Search results for 'Priority View' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Order:
  1.  10
    David McCarthy (forthcoming). The Priority View. Economics and Philosophy.
    According to the priority view, or prioritarianism, it matters more to benefit people the worse off they are. But how exactly should the priority view be defined? This article argues for a highly general characterization which essentially involves risk, but makes no use of evaluative measurements or the expected utility axioms. A representation theorem is provided, and when further assumptions are added, common accounts of the priority view are recovered. A defense of the key (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2.  77
    Thomas Porter (2012). In Defence of the Priority View. Utilitas 24 (03):349-364.
    In their paper ‘Why It Matters That Some Are Worse Off Than Others: An Argument against the Priority View’, Michael Otsuka and Alex Voorhoeve argue that prioritarianism is mistaken. I argue that their case against prioritarianism has much weaker foundations than it might at first seem. Their key argument is based on the claim that prioritarianism ignores the fact of the ‘separateness of persons’. However, prioritarianism, far from ignoring that fact, is a plausible response to it. It may (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  3.  39
    David McCarthy (2013). Risk-Free Approaches to the Priority View. Erkenntnis 78 (2):421-449.
    Parfit advertised the priority view as a new and fundamental theory in the ethics of distribution. He never discusses risk, and many writers follow suit when discussing the priority view. This article formalizes two popular arguments for a commonly accepted risk-free definition of the priority view. One is based on a direct attempt to define the priority view, the other is based on a contrast with utilitarianism and egalitarianism. But neither argument succeeds, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  4. Michael Otsuka & Alex Voorhoeve (2009). Why It Matters That Some Are Worse Off Than Others: An Argument Against the Priority View. Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (2):171-199.
    We argue that there is a marked shift in the moral weight of an increment in a person's well-being when one moves from a case involving only intra-personal trade-offs to a case involving only inter-personal trads-offs. This shift, we propose, is required by the separateness of persons. We also argue that the Priority View put forward by Parfit cannot account for such a shift. We also outline two alternative views, an egalitarian view and a claims-based view, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   17 citations  
  5.  63
    Andrew Williams (2012). The Priority View Bites the Dust? Utilitas 24 (03):315-331.
    This article distinguishes between a telic and a deontic version of Derek Parfit's influential Priority View. Employing the distinction, it shows that the existence of variations in how intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts should be resolved fails to provide a compelling case in favour of relational egalitarianism and against all pure versions of the Priority View. In addition, the article argues that those variations are better understood as providing counterevidence to certain distribution-sensitive versions of consequentialism.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  6.  23
    Wlodek Rabinowicz (2001). Prioritarianism and Uncertainty: On the Interpersonal Addition Theorem and the Priority View. In Dan Egonsson (ed.), Exploring Practical Philosophy: From Action to Values. Ashgate 139-165.
    I begin, in section 1, with a presentation of the Interpersonal Addition Theorem. The theorem, due to John Broome (1991), is a re-formulation of the classical result by Harsanyi (1955). It implies that, given some seemingly mild assumptions, the overall utility of an uncertain prospect can be seen as the sum of its individual utilities. In sections 1 and 2, I discuss the theorem's connection with utilitarianism and in particular consider its implications for the Priority View, according to (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   3 citations  
  7.  14
    Desktop View, Desktop View.
    Zuckerberg almost always tells users that change is hard, often referring back to the early days of Facebook when it had barely any of the features people know and love today. He says sharing and a more open and connected world are had barely any of the features people know and love today. He says sharing and a more open and connected world are good, and often he says he appreciates all the feedback.
    No categories
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Derek Parfit (2012). Another Defence of the Priority View. Utilitas 24 (03):399-440.
    This article discusses the relation between prioritarian and egalitarian principles, whether and why we need to appeal to both kinds of principle, how prioritarians can answer various objections, especially those put forward by Michael Otsuka and Alex Voorhoeve, the moral difference between cases in which our acts could affect only one person or two or more people, veil of ignorance contractualism and utilitarianism, what prioritarians should claim about cases in which the effects of our acts are uncertain, the relative moral (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   11 citations  
  9. Roger Crisp (2011). In Defence of the Priority View: A Response to Otsuka and Voorhoeve. Utilitas 23 (1):105-108.
  10. Matthew Rendall (2013). Priority and Desert. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):939-951.
    Michael Otsuka, Alex Voorhoeve and Marc Fleurbaey have challenged the priority view in favour of a theory based on competing claims. The present paper shows how their argument can be used to recast the priority view. All desert claims in distributive justice are comparative. The stronger a party’s claims to a given benefit, the greater is the value of her receiving it. Ceteris paribus, the worse-off have stronger claims on welfare, and benefits to them matter more. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  11.  70
    Ingmar Persson (2001). Equality, Priority and Person-Affecting Value. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4 (1):23-39.
