This book develops a liberal theory of justice in exchange. It identifies the conditions that market exchanges need to fulfill to be just. It also addresses head-on a consequentialist challenge to existing theories of exchange, namely that, in light of new harms faced at the global level, we need to consider the combined consequences of millions of market exchanges to reach a final judgment about whether some individual exchange is just. The author argues that, even if we accept this (...) challenge, the effect of it is minimal. For different reasons, normatively problematic collective market outcomes like externalities, monopolies, violations of the Lockean proviso, inequality, and commodification do not pose particular problems to the justice of market exchanges. He outlines the various conditions a market exchange needs to fulfill to be considered just from a liberal background and in light of the new harms. Ultimately, he shows, it is not the market which is to blame; if we want to tackle issues like global warming or global economic injustice, we should not blindly follow the intuition that we best restrain and regulate markets. Commutative Justice is unique in its focus on justice in exchange rather than on end-state distributive justice, and the way in which it addresses the new harms we are facing today. It will be of interest to researchers and advanced students in philosophy, politics, and economics who are working on questions of economic justice. (shrink)

The Convention on Biological Diversity and its Nagoya Protocol established an Access and Benefit Sharing system between utilizers and providers of genetic resources. ABS is understood as a tool that should promote commutative justice between the involved parties. This essay discusses what exactly it is that is being exchanged in the ABS process. It critically analyses moral claims to compensation that are implied by the ABS system for genetic resources. It argues that with the exception of cases in (...) which traditional knowledge is involved, states are not automatically entitled to compensation in return for the utilization of genetic resources growing within their territory. However, biodiversity-rich states that make an effort to protect biodiversity must be compensated for complying with the requests set out in the CBD. Although it acknowledges that the NP is a step towards recognizing this claim, this essay argues that ABS is not the appropriate method to compensate for biodivers... (shrink)

행위의 도덕성을 그 행위가 야기하는 결과적 사태의 가치로 판단하는 결과주의에서 원칙적으로 제시하는 유일한 도덕적 판단 기준은 비개인적 관점에서 바라본 전체 세계의 총합적 가치의 최대화이다. 이에 따라 전체의 이익과 충돌할 때마다 개인은 자신의 이익과 신념, 삶의 기획을 모두 포기하도록 도덕적으로 요구되고, 결과적으로 각 개인의 개별성은 적절하게 존중받을 근거를 잃어버리게 된다. 본 논문에서는 결과주의가 도덕적 이론으로서 지닌 한계를 온전성, 분배 정의, 그리고 교환 정의의 측면에서 살펴본다. 우선 온전성의 측면에서, 자신의 신념과 가치관에 따라 온전한 삶을꾸려가야 할 개인은 결과주의적 원칙 하에 전체의 선을 위해 (...) 필요할 때마다 자신의 이익이나 삶의 기획을 포기하도록 도덕적으로강요되며, 따라서 내적으로 분열된 삶을 살게 된다. 둘째, 분배 정의의 측면에서 결과주의는 개인과 사회의 관계를 왜곡시켜 개인이독립된 개별자가 아니라 전체 사회의 선을 위해 기능하는 부품이되게 하는데, 이러한 ‘전체의 선’은 특히 좋음의 관계적 개념에 근거하여 볼 때 공허하거나 부차적인 것으로 드러날 수 있다. 마지막으로 결과주의는 개인 간의 주고받음의 관계에서 손해와 이익이발생할 때 각 당사자가 자신의 손해를 적절하게 보상받아야 한다는 교환 정의의 원칙을 적절히 수용하지 못하는데, 이 교환 정의의원칙은 각 개인의 개별성의 존중을 위해서 뿐 아니라 공동체의 유지를 위해 반드시 필요한 원리이다. (shrink)

