...) it pays insufficient attention to individual agency. By accounting for group members’ strategic behavior, we shall see how they control collective attitude formation and are therefore responsible for their group’s behavior. (shrink)

We developed and tested a behavioral version of the Defining Issues Test-1 revised (DIT-1r), which is a measure of the development of moral judgment. We conducted a behavioral experiment using the behavioral Defining Issues Test (bDIT) to examine the relationship between participants’ moral developmental status, moral competence, and reaction time when making moral judgments. We found that when the judgments were made based on the preferred moral schema, the reaction time for moral judgments was significantly moderated by the moral developmental (...) status. In addition, as a participant becomes more confident with moral judgment, the participant differentiates the preferred versus other schemas better particularly when the participant’s abilities for moral judgment are more developed. (shrink)

I critically analyze Kevin Elliott’s A Tapestry of Values in order to tease out his views on the nature and status of values or value judgments in the text. I show there is a tension in Elliott’s view that is closely connected to a major lacuna in the philosophical literature on values in science: the need for a better theory of values.

Humean promotionalists about reasons think that whether there is a reason for an agent to ϕ depends on whether her ϕ-ing promotes the satisfaction of at least one of her desires. Several authors have recently defended probabilistic accounts of promotion, according to which an agent’s ϕ-ing promotes the satisfaction of one of her desires just in case her ϕ-ing makes the satisfaction of that desire more probable relative to some baseline. In this paper I do three things. First, I formalize (...) an argument, due to Jeff Behrends and Joshua DiPaolo, to the effect that Mark Schroeder’s and Stephen Finlay’s probabilistic accounts of promotion cannot be correct. Next, I extend this argument to a recent alternative offered by D. Justin Coates and show how Coates’ attempt to avoid the argument by introducing a distinction between ‘intrinsic’ and ‘extrinsic’ probability doesn’t help. Finally, I suggest an alternative way of understanding promotion in terms of increase in degree of fit between the causal upshot of an action and the content of a desire. I show how this view, disjunctively paired with probabilism about promotion, solves the problems with previous accounts. (shrink)

What is required for an action to promote the satisfaction of a desire? We reject extant answers and propose an alternative. Our account differs from competing answers in two ways: first, it is contrastive, in that actions promote the satisfaction of desires only as contrasted with other possible actions. Second, it employs a notion of expected fit between desire and world, defined as the weighted sum of the fit between the desire and the world in all possible outcomes, where each (...) weight is given by the probability of the agent’s obtaining the relevant outcome. According to our proposal, then, an action promotes a desire when the expected fit for the desire given that the agent performs the action is greater than the expected fit of the desire given that the agent performs the contrasting action. We highlight this account’s attractive features and explain how it improves on its competitors. (shrink)

Anti-realism is plagued by Fitch’s paradox: the remarkable result that if one accepts that all truths are knowable, minimal assumptions about the nature of knowledge entail that every truth is known. Dorothy Edgington suggests to address this problem by understanding p is knowable to be a counterfactual claim, but her proposal must contend with a forceful objection by Timothy Williamson. I revisit Edgington’s basic idea and find that Williamson’s objection is obviated by a refined understanding of counterfactual knowability that is (...) grounded in possible courses of inquiry. I arrive at a precise definition of knowability that is not just a technical avoidance of paradox, but is metaphysically sound and does justice to the anti-realist idea. (shrink)

The Morality First strategy for developing AI systems that can represent and respond to human values aims to first develop systems that can represent and respond to moral values. I argue that Morality First and other X-First views are unmotivated. Moreover, according to some widely accepted philosophical views about value, these strategies are positively distorting. The natural alternative, according to which no domain of value comes “first” introduces a new set of challenges and highlights an important but otherwise obscured problem (...) for e-AI developers. (shrink)

Despite the end of the Cold War and the ascendancy of liberal democracy celebrated by Francis Fukuyama as “the end of history”, a growing number of scholars and political activists point to its inherent shortcomings. However, they have tended to dismiss it on the basis of one or two of its salient weaknesses. While this is a justifiable way to proceed, it denies the searching reader an opportunity to see the broad basis for the growing rejection of liberal democracy among (...) African political theorists. Consequently, in this article, I argue that from an African perspective, the almost hegemonic status of liberal democracy can be challenged on at least five grounds, namely, logical inconsistency, impracticability due to the largely communalistic outlook of many africans, inconsistency between affirmation and action, violation of the right to ethnic identity, and the moral imperative to assert the right to cultural emancipation. -/- I conclude by calling upon African and Africanist political theorists to utilise indigenous African political thought, coupled with emancipatory aspects of political thought from other parts of the world, to design practicable models of democracy for contemporary African states. I further conclude that in order to promote genuine inter-cultural dialogue on democratisation, people from Western cultures ought to acknowledge the equality of all cultures, and to recognise that systems of governance are part and parcel of those cultures. (shrink)