    Derek Parfit has argued that (Teleological) Egalitarianism is objectionable by breaking a person-affecting claim to the effect that an outcome cannot be better in any respect - such as that of equality - if it is better for nobody. So, he presents the Priorty View, i.e., the policy of giving priority to benefiting the worse-off, which avoids this objection. But it is here argued, first, that there is another person-affecting claim that this view violates. Secondly, Egalitarianism can (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   8 citations  
  12. Wlodek Rabinowicz (2002). Prioritarianism for Prospects. Utilitas 14 (1):2-21.
    The Interpersonal Addition Theorem, due to John Broome, states that, given certain seemingly innocuous assumptions, the overall utility of an uncertain prospect can be represented as the sum of its individual utilities. Given ‘Bernoulli's hypothesis’ according to which individual utility coincides with individual welfare, this result appears to be incompatible with the Priority View. On that view, due to Derek Parfit, the benefits to the worse off should count for more, in the overall evaluation, than the comparable (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  13. David McCarthy (2008). Utilitarianism and Prioritarianism II. Economics and Philosophy 24 (1):1-33.
    A natural formalization of the priority view is presented which results from adding expected utility theory to the main ideas of the priority view. The result is ex post prioritarianism. But ex post prioritarianism entails that in a world containing just one person, it is sometimes better for that person to do what is strictly worse for herself. This claim may appear to be implausible. But the deepest objection to ex post prioritarianism has to do with (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  14. Luc Bovens (2015). Evaluating Risky Prospects: The Distribution View. Analysis 75 (2):243-253.
    Risky prospects represent policies that impose different types of risks on multiple people. I present an example from food safety. A utilitarian following Harsanyi's Aggregation Theorem ranks such prospects according to their mean expected utility or the expectation of the social utility. Such a ranking is not sensitive to any of four types of distributional concerns. I develop a model that lets the policy analyst rank prospects relative to the distributional concerns that she considers fitting in the context at hand. (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  15. Sam Baron (2014). The Priority of the Now. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly:0-0.
    This paper motivates and develops a new theory of time: priority presentism. Priority presentism is the view according to which (i) only present entities exist fundamentally and (ii) past and future entities exist, but they are grounded in the present. The articulation of priority presentism is an exercise in applied grounding: it draws on concepts from the recent literature on ontological dependence and applies those concepts in a new way, to the philosophy of time. The result, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  16. Alex Steinberg (2015). Priority Monism and Part/Whole Dependence. Philosophical Studies 172 (8):2025-2031.
    Priority monism is the view that the cosmos is the only independent concrete object. The paper argues that, pace its proponents, Priority monism is in conflict with the dependence of any whole on any of its parts: if the cosmos does not depend on its parts, neither does any smaller composite.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  17.  28
    Michail M. Peramatzis (2011). Priority in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.
    Michail Peramatzis presents a new interpretation of Aristotle's view of the priority relations between fundamental and derivative parts of reality, following ...
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  18.  78
    Michael Otsuka (2015). Prioritarianism and the Measure of Utility. Journal of Political Philosophy 23 (1):1-22.
    I argue that prioritarianism cannot be assessed in abstraction from an account of the measure of utility. Rather, the soundness of this view crucially depends on what counts as a greater, lesser, or equal increase in a person’s utility. In particular, prioritarianism cannot accommodate a normatively compelling measure of utility that is captured by the axioms of John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern’s expected utility theory. Nor can it accommodate a plausible and elegant generalization of this theory that has (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  19. Lisa L. Fuller (2012). Priority-Setting in International Non-Governmental Organizations: It is Not as Easy as ABCD. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):5-17.