How can we determine what are just boundaries or just criteria for inclusion or exclusion in contemporary states, nations, peoples, or other 'communities of justice'? As Barbieri demonstrates, recent theories of justice have failed to grapple squarely with this fundamental problem, either wholly ignoring it, or approaching it, inadequately, in terms of distributive or commutative justice, or simply declaring the problem insoluble. Developing a clear understanding of the peculiarities of constitutive justice, Barbieri contends, is a (...) task that has important implications for political philosophy as it bears on topics such as citizenship, migration, multiculturalism, self-determination, and the drafting of new constitutions. To this end, Constitutive Justice critically discusses some present approaches that promise to shed light on constitutive questions involving inclusion and the ethics of boundaries; provides an analysis of some of the central topics that plausible normative theories of constitutive justice will need to address; and develops the author's own constructive account. (shrink)

Two criteria, one for distributive and one for commutative justice are formulated, the latter applying to cases of free cooperation. Both criteria follow Aristotle's idea of proportional equality which in the first case is equality in the fulfillment of legitimate claims, in the second case equality of the gains derived from cooperation. The theory of social welfare functions is employed in the definition of the two criteria, but such functions are applied only to morally or legally justified interests. (...) A theory of justice only has to say how to satisfy conflicting legitimate claims, it is argued, but not what interests are justified in some given context. (shrink)

The main aim of this paper is to challenge the validity of the distinction between legal justice and social justice. It is argued that what we usually call legal justice is either an application of the more fundamental notion of social justice to legal rules and decisions or is not a matter of justice at all. In other words, the only correct uses of the notion of legal justice are derivative from the notion of (...) social justice and, hence, the alleged conflicts between criteria of social and legal justice result from the confusion about the proper relationship between these two concepts. Two views about the social justice/legal justice dichotomy are of particular importance and will provide the focus for the argument: this dichotomy is sometimes identified with a classical distinction between distributive and commutative justice and sometimes with the distinction between substantive and procedural justice. (shrink)

The welfare state raises questions concerning the just distribution of benefits. The proceeds from tort liability and insurance supplementing or replacing such liability are benefits that must be included in this context. The author argues that neither distribution based solely on the needs of various persons injured nor considerations of economic efficiency are sufficient. Commutative justice must be considered relevant as well. The ultimate valuations cannot be justified by rational arguments alone but such arguments must be taken into (...) account in order to reach legitimate results. (shrink)

One of the core values to be applied by a body reviewing the ethics of human research is justice. The inclusion of justice as a requirement in the ethical review of human research is relatively recent and its utility had been largely unexamined until debates arose about the conduct of international biomedical research in the late 1990s. The subsequent amendment of authoritative documents in ways that appeared to shift the meaning of conceptions of justice generated a great (...) deal of controversy. Another difficulty has been that both the theory and the substance of justice that are applied by researchers or reviewers can be frequently seen to be subjective. Both the concept of justice — whether distributive or commutative — and what counts as a just distribution or exchange — are given different weight and meanings by different people.In this paper, the origins and more recent debates about the requirement to consider justice as a criterion in the ethical review of human research are traced, relevant conceptions of justice are distinguished, and the manner in which they can be applied meaningfully in the ethical review of all human research is identified.We also explain the way that these concepts are articulated in, and the intent and function of, specific paragraphs of the National Statementon Ethical Conduct in Human Research (2007). The National Statement identifies a number of issues that should be considered when a human research ethics committee is reviewing the justice aspects of an application. We provide guidance to researchers as to how they can show that there is a fair distribution of burdens and benefits in the participant experience and the research outcomes. We also provide practical guidance to researchers on how to think through issues of justice so that they can demonstrate that the design of their research projects meets this ethical requirement. (shrink)

For persons serving life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences in California, a commutation usually offers them the sole glimpse of hope for release from prison. While governors were reluctant to consider any sentence reductions from 1975 to 2016, commutations—including those for LWOP—have become a more frequent occurrence since. Yet, little is still known about how governors have justified reducing a sentence that initially offered no prospect of release from prison. Given the apparent change in practice, themes emerging from the content of 177 gubernatorial (...) commutation summaries granted to persons serving LWOP sentences between 2017 and 2021 are analyzed in this paper. Through open coding, rehabilitative indicators (programming and institutional conduct) emerged as necessary preconditions for a commutation, while retributive factors (a reassessment of the nature of the crime and the prerogative to adjust excessive prison sentences or to correct sentencing errors) complemented sentence reductions. The findings expose the ethical issues that arise from an LWOP sentence and the subsequent commutation. More specifically, they shed light on the commitment offenses underlying commuted LWOP sentences and raise questions regarding the penal objectives that are supposed to be accomplished with permanent imprisonment. (shrink)