Climate engineering with stratospheric sulfate aerosol injections (SSAI) has the potential to reduce risks of injustice related to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases. Relying on evidence from modeling studies, this paper makes the case that SSAI could have the potential to reduce many of the key physical risks of climate change identified by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Such risks carry potential injustice because they are often imposed on low-emitters who do not benefit from climate change. Because SSAI has (...) the potential to reduce those risks, it thereby has the potential to reduce the injustice associated with anthropogenic emissions. While acknowledging important caveats, including uncertainty in modeling studies and the potential for SSAI to carry its own risks of injustice, the paper argues that there is a strong case for continued research into SSAI, especially if attention is paid to how it might be used to reduce emissions-driven injustice. (shrink)

It is intuitive that circumstantial ignorance, even when culpable, can mitigate blameworthiness for morally wrong behavior. In this paper I suggest an explanation of why this is so. The explanation offered is that an agent’s degree of blameworthiness for some action depends at least in part upon the quality of will expressed in that action, and that an agent’s level of awareness when performing a morally wrong action can make a difference to the quality of will that is expressed in (...) it. This explanation makes use of Holly Smith’s distinction between benighting and benighted actions as well as a notion developed here called “capture.”. (shrink)

Some legal theorists say that legal entrapment to commit a crime is incoherent. So far, there is no satisfactorily precise statement of this objection in the literature: it is obscure even as to the type of incoherence that is purportedly involved. (Perhaps consequently, substantial assessment of the objection is also absent.) We aim to provide a new statement of the objection that is more precise and more rigorous than its predecessors. We argue that the best form of the objection asserts (...) that, in attempting to entrap, law-enforcement agents lapse into a form of practical incoherence that involves the attempt simultaneously to pursue contrary ends. We then argue that the objection, in this form, encompasses all cases of legal entrapment only if it is supplemented by appeal to the premise that law-enforcement agents have an absolute duty never to create crimes. (shrink)

We offer a critical survey of the most discussed accounts of epistemic peer disagreement that are found in the recent literature. We also sketch an alternative approach in line with a pluralist understanding of epistemic rationality.

It’s possible to accept or to reject a promise. According to a new proposal by Abraham Roth, accepting a promise involves intending that the promisee perform the promised action. According to Roth, this view is supported by rational symmetries between promissory acceptance and intention. Here, I show how these symmetries actually generate two problems for the view.

Patient preference predictors aim to solve the moral problem of making treatment decisions on behalf of incapacitated patients. This commentary on a case of an unrepresented patient at the end of life considers 3 related problems of such predictors: the problem of restricting the scope of inputs to the models (the “scope” problem), the problem of weighing inputs against one another (the “weight” problem), and the problem of multiple reasonable solutions to the scope and weight problems (the “multiple reasonable models” (...) problem). Each of these problems poses challenges to reliably implementing patient preference predictors in important, high-stakes health care decision making. This commentary also suggests a way forward. (shrink)

The moral of Buridan's Ass is that it can sometimes be rational to perform one action rather than another even though one lacks stronger reason to do so. Yet it is also commonly believed that it cannot ever be rational to believe one proposition rather than another if one lacks stronger reason to do so. This asymmetry has been taken to indicate a deep difference between epistemic and practical rationality. According to the view articulated here, the asymmetry should instead be (...) explained by the difference between rational intentions and rational actions. Thus, it turns out, Buridan's Ass-style cases do not indicate an asymmetry between epistemic and practical rationality as such. (shrink)

Neuroeconomics illustrates our deepening descent into the details of individual cognition. This descent is guided by the implicit assumption that “individual human” is the important “agent” of neoclassical economics. I argue here that this assumption is neither obviously correct, nor of primary importance to human economies. In particular I suggest that the main genius of the human species lies with its ability to distribute cognition across individuals, and to incrementally accumulate physical and social cognitive artifacts that largely obviate the innate (...) biological limitations of individuals. If this is largely why our economies grow, then we should be much more interested in distributed cognition in human groups, and correspondingly less interested in individual cognition. We should also be much more interested in the cultural accumulation of cognitive artefacts: computational devices and media, social structures and economic institutions. (shrink)

