The 23 papers that were prepared for a 1991 symposium that was cancelled beneath the weight of public and professional protests at some of the speakers invited, particularly Peter Singer. They analyze the application of theoretical considerations arising from philosophical reflection to particular concrete cases and situations of moral conflict in such fields as the environment, biology and medicine, business and professions, politics, law, and society. Among the topics are a philosophical critique of legal rights for natural objects, comparing the (...) value of human and nonhuman life, business ethics as a goal-rights system, liberal society and planned morality, and moral philosophy and its function. No subject index. Annotation copyrighted by Book News, Inc., Portland, OR. (shrink)

Gerechtigkeit ist ein Thema, das Wissenschaft und Politik, Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften und viele philosophische Schulen gleichermaßen interessiert. Aufgrund seiner Relevanz und integrativen Kraft wurde "Gerechtigkeit" zum Thema eines internationalen Kongresses, den die Österreichische Gesellschaft für Philosophie im Februar 2004 ausgerichtet hat. Namhafte internationale Gäste haben ihre Gedanken zu Fragen der Gerechtigkeit dargelegt. So entsteht eine tour d'horizon des gegenwärtigen Fragens nach Gerechtigkeit. Neben den Hauptvorträgen des Kongresses (Wolfgang Kersting, Peter Koller, Avishai Margalit, Onora O'Neill) umfasst der Band Highlights des Kongresses, (...) die um das Thema "Gerechtigkeit" kreisen. (shrink)

The most important and extensive of Bernard Bolzano’s (1781–1848) correspondences is the one with his student and friend Michael Josef Fesl (1788–1864) which comprises altogether some 730 letters. Due to the great number of letters, starting with 1831, only Bolzano’s contributions are contained in his Collected Writings. Therefore, Fesl’s letters to Bolzano are published in the series "Beitraege zur Bolzano-Forschung". The present volume contains 88 letters that Fesl wrote in the years 1839 to 1841 to his “most-beloved teacher and friend”. (...) They focus on the works published by Bolzano during those years as well as on several projects that could not be realized. Moreover, they deal with philosophical trends, theological questions and political problems as well as with the epidemics of that time and their various treatments (including their success). Finally, Fesl also discusses the qualities of three portraits of Bolzano’s created by Áron Pulzer, Heinrich Hollpein und Karl Hoffmann during those years. (shrink)

Von allen Briefwechseln, die Bernard Bolzano (1781?1848) führte, war der mit seinem Schüler und Freund Michael Josef Fesl (1788?1864) bei weitem der umfangreichste. Insgesamt tauschten die beiden etwa 730 Briefe aus. Da wegen der grossen Zahl der Briefe in der Bernard-Bolzano-Gesamtausgabe ab dem Jahr 1831 nur noch die Briefe des Lehrers an seinen Schüler veröffentlicht werden, erscheinen die Briefe Fesls an Bolzano in den Beiträgen zur Bolzano-Forschung. 0Der vorliegende Band enthält Fesls Briefe der Jahre 1831?1836. Ihr Hauptthema sind Bolzanos Publikationsprojekte, (...) darunter die Religionsbekenntnisse zweier Vernunftfreunde (1835), die Lebensbeschreibung (1836) und die Wissenschaftslehre (1837). Dazu kommt ein Austausch über die Zensur, über politische Ereignisse, über Cholera und andere Epidemien jener Zeit sowie über Heilmittel wie Homöopathie oder Kaltwasserkuren. Philosophische Fragen im eigentlichen Sinne spielen eine kleinere, aber nicht zu vernachlässigende Rolle. (shrink)

In der vorliegenden Arbeit wird der Versuch unternommen, folgende Frage zu beantworten: Welche Bedingungen sind notwendig dafür, dass es objektiv gerechtfertigt ist, jemandem moralische Verantwor-tung im Sinne einer Pflicht zuzurechnen? Durch die Beantwortung dieser Frage soll ein kleiner, aber wesentlicher Bereich der Verantwortungsproblematik geklärt werden. Dies zu tun, erscheint allein schon deshalb notwendig, weil die Häufigkeit, mit welcher die Ausdrücke 'verantwortlich' und 'Verantwortung' verwendet werden, mit einer gewissen Unbestimmtheit in Bezug darauf einher geht, was damit jeweils gemeint sein könnte. Diese (...) Unbestimmtheit betrifft nicht zuletzt die Fragen, ob sich die Rede von jemandes Verantwortung auf eine Pflicht der betreffenden Person bezieht oder nicht und ob eine solche Pflicht als moralische Angelegenheit zu sehen ist oder als eine des Rechts oder anderer Normsysteme. Um moralische Verantwortung im Sinne einer Pflicht zu bestimmen, ist insbesondere notwendig, die Bedingungen anzugeben, die erfüllt sein müssen, damit es objektiv gerechtfertigt ist, jemandem Verantwortung im Allgemeinen zuzurechnen, andererseits aber ist zu klären, in welchem Sinne sich Menschen dabei auf Moral berufen. Eine solche Analyse ist notwendig, um zu erkennen, auf welche Weise die Rede von moralischer Verantwortung in unser Leben eingreifen kann und soll. (shrink)

Are Scientists responsible for the usage of the results of their research? Scientists belong to the most favourite group of people who are declared to be responsible for many various things. On the other hand, there is severe disagreement with regard to the question what it is that scientists are responsible for. According to some people, scientific responsibility essentially covers the correct acquisition, processing and publication of information, whereas others make scientists responsible for almost all consequences of their research, even (...) if they cannot influence them. This disagreement is exemplified by the attitudes towards Otto Hahn’s research on nuclear fission which range from blaming him for the development of the nuclear bomb to acquitting him from any responsibility because of the (alleged) lack of knowledge on the possible consequences of his research. In order to (dis-) solve this problem it is necessary to formulate clearly the conditions for ascribing responsibility to someone. By doing so, it is shown in the present paper, (i) that it is indeed possible to ascribe to scientists responsibility for certain consequences of their research (including the usage of its results), and (ii) that, as a matter of fact, it is implausible to make Hahn responsible for the nuclear bomb, but that it isn’t justified either to regard him as a kind of “naive country scientist”, because there is a lot of information he could and should have had as a (responsible) scientist. (shrink)

Are Scientists responsible for the usage of the results of their research? Scientists belong to the most favourite group of people who are declared to be responsible for many various things. On the other hand, there is severe disagreement with regard to the question what it is that scientists are responsible for. According to some people, scientific responsibility essentially covers the correct acquisition, processing and publication of information, whereas others make scientists responsible for almost all consequences of their research, even (...) if they cannot influence them. This disagreement is exemplified by the attitudes towards Otto Hahn’s research on nuclear fission which range from blaming him for the development of the nuclear bomb to acquitting him from any responsibility because of the lack of knowledge on the possible consequences of his research. In order to solve this problem it is necessary to formulate clearly the conditions for ascribing responsibility to someone. By doing so, it is shown in the present paper, that it is indeed possible to ascribe to scientists responsibility for certain consequences of their research, and that, as a matter of fact, it is implausible to make Hahn responsible for the nuclear bomb, but that it isn’t justified either to regard him as a kind of “naive country scientist”, because there is a lot of information he could and should have had as a scientist. (shrink)