Our think tank tasked by the Dutch Health Council, consisting of Radboud University Nijmegen Honours Academy students with various backgrounds, investigated the implications of Deep Brain Stimulation for psychiatric patients. During this investigation, a number of methodological, ethical and societal difficulties were identified. We consider these difficulties to be a reflection of a still fragmented field of research that can be overcome with improved organization and communication. To this effect, we suggest that it would be useful to found a centralized (...) DBS organization. Such an organization makes it possible to 1) set up and maintain a repository, 2) facilitate DBS studies with a larger sample size, 3) improve communication amongst researchers, clinicians and ethical committees, and 4) improve communication between DBS experts and the public at large. (shrink)

Peer review is a widely accepted instrument for raising the quality of science. Peer review limits the enormous unstructured influx of information and the sheer amount of dubious data, which in its absence would plunge science into chaos. In particular, peer review offers the benefit of eliminating papers that suffer from poor craftsmanship or methodological shortcomings, especially in the experimental sciences. However, we believe that peer review is not always appropriate for the evaluation of controversial hypothetical science. We argue that (...) the process of peer review can be prone to bias towards ideas that affirm the prior convictions of reviewers and against innovation and radical new ideas. Innovative hypotheses are thus highly vulnerable to being “filtered out” or made to accord with conventional wisdom by the peer review process. Consequently, having introduced peer review, the Elsevier journal Medical Hypotheses may be unable to continue its tradition as a radical journal allowing discussion of improbable or unconventional ideas. Hence we conclude by asking the publisher to consider re-introducing the system of editorial review to Medical Hypotheses. (shrink)

Fowers et al. recently made a general argument for virtues as the characteristics necessary for individuals to flourish, given inherent human limitations. For example, people can flourish by developing the virtue of friendship as they navigate the inherent human dependency on others. This general argument also illuminates a pathway to flourishing during the COVID-19 pandemic, the risks of which have induced powerful fears, exacerbated injustices, and rendered life and death decisions far more common. Contexts of risk and fear call for (...) the virtue of courage. Courage has emerged more powerfully as a central virtue among medical personnel, first responders, and essential workers. Longstanding inequalities have been highlighted during the pandemic, calling for the virtue of justice. When important personal and public health decisions must be made, the central virtue of practical wisdom comes to the fore. Wise decisions and actions incorporate the recognition of relevant moral concerns and aims, as well as responding in fitting and practical ways to the specifics of the situation. Practicing courage, justice, and practical wisdom illuminates a path to flourishing, even in a pandemic. (shrink)

This collection brings together fourteen contributions by authors from around the globe. Each of the contributions engages with questions about how local and global bioethical issues are made to be comparable, in the hope of redressing basic needs and demands for justice. These works demonstrate the significant conceptual contributions that can be made through feminists' attention to debates in a range of interrelated fields, especially as they formulate appropriate responses to developments in medical technology, global economics, population shifts, and poverty.

I aim to alleviate the pessimism with which some philosophers regard the 'objective attitude', thereby removing a particular obstacle which P.F. Strawson and others have placed in the way of more widespread scepticism about moral responsibility. First, I describe what I consider the objective attitude to be, and then address concerns about this raised by Susan Wolf. Next, I argue that aspects of certain attitudes commonly thought to be opposed to the objective attitude are in fact compatible with it. Finally, (...) I examine the prospects of someone who wishes to adopt the objective attitude permanently. In response to philosophers who claim that this would be psychologically impossible, I argue that our commitment to attitudes that presuppose moral responsibility can soften and fade, often without our noticing it. (shrink)

Modern thinkers regard logic as a purely formal discipline like number theory, and not to be confused with any empirical discipline such as cognitive psychology, which may seek to characterize how people actually reason. Opposed to this is the traditional view that even a formal logic can be cognitively veridical – descriptive of procedures people actually follow in arriving at their deductive judgments (logic as Laws of Thought). In a cognitively veridical logic, any formal proof that a deductive judgment, intuitively (...) arrived at, is valid should ideally conform to the method the reasoning subject has used to arrive at that judgment. More specifically, it should reveal the actual reckoning process that the reasoning subject more or less consciously carries out when they make a deductive inference. That the common logical words used in everyday reasoning – words such as 'and', 'if,''some', 'is''not,' and 'all'– have fixed positive and negative charges has escaped the notice of modern logic. The present paper shows how, by unconsciously recognizing 'not' and 'all' as 'minus-words', while recognizing 'and', 'some', and 'is' as 'plus words', a child can intuitively reckon, for example, 'not (−) all (−) dogs are (+) friendly' as equivalent to 'some (+) dogs aren't (−) friendly': −(−D+F) = +D−F. (shrink)