The foundational principles of representative democracy are under attack globally. What we desperately need are enlightened and persuasive public intellectuals who can help us see through the fog of our fear, anger, and disillusionment, to find our rational political commitments again. One of these public intellectuals is undoubtedly Yuval Noah Harari, the bestselling author of three recent books – Sapiens, Homo Deus, and 21 Lessons for the 21st Century. Harari is also a frequent contributor in the popular press, and a (...) guest on shows, podcasts, panels, and as a keynote speaker. Add to all this that Harari is acting on his lofty academic ideals through ‘Sapienship’, a multidisciplinary organization he cofounded that advocates for global responsibility, clarifies the global conversation, and focuses attention on the most important global challenges. I single out Harari because I presume many readers will be familiar with his work. He is certainly one of the fastest rising stars of public intellectualism. Unfortunately, his work is undercut by the philosophical positions he put forth in his first bestselling book, Sapiens. In this review/critique I wish to show that in order for Harari advance a coherent political or ideological argument, he must first shore up his philosophical commitments. (shrink)

The use of machine learning, or “artificial intelligence” (AI) in medicine is widespread and growing. In this paper, I focus on a specific proposed clinical application of AI: using models to predict incapacitated patients’ treatment preferences. Drawing on results from machine learning, I argue this proposal faces a special moral problem. Machine learning researchers owe us assurance on this front before experimental research can proceed. In my conclusion I connect this concern to broader issues in AI safety.

John Broome has proposed a theory of fairness according to which fairness requires that agents’ claims to goods be satisfied in proportion to the relative strength of those claims. In the case of competing claims for a single indivisible good, Broome argues that what fairness requires is the use of a weighted lottery as a surrogate to satisfying the competing claims: the relative chance of each claimant's winning the lottery should be set to the relative strength of each claimant's claim. (...) In this journal, James Kirkpatrick and Nick Eastwood have objected that the use of weighted lotteries in the case of indivisible goods is unacceptable. In this article, I explain why Kirkpatrick and Eastwood's objection misses its mark. (shrink)

Epistemic consequentialism has been charged with ignoring the epistemic separateness of propositions and with (thereby) allowing trade-offs between propositions. Here, I do two things. First, I investigate the metaphor of the epistemic separateness of propositions. I argue that either (i) the metaphor is meaningfully unpacked in a way that is modeled on the moral separateness of persons, in which case it doesn’t support a ban on trade-offs or (ii) it isn’t meaningfully unpacked, in which case it really doesn’t support a (...) ban on trade-offs. Second, I consider the strategy of arguing against the trade-off permitting conception of epistemic rationality that is central to epistemic consequentialism on the basis of our intuitive verdicts about the permissibility of trade-offs in cases. I argue the execution of this strategy suffers a methodological mistake that, once corrected, vitiates the probative value of those intuitive verdicts. Hence the conclusion: the separateness of propositions provides no support for a ban on trade-offs, and an influential independent argument for such a ban is flawed. (shrink)

L.A. Paul has argued that an ordinary, natural way of making a decision -- by reflecting on the phenomenal character of the experiences one will have as a result of that decision -- cannot yield rational decision in certain cases. Paul's argument turns on the (in principle) epistemically inaccessible phenomenal character of certain experiences. In this paper I argue that, even granting Paul a range of assumptions, her argument doesn't work to establish its conclusion. This is because, as I argue, (...) the phenomenal character of an experience supervenes on epistemically accessible facts about its non-phenomenal character plus what the deciding agent is like. Because there are principles that link the non-phenomenal character of experiences (together with what a particular agent is like) to the phenomenal character of experiences, agents can reasonably form expectations about the valence of the phenomenal character of the experiences that they are deciding whether to undergo. These reasonable expectations are, I argue, enough to make the ordinary, natural way of making a decision yield rational decision. (shrink)