    Recently theorists have demonstrated a growing interest in the ethical aspects of resource allocation in international non-governmental humanitarian, development and human rights organizations (INGOs). This article provides an analysis of Thomas Pogge's proposal for how international human rights organizations ought to choose which projects to fund. Pogge's allocation principle states that an INGO should govern its decision making about candidate projects by such rules and procedures as are expected to maximize its long-run cost-effectiveness, defined as the expected aggregate moral value (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  20.  47
    Kathrin Koslicki (2015). The Causal Priority of Form in Aristotle. Studia Philosophica Estonica 7 (2):113.
    In various texts, Aristotle assigns priority to form, in its role as a principle and cause, over matter and the matter-form compound. Given the central role played by this claim in Aristotle's search for primary substance in the Metaphysics, it is important to understand what motivates him in locating the primary causal responsibility for a thing's being what it is with the form, rather than the matter. According to Met. Theta.8, actuality [ energeia / entelecheia ] in general is (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  21.  21
    Alex Steinberg (2015). Priority Monism and Part/Whole Dependence. Philosophical Studies 172 (8):2025-2031.
    Priority monism is the view that the cosmos is the only independent concrete object. The paper argues that, pace its proponents, Priority monism is in conflict with the dependence of any whole on any of its parts: if the cosmos does not depend on its parts, neither does any smaller composite.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  22. Thomas Porter (2011). Prioritarianism and the Levelling Down Objection. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (2):197-206.
    I discuss Ingmar Persson’s recent argument that the Levelling Down Objection could be worse for prioritarians than for egalitarians. Persson’s argument depends upon the claim that indifference to changes in the average prioritarian value of benefits implies indifference to changes in the overall prioritarian value of a state of affairs. As I show, however, sensible conceptions of prioritarianism have no such implication. Therefore prioritarians have nothing to fear from the Levelling Down Objection.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  23. David McCarthy (2006). Utilitarianism and Prioritarianism I. Economics and Philosophy 22 (3):335-363.
    Utilitarianism and prioritarianism make a strong assumption about the uniqueness of measures of how good things are for people, or for short, individual goodness measures. But it is far from obvious that the presupposition is correct. The usual response to this problem assumes that individual goodness measures are determined independently of our discourse about distributive theories. This article suggests reversing this response. What determines the set of individual goodness measures just is the body of platitudes we accept about distributive theories. (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  24.  57
    Nils Holtug (1999). Utility, Priority and Possible People. Utilitas 11 (1):16.
    This paper discusses what the so-called Priority View implies regarding possible people. It is argued that this view is plausible when applied to fixed populations, but that, when applied to the issue of possible people, it faces certain difficulties. If it is claimed that possible people fall within the scope of the Priority View, we are led to the repugnant conclusion at a faster pace than we are by, e.g., utilitarianism. And if it is claimed (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   5 citations  
  25.  64
    Klemens Kappel (1997). Equality, Priority, and Time. Utilitas 9 (2):203.
    The lifetime equality view has recently been met with the objection that it does not rule out simultaneous inequality: two persons may lead equally good lives on the whole and yet there may at any time be great differences in their level of well-being. And simultaneous inequality, it is held, ought to be a concern of egalitarians. The paper discusses this and related objections to the lifetime equality view. It is argued that rather than leading to a revision (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  26. Theron Pummer, The Priority Monster.
    The Priority View implies that we sometimes have nontrivially stronger reason to benefit a person, the worse off in absolute terms this person would be if she did not receive the benefit in question. This view seems plausible. Nonetheless I will argue that it is inconsistent with the conjunction of a number of independently intuitively plausible claims. One such claim is that we should spare a very badly off person from many years of intense pain rather than (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  27. Sharon R. Ford (2007). An Analysis of Properties in John Heil’s "From an Ontological Point of View". In G. Romano & Malatesti (eds.), From an Ontological Point of View, Swif Philosophy of Mind Review, Symposium. Swif Philosophy of Mind Review
    In this paper I argue that the requirement for the qualitative is theory-dependent, determined by the fundamental assumptions built into the ontology. John Heil’s qualitative, in its role as individuator of objects and powers, is required only by a theory that posits a world of distinct objects or powers. Does Heil’s ‘deep’ view of the world, such that there is only one powerful object require the qualitative as individuator of objects and powers? The answer depends on whether it is (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  28.  9