Two criteria, one for distributive and one for commutative justice are formulated, the latter applying to cases of free cooperation. Both criteria follow Aristotle's idea of proportional equality which in the first case is equality in the fulfillment of legitimate claims, in the second case equality of the gains derived from cooperation. The theory of social welfare functions is employed in the definition of the two criteria, but such functions are applied only to morally or legally justified interests. (...) A theory of justice only has to say how to satisfy conflicting legitimate claims, it is argued, but not what interests are justified in some given context. (shrink)

Pour les tenants de l’égalitarisme du maximin, le contexte intergénérationnel constitue un triple défi. Primo, ce que requiert le maximin intergénérationnel ne se confond-il pas avec l’interdiction de la désépargne posée par une conception commutative de la justice comme réciprocité indirecte? Secundo, ne sommes-nous contraints de prendre au sérieux, plus qu’ailleurs, les préoccupations aggrégatives des utilitaristes afin d’éviter une « stagnation éternelle dans la misère » et ainsi de renoncer au maximin? Tertio, n’est-ce pas un contexte où égalitarisme (...) et maximin ne diffèrent pas dans leurs conséquences pratiques? L’A. répond par la négative aux trois questions. Il montre en particulier en quoi l’égalitarisme du maximin s’écarte d’une règle de non-désépargne. Il indique la manière dont il importe de penser la justice entre générations de manière proprement distributive et il examine la manière dont le défi « aggrégatif » peut être relevé. (shrink)

For maximin egalitarians, the intergene rational context raises a threefold challenge. First, doesn't intergenerational maximin simply require a prohibition on dissavings, as a commutative conception of justice based on indirect reciprocity does ? Second, shouldn't we take seriously the aggregative worries of utilitarians in order not to remain eternally stuck into misery. Thus, shouldn't we abandon maximin ? Third, don't we find ourselves in a context where standard egalitarianism and maximin egalitarianism would coincide ? The A. provides a (...) negative answer to each of these three questions. He indicates in particular the extent to which maximin egalitarianism does not simply amount to a non-dis-savings rule. He stresses the way in which we should think about intergenerational justice in a properly distributive manner and he examines the way in which we can deal with the « aggregative challenge ». (shrink)

One of the most troubling aspects of dealing with past injustice in the former East Block is the conflict between positive law and law as the expression of higher principles of justice. In his Die Metaphysik der Sitten, Kant attempts to give content to, and place limitations on, what one may reasonably call "law". The purpose of this paper is to examine Kant's theories of commutative justice in a state of nature and distributive justice in a (...) civil state in an effort to define principles that are binding for every legal system. The paper examines two sets of four cases, namely 1) equity, necessity, pardons and duels; and 2) gifts, loans, bona fide purchasers and oaths, where Kant establishes limitations on state power with respect to the individual and to the society of individuals as a whole. Kant's legal system reveals itself to be a system devoted to liberal individualism and the maximum of protection of individual liberties. Einer der am meisten beunruhigenden Aspekte beim Umgang mit vergangenem Unrecht im früheren Ostblock besteht in dem Konflikt zwischen positivem Recht einerseits und Recht als Ausdruck höherer Prinzipien der Gerechtigkeit andererseits. In seinem Werk Die Metaphysik der Sitten versucht Kant, Inhalt und Grenzen dessen zu bestimmen, was man vernünftigerweise als "Recht" bezeichnen kann. Die Aufgabe dieses Beitrags besteht darin, Kants Theorien kommutativer Gerechtigkeit im Naturzustand sowie distributiver Gerechtigkeit im bürgerlichen Zustand zu untersuchen, um auf diese Weise Prinzipien zu ermitteln, die für jedes Rechtssystem bindend sind. Es werden dabei zwei Gruppen von je vier Fällen näher betrachtet, und zwar 1) Billigkeit, Notstand, Duell und Gnadenerweis sowie 2) Schenkung, Leihe, Gutglaubenserwerb und Eidesleistung, in denen Kant der staatlichen Macht im Hinblick auf das Individuum und die Gesellschaft der Individuen insgesamt Grenzen zieht. Kants Rechtssystem erweist sich hier als ein System, das dem liberalen Individualismus und einem maximalen Schutz individueller Freiheit verpflichtet ist. (shrink)