Augustine and William James both argue that religious faith can be both practical and rational even in the absence of knowledge. Augustine argues that religious faith is trust and that trust is a normal, proper, and even necessary way of believing. Beginning with faith, we then work towards knowledge by means of philosophical contemplation. James’ “The Will to Believe” makes pragmatic arguments for the rationality of faith. Although we do not know (yet) whether God exists, faith is a choice between (...) the risk of believing something false and the risk of not believing something true, and in the absence of convincing evidence we may decide for ourselves which risk we prefer. We may be able to experience God in the future and thereby gain knowledge, yet this may be contingent on our willingness to believe. There are key differences, however. Augustine is a Christian with a neo-Platonic bent, James an empiricist defending the religion of your choice. These differences may be less significant than they first appear. After explaining Augustine and then James I draw out the major points of comparison and contrast and suggest a few reasons their insights might be at least partially synthesized. -/- This is the accepted version of the following article: Mark J. Boone, “Augustine and William James on the Rationality of Faith,” The Heythrop Journal (online edition December 2018), which has been published in final form at [See First URL]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with the Wiley Self-Archiving Policy [See Second URL]. (shrink)

En este trabajo discutimos la extensión de la influencia que el pensamiento de Richard Owen tuvo sobre el de Charles Darwin. Además, se intentará mostrar lo heterogéneo de tal influencia, que va desde teorías específicas a giros retóricos. Esta influencia es en muchos casos subestimada, dando la sensación de que la novedad darwiniana consistió únicamente en mirar con ojos desprejuiciados lo que los otros no habían visto. Esta visión resulta injusta con Owen, y también con el esfuerzo conceptual llevado adelante (...) por Darwin con las piezas brindadas por sus precursores. Finalmente, este es un caso interesante para entender el tipo de novedad aportada por las revoluciones científicas y el modo sofisticado en que tal novedad se sustenta sobre el trabajo de los enfoques previos. (shrink)

What would happen if lightning struck a tree in a swamp and transformed it into The Swampman, or if saving billions of lives required sacrificing millions first? The first is a philosophical thought experiment devised by Donald Davidson, the second a theme from a comic written by Alan Moore. I argue that that comics can be read as containing thought experiments and that such philosophical devises should be shared with students of all ages.

By introducing the concept of “mental data,” Palermos (2023) highlights an underappreciated aspect of data ethics that policymakers would do well to heed. Sweeping artificial intelligence (AI) legi...

Recent studies show that racism still exists in the American medical profession, the fact of which legitimizes the historically long-legacy of mistrust towards medical profession and health authorities among African Americans. Thus, it was suspected that the participation of black patients in end-of-life care has always been significantly low stemmed primarily from their mistrust of the medical profession. On the other hand, much research finds that there are other reasons than the mistrust which makes African Americans feel reluctant to the (...) end-of-life care, such as cultural-religious difference and genuine misunderstanding of the services. If so, two crucial questions are raised. One is how pervasive or significant the mistrust is, compared to the other factors, when they opt out of the end-of-life care. The other is if there is a remedy or solution to the seemingly broken relationship. While no studies available answer these questions, we have conducted an experiment to explore them. The research was performed at two Philadelphia hospitals of Mercy Health System, and the result shows that Black patients’ mistrust is not too great to overcome and that education can remove the epistemic obstacles as well as overcome the mistrust. (shrink)

A response to comments by William Casebeer, Peter Railton, and Michael Ruse on "Naturalizing Ethics" (2007).

This paper contains an argument to the effect that possible worlds semantics renders semantic knowledge impossible, no matter what ontological interpretation is given to possible worlds. The essential contention made is that possible worlds semantic knowledge is unsafe and this is shown by a parallel with the preface paradox.

This essay describes computational semantic networks for a philosophical audience and surveys several approaches to semantic-network semantics. In particular, propositional semantic networks are discussed; it is argued that only a fully intensional, Meinongian semantics is appropriate for them; and several Meinongian systems are presented.

Suppose there are no in-principle restrictions on the contents of arbitrarily intelligent agents’ goals. According to “instrumental convergence” arguments, potentially scary things follow. I do two things in this paper. First, focusing on the influential version of the instrumental convergence argument due to Nick Bostrom, I explain why such arguments require an account of “promotion,” i.e., an account of what it is to “promote” a goal. Then, I consider whether extant accounts of promotion in the literature -- in particular, probabilistic (...) and fit-based views of promotion -- can be used to support dangerous instrumental convergence. I argue that neither account of promotion can do the work. The opposite is true: accepting either account of promotion undermines support for instrumental convergence arguments’ existentially worrying conclusions. The conclusion is that we needn’t be scared -- at least not because of arguments concerning instrumental convergence. (shrink)