These are the basic foundations of liberatory psychiatry.

I believe that some instances of civil disobedience are justifiable, even in a reasonably healthy democracy. This is a proposition with which most persons are inclined to agree intuitively, I think, and may therefore appear to be in no need of defense. In fact, however, the presentation of a solid defense of that thesis would be so complicated, and so inextricably entwined with factual questions about the circumstances in which the disobedience in question takes place, that I shall not even (...) attempt to provide it here. The provision of that defense is one ultimate object of mine, however, and my present purpose is to advance toward it by examining certain critical arguments that the defense of civil disobedience must meet. My aim here is to show that the major arguments, which are designed to establish the unjustifiability of civil disobedience, do not do that. (shrink)

By “democracy” I mean that form of community government in which the members of a community may participate equally in making directive decisions which concern them all. This definition needs clarification, of course; most of the issues it raises—the meaning of community, the dimensions of participation, the problems of representation, and so on—I bypass here. Supposing there is general agreement on the fundamental proposition that democratic government is government by the people, government of a community by the body of its (...) members, I now open the question: why have it? (shrink)

Evidentiary propositions E 1 and E 2, each p-positively relevant to some hypothesis H, are mutually corroborating if p > p, i = 1, 2. Failures of such mutual corroboration are instances of what may be called the corroboration paradox. This paper assesses two rather different analyses of the corroboration paradox due, respectively, to John Pollock and Jonathan Cohen. Pollock invokes a particular embodiment of the principle of insufficient reason to argue that instances of the corroboration paradox are of (...) negligible probability, and that it is therefore defeasibly reasonable to assume that items of evidence positively relevant to some hypothesis are mutually corroborating. Taking a different approach, Cohen seeks to identify supplementary conditions that are sufficient to ensure that such items of evidence will be mutually corroborating, and claims to have identified conditions which account for most cases of mutual corroboration. Combining a proposed common framework for the general study of paradoxes of positive relevance with a simulation experiment, we conclude that neither Pollock’s nor Cohen’s claims stand up to detailed scrutiny. I am quite prepared to be told…”oh, that is an extreme case: it could never really happen!” Now I have observed that this answer is always given instantly, with perfect confidence, and without any examination of the proposed case. It must therefore rest on some general principle: the mental process being something like this—“I have formed a theory. This case contradicts my theory. Therefore, this is an extreme case, and would never occur in practice.”Rev. Charles L. Dodgson. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Frühmittelalterliche Studien Jahrgang: 48 Heft: 1 Seiten: 237-260.

Morphogen gradient theories have enjoyed considerable popularity since the beginning of this century, but conclusive evidence for a role of morphogens in controlling multicellular development has been elusive. Recently, work on three secreted signalling proteins, Activin in Xenopus, and Wingless and Dpp in Drosophila, has stongly suggested that these proteins function as morphogens. In order to define a factor as a morphogen, it is necessary to show firstly, that it has a direct effect on target cells and secondly, that it (...) affects the development of target cells in a concentration‐dependent manner. With these criteria in mind, the evidence available for a variety of proposed morphogens is discussed. While the evidence is not conclusive in most of the cases considered, there is a strong case in favour of the three proteins mentioned above, which suggests that morphogens are potentially of general importance in controlling the development of multicellular organisms. (shrink)

Here, for the first time, the world's two leading authorities—Tom Regan, who argues for animal rights, and Carl Cohen, who argues against them—make their respective case before the public at large. The very terms of the debate will never be the same. This seminal moment in the history of the controversy over animal rights will influence the direction of this debate throughout the rest of the century.

Racial preferences are among the most contentious issues in our society, touching on fundamental questions of fairness and the proper role of racial categories in government action. Now two contemporary philosophers, in a lively debate, lay out the arguments on each side. Carl Cohen, a key figure in the University of Michigan Supreme Court cases, argues that racial preferences are morally wrong--forbidden by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, and explicitly banned by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (...) He also contends that such preferences harm society in general, damage the universities that use them, and undermine the minorities they were intended to serve. James P. Sterba counters that, far from being banned by the Constitution and the civil rights acts, affirmative action is actually mandated by law in the pursuit of a society that is racially and sexually just. The same Congress that adopted the 14th Amendment, he notes, passed race-specific laws that extended aid to blacks. Indeed, there are various kinds of affirmative action--compensation for past discrimination, remedial measures aimed at current discrimination, the guarantee of diversity--and Sterba reviews the Supreme Court cases that build a constitutional foundation for each. Affirmative action, he argues, favors qualified minority candidates, not unqualified ones. Both authors offer concluding comment on the University of Michigan cases decided in 2003. Half a century after Brown v. Board of Education, issues pertaining to racial discrimination continue to grip American society. Ideal for courses in political, social, ethical, and legal philosophy, this penetrating debate explores the philosophical and legal arguments on all sides of affirmative action, but also reveals the passions that drive the issue to the forefront of public life. (shrink)

A right, unlike an interest, is a valid claim, or potential claim, made by a moral agent, under principles that govern both the claimant and the target of the claim. Animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in and has force within a human moral world.

Introduction to Logic is a proven textbook that has been honed through the collaborative efforts of many scholars over the last five decades. Its scrupulous attention to detail and precision in exposition and explanation is matched by the greatest accuracy in all associated detail. In addition, it continues to capture student interest through its personalized human setting and current examples. The 14th Edition of Introduction to Logic, written by Copi, Cohen & McMahon, is dedicated to the many thousands of (...) students and their teachers - at hundreds of universities in the United States and around the world - who have used its fundamental methods and techniques of correct reasoning in their everyday lives. (shrink)