    S. Segall (2015). In Defense of Priority. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 14 (4):343-364.
    In a recent article, Michael Otsuka and Alex Voorhoeve argue that prioritarianism fails to account for the shift in moral significance in gains to individuals in interpersonal as compared to intrapersonal cases. In this article, I show that the priority view escapes this objection but in a way that deprives it of its anti-egalitarian stance. Despite Otsuka and Voorhoeve, prioritarianism, rightly understood, provides consistent and attractive recommendations in both single- and multi-person cases. Yet prioritarians, the article goes on (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  29.  3
    Shlomi Segall (2015). In Defense of Priority. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 14 (4):343-364.
    In a recent article, Michael Otsuka and Alex Voorhoeve argue that prioritarianism fails to account for the shift in moral significance in gains to individuals in interpersonal as compared to intrapersonal cases. In this article, I show that the priority view escapes this objection but in a way that deprives it of its anti-egalitarian stance. Despite Otsuka and Voorhoeve, prioritarianism, rightly understood, provides consistent and attractive recommendations in both single- and multi-person cases. Yet prioritarians, the article goes on (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Benjamin Vilhauer (2008). Incompatibilism and Ontological Priority in Kant's Theory of Free Will. In Pablo Muchnik (ed.), Incompatibilism and Ontological Priority in Kant's Theory of Free Will.
    This paper concerns the role of the transcendental distinction between agents qua phenomena and qua noumena in Kant's theory of free will. It argues (1) that Kant's incompatibilism can be accommodated if one accepts the "ontological" interpretation of this distinction (i.e. the view that agents qua noumena are ontologically prior to agents qua phenomena), and (2) that Kant's incompatibilism cannot be accommodated by the "two-aspect" interpretation, whose defining feature is the rejection of the ontological priority of agents qua (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  31. Larry S. Temkin (2003). Equality, Priority or What? Economics and Philosophy 19 (1):61-87.
    This paper aims to illuminate some issues in the equality, priority, or what debate. I characterize egalitarianism and prioritarianism, respond to the view that we should care about sufficiency or compassion rather than equality or priority, discuss the levelling down objection, and illustrate the significance of the distinction between prioritarianism and egalitarianism, establishing that the former is no substitute for the latter. In addition, I respond to Bertil Tungodden's views regarding the Slogan, the levelling down objection, the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   14 citations  
  32. Hanan A. Alexander (2006). A View From Somewhere: Explaining the Paradigms of Educational Research. Journal of Philosophy of Education 40 (2):205–221.
    In this paper I ask how educational researchers can believe the subjective perceptions of qualitative participant-observers given the concern for objectivity and generalisability of experimental research in the behavioural and social sciences. I critique the most common answer to this question within the educational research community, which posits the existence of two (or more) equally legitimate epistemological paradigms—positivism and constructivism—and offer an alternative that places a priority in educational research on understanding the purposes and meanings humans attribute to educational (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   7 citations  
  33. Ghislain Guigon (2011). Spinoza on Composition and Priority. In Philip Goff (ed.), Spinoza on Monism. Palgrave Macmillan
    This article has two goals: a historical and a speculative one. The historical goal is to offer a coherent account of Spinoza’s view on mereological composition. The speculative goal is to show that Spinoza’s substance monism is distinct from versions of monism that are currently defended in metaphysics and that it deserves the attention of contemporary metaphysicians. Regarding the second goal, two versions of monism are currently defended and discussed in contemporary metaphysics: existence monism according to which there actually (...)
    Translate
      Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34.  43
    Max Siegel (2016). Priority Monism Is Contingent. Thought: A Journal of Philosophy 5 (1):23-32.
    This paper raises a challenge to Jonathan Schaffer's priority monism. I contend that monism may be true at the actual world but fail to hold as a matter of metaphysical necessity, contrary to Schaffer's view that monism, if true, is necessarily true. My argument challenges Schaffer for his reliance on contingent physical truths in an argument for a metaphysically necessary conclusion. A counterexample in which the actual laws of physics hold but the physical history of the universe is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Joel M. Potter (2012). Arguments From the Priority of Feeling From Contemporary Emotion Theory and Max Scheler's Phenomenology. Quaestiones Disputatae 3 (1):215-225.
