Online research in philosophy

Mitra demonstrates that memory erasure can cause the observer to end up in a different sector of the multiverse with a different destiny, events in the future remote to any possible influence of the observer having radically different probabilities. The concept only applies to an observer defined by a structure of information, so cannot apply to the physical bodies of human observers. However, Everett defines the functional identity of the observer as the contents of the memory, a structure of information, thus in principle Mitra's effect would apply. Here it is shown that not only is this very minimal definition of the observer entirely in accord with the subjective experience of identity of human observers, it is also the only possible definition of a transtemporal observer in a no-collapse universe. With respect to human observers, selective elimination of data is not possible due to the distributed manner in which information is stored in the neural network of the brain, but addition of data works on exactly the same principle. Thus, while it would not be possible to alter the destiny of the observer to reduce the probability of unwanted events to background probability, as in the example Mitra uses to demonstrate the principle, it would be possible to increase the probability of desired events. This would appear to verify certain aspects of folklore which otherwise appear entirely mythical and imaginary.

An observer attempts to infer the unobserved ranking of two ideal objects, A and B, from observed rankings in which these objects are `accompanied' by `noise' components, C and D. In the first ranking, A is accompanied by C and B is accompanied by D, while in the second ranking, A is accompanied by D and B is accompanied by C. In both rankings, noisy-A is ranked above noisy-B. The observer infers that ideal-A is ranked above ideal-B. This commonly used inference rule is formalized for the case in which A,B,C,D are sets. Let X be a finite set and let be a linear ordering on 2X. The following condition is imposed on . For every quadruple (A,B,C,D)∈Y, where Y is some domain in (2X)4, if and , then . The implications and interpretation of this condition for various domains Y are discussed.

This article examines three common arguments for the claim that engineering is not a profession: 1) that engineering lacks an ideal internal to its practice; 2) that engineering’s ideal, whether internal or not, is merely technical; and 3) that engineering lacks the social arrangements characteristic of a true profession. All three arguments are shown to rely on one or another definition of profession, each of which is inadequate. An alternative to these definition is offered. It has at least two advantages. On the one hand, it emphasizes the importance of professional community, the role of occupation in defining profession, the centrality of a moral ideal, and the necessity for morally binding standards (beyond ordinary morality). On the other hand, the alternative definition is in part independent both of moral theory and sociology. This article concludes by considering what light the alternative definition can throw on the professional status of engineers serving the Nazis.

Part I of this essay described "Ought" and "Value" as forms of moral requiredness. Now in Part II, a description of the ideal conditions for veridical perceptions of moral requiredness are specified. This is done in the form of an ideal observer type of analysis. This analysis is defended against those who oppose naturalism by assuming a bifurcation between 'ought' and 'is' and those who accuse naturalism of a "naturalistic fallacy." It is argued that theistic versions of the ideal observer form of analysis exist in the Christian tradition in logically acceptable and plausible formulations. Specific illustrations are provided.

The "observer" approach is investigated as a device for developing ethical theory, not for its use in private moral decision-making. Earlier discussions by Firth, Brandt, Harrison and Aiken of the impartial spectator are related to eighteenth-century British and German ethics using this theme, in order to uncover the meanings of the observer theory. Advantages and disadvantages of this approach to ethics are then examined, and the conclusion is that it does not provide a complete basis for ethical discourse but is of limited use in developing some general principles in a ruleethics.

In this paper I attempt to defuse a set of epistemic worries commonly raised against ideal observer theories. The worries arise because of the omniscience often attributed to ideal observers -- how can we, as finite humans, ever have access to the moral judgements or reactions of omniscient beings? I argue that many of the same concerns arise with respect to other moral theories (and that these concerns do not in fact reveal genuine flaws in any of these theories), and further, that we can and often do have knowledge of the reactions of ideal observers (according to standard, prominent theories in the domain of epistemology).

This paper has three aims. First, it argues that the present use of ‘ideal theory’ is unhelpful, and that an earlier and apparently more natural use focussing on perfection would be preferable. Second, it has tried to show that its revision of the use of the term would better expose two distinctive normative issues, and illustrated that claim by showing how some contributors to debates about ideal theory have gone wrong partly through not distinguishing them. Third, in exposing those two distinct normative issues, it has exposed a particular way in which ideal theory even under the more specific, revisionary definition will often be central to working out what to do in non-ideal circumstances. By clarifying the terms on which debates over ideal and non-ideal theory should take place, and highlighting the particular problems each deals with, it tries to clear the ground for turning to the actual problem, which is what to do in our non-ideal and often tragic circumstances.

The ideal observer theory provides a fruitful framework for doing environmental ethics. It is not homocentric, it can illuminate the relationship between religious and nonreligious ethics, and it has implications for normative environmental issues. I defend it against eritieism raised by Thomas Carson and Jonathan Harrison.