La justice dont il est question ici est la justice dans l’échange ou justice commutative selon la tradition issue d’Aristote. Cette justice qui s’exprime dans le juste prix s’établit à partir d’une discussion entre les propriétaires prenant part à l’échange. Cette discussion relève d’une logique de l’analogie. Pour les parties dans un échange, la justice n’est pas une égalité mais seulement une qualité entre personnes vers laquelle on se dirige par comparaison avec une égalité (...) entre quantités. (shrink)

La justice dont il est question ici est la justice dans l’échange ou justice commutative selon la tradition issue d’Aristote. Cette justice qui s’exprime dans le juste prix s’établit à partir d’une discussion entre les propriétaires prenant part à l’échange. Cette discussion relève d’une logique de l’analogie. Pour les parties dans un échange, la justice n’est pas une égalité mais seulement une qualité entre personnes vers laquelle on se dirige par comparaison avec une égalité (...) entre quantités. (shrink)

The concept of benefit sharing pertains to the act of giving something in return to the participants, communities, and the country that have participated in global health research or bioprospecting activities. One of the key concerns of benefit sharing is the ethical justifications or reasons to support the practice of the concept in global health research and bioprospecting. This article evaluates one of such ethical justifications and its meaning to benefit sharing, namely justice. We conducted a systematic review to (...) map the various principles of justice that are linked to benefit sharing and analysed their meaning to the concept of benefit sharing. Five principles of justice have been shown to be relevant in the nuances of benefit sharing in both global health research and bioprospecting. The review findings indicate that each of these principles of justice provides a different perspective for a different benefit sharing rationale. For example, commutative justice provides a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on fair exchange of benefits between research sponsors and communities. Distributive justice produces a benefit sharing rationale that is focused on improving the health needs of the vulnerable research communities. We have suggested that a good benefit sharing framework particularly in global health research would be more beneficial if it combines all the principles of justice in its formulation. Nonetheless, there is a need for empirical studies to examine the various principles of justice and their nuances in benefit sharing among stakeholders in global health research. (shrink)

The theory of justice that Hugo Grotius developed in De Jure Belli ac Pacis (The Law of War and Peace, 1625) set itself against a certain reading of Aristotle, according to which justice is conceived of as a mean between taking too much and taking too little. I argue that we can best understand the implications of Grotius' mature conception by considering the ends to which he had deployed this Aristotelian notion in his earlier work. Grotius came to (...) perceive that his earlier understanding of justice too easily ruled out the sorts of humanitarian concerns that could have a moderating effect. (shrink)

Ethical challenges to certain aspects of research on human subjects are not uncommon; examples include challenges to first-in-human trials (Chapman in J Clin Res Bioethics 2(4):1–8, 2011), certain placebo controlled trials (Anderson in J Med Philos 31:65–81, 2006; Anderson and Kimmelman in Kennedy Inst Ethics J 20(1):75–98, 2010) and “sham” surgery (Macklin in N Engl J Med 341:992–996, 1999). To date, however, there are few challenges to research when the subjects are competent and the research is more than minimal risk (...) with no promise of direct benefit. The principal reason given for allowing research that is more than minimal risk without benefit is that we should respect the autonomy of competent subjects. I argue that though the moral intuitions informing respect for autonomy are sound, there is another set of intuitions regarding what we take to be just treatment of another when one agent knowingly causes or allows suffering on another agent. I argue that concerns generated by commutative justice serve as limitations on permissible research. I highlight our intuitions informing this notion of justice by appealing to work done on theodicy; what counts as a morally sufficient reason for God to allow suffering in humans is applicable also to the researcher-subject relationship. I conclude that all human subjects who are exposed to more than minimal risk research should enjoy the same actual protections (e.g., subpart D) as those given subjects who cannot consent. (shrink)

