Normative moral theories are frequently invoked to serve one of two distinct purposes: (1) explicate a criterion of rightness, or (2) provide an ethical decision-making procedure. Although a criterion of rightness provides a valuable theoretical ideal, proposed criteria rarely can be (nor are they intended to be) directly translated into a feasible decision-making procedure. This paper applies the computational framework of bounded rationality to moral decision-making to ask: how ought a bounded human agent make ethical decisions? We suggest agents ought (...) to follow moral maxims: principles that approximate rightness in many situations, but that can be overridden in specific, precisely describable circumstances. While this intuitive idea has been proposed many times before, we provide a precise model of how maxim consequentialism functions as an approximation to an act-consequentialist criterion of rightness, while maintaining the flexibility and defeasibility that has eluded most forms of rule consequentialism. Furthermore, while our overarching aim is to propose a new normative standard of moral decision-making, we demonstrate how maxim consequentialism can also function as a descriptive account of human behavior. We conclude by noting that different criteria of rightness may lead to different maxim-based ethics. (shrink)

प्रस्तुत शोध-पत्र निरपेक्ष अथवा ब्रह्म एवं ईश्वर के संप्रत्यय को व्यापक रूप से शंकराचार्य एवं ब्रैडले के दर्शन के संदर्भ में विवेचित करता है। भारतीय एवं पाश्चात्य जगत के मूर्धन्य विद्वानों विशेषकर शंकराचार्य एवं ब्रैडले के निरपेक्ष एवं ईश्वर संबंधी विचारों में निहित साम्यताओं एवं वैषम्यताओं का अनुशीलन करना, इस शोध-पत्र का मुख्य उद्देश्य है। इस हेतु शोध-पत्र के अंतर्गत सर्वप्रथम यह विमर्श किया गया है कि क्यों उक्त दोनों दार्शनिकों के संदर्भ में ही ब्रह्म एवं ईश्वर की अवधारणा का (...) विवेचन किया गया है। द्वितीयतः, शंकराचार्य एवं ब्रैडले दोनों के सत् या निरपेक्ष संबंधी विचारों का विश्लेषण किया गया है। तृतीयतः, दोनों के दर्शन में सत् एवं ईश्वर के स्वरूप का विमर्श प्रस्तुत करते हुए तुलनात्मक अध्ययन किया गया है और अंत में उपरोक्त बिंदुओं का गहन मूल्यांकन करते हुए निष्कर्ष को प्रस्तुत करने का प्रयास किया गया है।. (shrink)

Although epistasis is at the center of the Fisher-Wright debate, biologists not involved in the controversy are often unaware that there are actually two different formal definitions of epistasis. We compare concepts of genetic independence in the two theoretical traditions of evolutionary genetics, population genetics and quantitative genetics, and show how independence of gene action (represented by the multiplicative model of population genetics) can be different from the absence of gene interaction (represented by the linear additive model of quantitative genetics). (...) The two formulations converge with weak selection but not with strong selection or, for multiple loci, when the aggregated interaction terms are not negligible. As a result of the different formulations of gene interaction, the presence or absence of linkage disequilibrium,/D/, does not necessarily indicate the presence or absence of fitness epistasis. Indeed, linkage disequilibrium is generated in ‘additive’ models in quantitative genetics whenever two (or more) loci experience simultaneous selection. As a research strategy, it is often practical, for theoretical or experimental reasons, to minimize gene interaction by assuming independence of gene action in regard to fitness, or by assuming linear additive effects of multiple loci on a phenotype. However, minimizing the role of epistasis in theoretical investigations hinders our understanding of the origins of diversity and the evolution of complex phenotypes. (shrink)