    Many so-called “cognitivist” theories of the emotions account for the meaningfulness of emotions in terms of beliefs or judgments that are associated or identified with these emotions. In recent years, a number of analytic philosophers have argued against these theories by pointing out that the objects of emotions are sometimes meaningfully experienced before one can take a reflective stance toward them. Peter Goldie defends this point of view in his book The Emotions: A Philosophical Exploration. Goldie argues that emotions (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Campbell Brown (2005). Priority or Sufficiency …or Both? Economics and Philosophy 21 (2):199-220.
    Prioritarianism is the view that we ought to give priority to benefiting those who are worse off. Sufficientism, on the other hand, is the view that we ought to give priority to benefiting those who are not sufficiently well off. This paper concerns the relative merits of these two views; in particular, it examines an argument advanced by Roger Crisp to the effect that sufficientism is the superior of the two. My aim is to show that (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  37.  57
    Marc Fleurbaey, Bertil Tungodden & Peter Vallentyne (2009). On the Possibility of Nonaggregative Priority for the Worst Off. Social Philosophy and Policy 26 (1):258-285.
    We shall focus on moral theories that are solely concerned with promoting the benefits (e.g., wellbeing) of individuals and explore the possibility of such theories ascribing some priority to benefits to those who are worse off—without this priority being absolute. Utilitarianism (which evaluates alternatives on the basis of total or average benefits) ascribes no priority to the worse off, and leximin (which evaluates alternatives by giving lexical priority to the worst off, and then the second worst (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  38. Anjan Chakravartty, Ontological Priority: The Conceptual Basis of Non-Eliminative, Ontic Structural Realism.
    The number of positions identified with structural realism in philosophical debates about scientific knowledge has grown significantly in the past decade, particularly with respect to the metaphysical or ‘ontic’ approach (OSR). In recent years, several advocates of OSR have proposed a novel understanding of it in order to side-step a serious challenge faced by its original formulation, eliminative OSR. I examine the conceptual basis of the new, noneliminative view, and conclude that it too faces a serious challenge, resulting in (...)
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  39.  11
    Eli Dresner (2002). Wittgenstein's Builders and Perry's Objection to Sentence Priority. Dialectica 56 (1):49–63.
    In the first section of this paper I present a view of linguistic meaning that I label 'Sentence Priority’: the position that semantically primitive language‐world contact is made at the level of complete sentences . Then, in the main part of the paper, I consider and reject an objection against Sentence Priority raised by John Perry, an objection that appeals to Wittgenstein's builders parable. Perry argues that the builder's utterances are utterances of self‐standing nouns, and that therefore (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   4 citations  
  40. Martin Peterson & Sven Ove Hansson (2005). Equality and Priority. Utilitas 17 (3):299-309.
    This article argues that, contrary to the received view, prioritarianism and egalitarianism are not jointly incompatible theories in normative ethics. By introducing a distinction between weighing and aggregating, the authors show that the seemingly conflicting intuitions underlying prioritarianism and egalitarianism are consistent. The upshot is a combined position, equality-prioritarianism, which takes both prioritarian and egalitarian considerations into account in a technically precise manner. On this view, the moral value of a distribution of well-being is a product of two (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  41. Michael Huemer (2010). Lexical Priority and the Problem of Risk. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (3):332-351.
    Some theories of practical reasons incorporate a lexical priority structure, according to which some practical reasons have infinitely greater weight than others. This includes absolute deontological theories and axiological theories that take some goods to be categorically superior to others. These theories face problems involving cases in which there is a non-extreme probability that a given reason applies. In view of such cases, lexical-priority theories are in danger of becoming irrelevant to decision-making, becoming absurdly demanding, or generating (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  42.  58
    Claudio Calosi (2013). Quantum Mechanics and Priority Monism. Synthese (5):1-14.
    The paper address the question of whether quantum mechanics (QM) favors Priority Monism, the view according to which the Universe is the only fundamental object. It develops formal frameworks to frame rigorously the question of fundamental mereology and its answers, namely (Priority) Pluralism and Monism. It then reconstructs the quantum mechanical argument in favor of the latter and provides a detailed and thorough criticism of it that sheds furthermore new light on the relation between parthood, composition and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. A. R. J. Fisher (2015). Priority Monism, Partiality, and Minimal Truthmakers. Philosophical Studies 172 (2):477-491.