This paper argues that the positive allocative decisions paradigmatically carried out by the application of legal rules are a necessary condition for arguments about particular justice (i.e., distributive and commutative justice) to make sense. If one shifts the focus from the distinction between distributive and commutative justice to what the two aspects of particular justice are for, namely, providing criteria to judge the allocation of goods, it becomes clear that the distinction is conceptually unstable. (...) The paper argues that stabilizing the distinction is worthwhile and that this can only be accomplished by the introduction of positive allocation schemes. (shrink)

For the last 50 years the idea of consumer rights has formed an essential element in the formulation of policy to guide the workings of the marketplace. The extent and coverage of these rights has evolved and changed over time, yet there has been no comprehensive analysis as to the purpose and scope of consumer rights. In moral and ethical philosophy, rights are integrally linked to the notion of justice. By reassessing consumer rights through a justice-based framework, a (...) number of key issues emerge regarding the way in which markets enable justice for consumers. The consumer rights which underpin the United Nations consumer protection guidelines address all forms of justice to some degree, but the predominant focus is on procedural justice. Our conclusions question whether this is sufficient and also whether there is a case to develop the notion of consumer ‘duties’ that complement the idea of rights. (shrink)

In spite of the numerous occasions on which Adam Smith expresses his reservations regarding the morality of commercial societies, there seems to be an agreement that he believed such systems to be fundamentally just. To some, this is so because they attribute to Smith a concept of justice which is narrowly confined to the ‘right to have [one's] body free from injury, and [one's] liberty free from infringement’ . In a world where people have an interest in the fortune (...) of others regardless of how selfish their motives for action might be, injuring someone else's body or restricting someone else's liberty is unlikely to be the behavioural norm. To others, natural liberty in the sphere of economic activity is just not only because individuals behind the system naturally comply with justice in its commutative sense, but also because the system itself generates justice in the distributive sense. Such arguments are based on either the working of the invisible hand — which produces the ‘same distribution of the necessities of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants …’ — or on the approval of the ‘impartial spectator’ of the distribution which is associated with the natural price. (shrink)

Le silence observé par John Rawls à propos des thèses de Friedrich Hayek sur la question de la justice sociale est à la fois remarquable et irritant. À défaut de pouvoir s’appuyer sur des textes où Rawls se démarquerait explicitement de ces thèses, il est cependant possible de tenter de tracer la ligne de clivage essentielle entre les deux auteurs : Hayek demeure convaincu que la question de la justice ne peut se poser qu’à propos des actions individuelles, (...) c’est-à-dire dans le domaine du droit privé ou de ce que l’on a appelé la justice corrective et sa démonstration s’appuie sur l’impossibilité de définir une répartition quelconque des ressources comme juste. Rawls affirme, en revanche, qu’il est impossible de définir une transaction interpersonnelle comme juste de manière isolée, et qu’il faut au contraire pour cela que cette transaction prenne place dans une structure sociale juste. Mais loin de concevoir cette justice contextuelle en termes d’allocation de ressources – position que Hayek lui attribue à tort –, il la conçoit en termes de règles de coopération sur lesquelles les partenaires pourraient raisonnablement s’accorder. Le silence de Rawls pourrait donc s’expliquer par le fait qu’il concevait comme une impasse évidente toute tentative pour déterminer les éléments d’une justice commutative ou corrective indépendamment d’une théorie de la justice distributive et que, à ses yeux, il est tout simplement absurde de s’interroger sur la justice d’une transaction – d’un contrat, d’un échange, d’une appropriation – indépendamment du contexte structurel dans lequel elle prend place. Mais il pourrait s’expliquer aussi par le fait que Hayek prend à partie une conception de la justice distributive en termes d’allocation de biens et non en termes de règles de coopération que Rawls lui-même n’a jamais songé à soutenir et qu’il rejette explicitement. (shrink)

This essay seeks to start a dialogue between two traditions that historically have interpreted the economy in opposing ways: the individualism of classic economic liberalism (CEL), represented by Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, and the communitarianism of Catholic social teaching (CST), interpreted primarily through the teachings of popes and secondarily the U.S. Catholic bishops. The present authors, an economist and a moral theologian who identify with one or the other of the two traditions, strive to clarify objectively their similarities and (...) differences with the opposing perspective. Section one focuses on each position''s perspective of love of self and love of others. We find both CEL and CST saying that self-love, rightly understood, constitutes a moral good and that the love of others serves as an important principle in the political economy. We find less agreement in section two regarding justice and rights, but even here, we discover a few surprises. Both traditions uphold justice (giving to each party what is due) as essential to the political economy, and recognize some similarity in that type of justice called commutative. We note, however, substantial differences regarding a second type of justice that we call "public justice." First, they differ over the extent to which government should be involved. Here the meaning of rights, especially that of individual freedom, arises. Secondly, the traditions diverge over whether benevolence as a motivator ought to serve as a partner for public justice. Thirdly, CEL in general opposes CST''s emphasis on social justice that calls upon institutions to be proactive in helping citizens and groups to become active participants in the economy. We conclude our essay by summarizing our discoveries and by suggesting areas for further dialogue. (shrink)

L’accident nucléaire de Fukushima a engendré une série de problèmes nouveaux. Comme il s’agissait d’une responsabilité stricte, les victimes n’ont pas eu à prouver la négligence mais ils ont entamé une action pour obtenir davantage de dédommagements pour atteinte morale. Ceci conduit à poser la question de la culpabilité pour négligence et stricte responsabilité. Je propose de ne pas entendre culpabilité au sens moral mais d’y voir une déviation par rapport à la norme. Plus grande sera la déviation, plus grande (...) la culpabilité, sans se soucier de ce qui a entraîné la responsabilité. Quant aux dommages, lesquels peuvent être compensés et lesquels ne le peuvent pas, voilà la question. Il était important de trouver des critères pour étayer cette décision et de les justifier. Pour cela, il faut étudier la structure de la responsabilité pour faute (négligence aussi bien que stricte responsabilité) et voir comment les principes fondamentaux de la justice distributive et de la justice commutative s’appliquent à cette structure. (shrink)

This book approaches the problems and circumstances confronting blacks in the context of black values, the black community, and the role of government. ^BContents:: The Black Community's Values as a Basis for Action; The Community as Agent of Change; and The Government's Role in Meeting New Challenges.

In this article, we will first give a historic overview of the concept of benefit sharing and its appearance in official agreements, particularly with respect to crop genetic resources. It will become clear that, at present, benefit sharing is primarily considered as an instrument of compensation or exchange, and thus refers to commutative justice. However, we believe that such a narrow interpretation of benefit sharing disregards, and even undermines, much of its (historical) content and potency, especially where crop (...) genetic resources are concerned. We argue that benefit sharing should not be based merely on commutative justice but rather on a broader model that is also grounded in the concept of distributive justice. This has repercussions for the application of benefit sharing, which we try to clarify by distinguishing between downstream and upstream benefit sharing. Upstream benefit sharing is not so much inspired by compensation for actions done, or the distribution downstream of benefits developed, but by the idea of shared decision‐making on the research and development of resources fundamental to human welfare. Going upstream in the research process of crop genetic resources, and determining research agendas and improving crops according to the needs of the poor, benefit sharing may well be a tool to contribute to world food security and global justice. We concretize our ideas on upstream benefit sharing by introducing a set of criteria that determine the success of consultations on agricultural research agenda setting. (shrink)