    Truthmaker monism is the view that the one and only truthmaker is the world. Despite its unpopularity, this view has recently received an admirable defence by Schaffer :307–324, 2010b). Its main defect, I argue, is that it omits partial truthmakers. If we omit partial truthmakers, we lose the intimate connection between a truth and its truthmaker. I further argue that the notion of a minimal truthmaker should be the key notion that plays the role of constraining ontology and (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   13 citations  
  44.  50
    Claudio Calosi (2013). Quantum Mechanics and Priority Monism. Synthese 191 (5):1-14.
    The paper address the question of whether quantum mechanics (QM) favors Priority Monism, the view according to which the Universe is the only fundamental object. It develops formal frameworks to frame rigorously the question of fundamental mereology and its answers, namely (Priority) Pluralism and Monism. It then reconstructs the quantum mechanical argument in favor of the latter and provides a detailed and thorough criticism of it that sheds furthermore new light on the relation between parthood, composition and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45.  29
    Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & John E. Roemer (2008). The Veil of Ignorance Violates Priority. Economics and Philosophy 24 (2):233-257.
    The veil of ignorance has been used often as a tool for recommending what justice requires with respect to the distribution of wealth. We complete Harsanyi's model of the veil of ignorance by appending information permitting objective comparisons among persons. In order to do so, we introduce the concept of objective empathy. We show that the veil-of-ignorance conception of John Harsanyi, so completed, and Ronald Dworkin's, when modelled formally, recommend wealth allocations in conflict with the prominently espoused view that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  46.  11
    Ryan Pevnick (2015). Should Civil Liberties Have Strict Priority? Law and Philosophy 34 (5):519-549.
    Many political controversies involve conflicts between civil liberties and other important social goals. The orthodox view in liberal political theory is that civil liberties must be given strict priority over competing social goals because of the importance of the interests advanced by such liberties and/or their role in upholding the status of citizens. This paper criticizes both lines of argument. Interest-based arguments fail because we are sometimes willing to sacrifice the very fundamental interests of some citizens in order (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  47.  43
    Aysel Doğan (2011). On the Priority of the Right to the Good. Kant-Studien 102 (3):316-334.
    Rawls's view that the right is prior to the good has been criticized by various scholars from divergent points of view. Some contend that Rawls's teleological/deontological distinction based on the priority of the right is misleading while others claim that no plausible ethical theory can determine what is right prior to the good. There is no consensus on how to interpret the priority of right to the good; nor is there an agreement on the criteria of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  48.  47
    Shai Frogel (2010). The Soul: An Existentialist Point of View. [REVIEW] Human Studies 33 (2):191-204.
    The debate in relation to the soul suffers nowadays from a great lack of clarity. At least part of this cloudiness stems from a confusion among three different viewpoints that are not always reconcilable or mutually intelligible: the scientific point of view (natural sciences and empirical psychology), the therapeutic point of view (especially psychoanalysis) and the philosophical point of view. The goal of this paper is to blow away a little this cloudiness, and to introduce into the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49.  10
    Rui Nunes & Guilhermina Rego (2014). Priority Setting in Health Care: A Complementary Approach. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis 22 (3):292-303.
    Explicit forms of rationing have already been implemented in some countries, and many of these prioritization systems resort to Norman Daniels’ “accountability for reasonableness” methodology. However, a question still remains: is “accountability for reasonableness” not only legitimate but also fair? The objective of this paper is to try to adjust “accountability for reasonableness” to the World Health Organization’s holistic view of health and propose an evolutionary perspective in relation to the “normal” functioning standard proposed by Norman Daniels. To accomplish (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50.  8
    K. Baeroe & B. Bringedal (2011). Just Health: On the Conditions for Acceptable and Unacceptable Priority Settings with Respect to Patients' Socioeconomic Status. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (9):526-529.
    It is well documented that the higher the socioeconomic status (SES) of patients, the better their health and life expectancy. SES also influences the use of health services—the higher the patients' SES, the more time and specialised health services provided. This leads to the following question: should clinicians give priority to individual patients with low SES in order to enhance health equity? Some argue that equity is best preserved by physicians who remain loyal to ‘ordinary medical fairness’ in non-ideal (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 1000