Frege’s claim that proper names have senses has come to seem untenable following Kripke’s argument that names are rigid designators. It is commonly thought that if names had senses, their referents would vary with circumstances of evaluation. The article defends Frege’s claim by arguing that names have word-reflexive senses. This analysis of names’ senses does not violate Kripke’s noncircularity condition, and it differs crucially from related views of Bach and Katz. That names have reflexive senses confirms Frege’s own solution to (...) his puzzle about the content of identity sentences, solves Kripke’s Pierre and Peter puzzles about belief ascription, and entails that bearerless names have meanings. Furthermore, names’ having reflexive senses explains why they designate rigidly. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In this article, we will first give a historic overview of the concept of benefit sharing and its appearance in official agreements, particularly with respect to crop genetic resources. It will become clear that, at present, benefit sharing is primarily considered as an instrument of compensation or exchange, and thus refers to commutative justice. However, we believe that such a narrow interpretation of benefit sharing disregards, and even undermines, much of its (historical) content and potency, especially where (...) crop genetic resources are concerned. We argue that benefit sharing should not be based merely on commutative justice but rather on a broader model that is also grounded in the concept of distributive justice. This has repercussions for the application of benefit sharing, which we try to clarify by distinguishing between downstream and upstream benefit sharing. Upstream benefit sharing is not so much inspired by compensation for actions done, or the distribution downstream of benefits developed, but by the idea of shared decision‐making on the research and development of resources fundamental to human welfare. Going upstream in the research process of crop genetic resources, and determining research agendas and improving crops according to the needs of the poor, benefit sharing may well be a tool to contribute to world food security and global justice. We concretize our ideas on upstream benefit sharing by introducing a set of criteria that determine the success of consultations on agricultural research agenda setting. (shrink)

"On Sense and Reflexivity" offers the answer to a crucial question that was posed, and left without a satisfactory answer, by Gottlob Frege in "On Sense and Reference" (1892): What is the sense of a proper name? The century-long failure to answer this question has been the main motivation and support for recent nondescriptional accounts of lexical singular terms.

Singular-term semantics has been intractable. Frege took the referents of singular terms to be their semantic values. On his account, vacuous terms lacked values. Russell separated the semantics of definite descriptions from the semantics of proper names, which caused truth-values to be composed in two different ways and still left vacuous names without values. Montague gave all noun phrases sets of verb-phrase extensions for values, which created type mismatches when noun phrases were objects and still left vacuous names without values. (...) There is a single type of value for all noun phrases that dissolves the difficulties which have beset singular-term semantics. (shrink)

It is generally accepted that Mill’s classification of names as nonconnotative terms is incompatible with Frege’s thesis that names have senses. However, Milldescribed the senses of nonconnotative terms—without being aware that he was doing so. These are the senses for names that were sought in vain by Frege. When Mill’s and Frege’s doctrines are understood as complementary, they constitute a fully satisfactory theory of names.

"Case notes." Ethos: Official Publication of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory, (199), pp. 34–35.

Frege's thesis that each singular term has a sense that determines its reference and serves as its cognitive value has come to be widely doubted. Saul Kripke argued that since names are rigid designators, their referents are not determined by senses. David Kaplan has argued that the rigid designation of indexical terms entails that they also lack referent–determining senses. Kripke's argument about names and Kaplan's argument about indexical terms differ, but each contains a false premise. The referents of both names (...) and indexical terms are determined by reflexive senses. It is reflexive sense that makes these terms rigid designators. (shrink)

Frege's thesis that each singular term has a sense that determines its reference and serves as its cognitive value has come to be widely doubted. Saul Kripke argued that since names are rigid designators, their referents are not determined by senses. David Kaplan has argued that the rigid designation of indexical terms entails that they also lack referent–determining senses. Kripke's argument about names and Kaplan's argument about indexical terms differ, but each contains a false premise. The referents of both names (...) and indexical terms are determined by reflexive senses. It is reflexive sense that makes these terms rigid designators. (shrink)