Les Beiträge zur Philosophie (1936-1938) ont été présentées, lors de leur publication en 1989, par l'éditeur F. -W. von Herrmann comme le "second chef-d'oeuvre" de M. Heidegger. Le présent volume rassemble des contributions parmi les plus grands spécialistes des recherches heideggériennes de la France et de l'étranger, qui permet de statuer sur la réception de cet ouvrage aussi fascinant que troublant. Il s'agit, d'une part, de préciser l'objet du texte, d'en exposer la structure, les concepts fondamentaux et son rapport avec (...) Etre et temps (1927), ainsi qu'avec certaines élaborations ultérieures ; d'autre part, des problèmes ciblés, parfois plus techniques, sont abordés, qui permettent d'introduire à ce texte, sans doute le plus difficile de Heidegger, et d'en approfondir la lecture. (shrink)

David Shoemaker’s Responsibility from the Margins is chock full of valuable insights on the nature of our responsibility, and it has more in common with P.F. Strawson’s approach in “Freedom and Resentment” than the accounts of most philosophers who call themselves Strawsonians. On one central issue of interpretation, however, Shoemaker gets Strawson wrong. Like many interpreters, Shoemaker sees Strawson as defending a “quality of will” theory of responsibility. This idea fundamentally misunderstands Strawson’s aims in “Freedom and Resentment.” Strawson does not (...) defend a theory of any kind in that essay. On the contrary, Strawson tries to caution his fellow philosophers away from the theorizing impulse. The urge to develop comprehensive theories, he argued, inevitably leads philosophers away from the natural facts about responsibility and the related emotions. So, Strawson offers an alternative way of understanding responsibility, one that takes the facts into account “in all their bearings.” This interpretive disagreement is instructive, I’ll argue, because it illuminates several weaknesses in Shoemaker’s own “tripartite” theory of responsibility. Where his account goes astray can be remedied in large part by embracing the spirit of Strawson’s approach in full. (shrink)

David Shoemaker’s Responsibility from the Margins is chock full of valuable insights on the nature of our responsibility, and it has more in common with P.F. Strawson’s approach in “Freedom and Resentment” than the accounts of most philosophers who call themselves Strawsonians. On one central issue of interpretation, however, Shoemaker gets Strawson wrong. Like many interpreters, Shoemaker sees Strawson as defending a “quality of will” theory of responsibility. This idea fundamentally misunderstands Strawson’s aims in “Freedom and Resentment.” Strawson does not (...) defend a theory of any kind in that essay. On the contrary, Strawson tries to caution his fellow philosophers away from the theorizing impulse. The urge to develop comprehensive theories, he argued, inevitably leads philosophers away from the natural facts about responsibility and the related emotions. So, Strawson offers an alternative way of understanding responsibility, one that takes the facts into account “in all their bearings.” This interpretive disagreement is instructive, I’ll argue, because it illuminates several weaknesses in Shoemaker’s own “tripartite” theory of responsibility. Where his account goes astray can be remedied in large part by embracing the spirit of Strawson’s approach in full. (shrink)

A diverse group of contributors reflect on the philosophical legacy of Fred Sommers and his efforts to revive and refashion traditional Aristotelian logic for a post-Fregean world.

I argue here that recent discussions of f. sommers' "rule for enforcing ambiguity" have been mistaken on one of two grounds. either they misrepresent the sense of the rule or they misunderstand its intent. the rule is neither a sense rule nor a categorial rule, but a 'translation' rule relating senses of terms to categories of individuals. rather than a test for term ambiguity the rule is a test for theory coherence. finally, i show that there are many possible (...) ways of applying the rule. (shrink)

I argue here that r. Van straaten's four modifications of f. Sommers' 'rule for enforcing ambiguity' are based upon a misunderstanding of the basis of the rule and a failure to see the spanning/predicability distinction. The effect is that none of van straaten's several counterexamples are telling against the rule. In place of van straaten's modifications I offer the following simple but important changes in the rule: the restriction of things to individuals and the reading of 'makes sense to (...) predicate' and similar phrases in terms of the spanning relation. (shrink)

The author distinguishes a "term logic," where terms are the fundamental units, and a "sentential logic," where sentences are the fundamental units. Although this technical distinction is presented by Englebretsen as a war-like opposition throughout the entire history of logic, he reassures us that "no blood has been spilled". In recent times, the term-logic party has been eclipsed by the sentential-logic band; term logic is nowadays "almost mute". Only F. Sommers appears to proclaim the truth of term logic in (...) the twentieth century. The author's main goal is to "recount the history" of term logic through an examination of its three champions: Aristotle, Leibniz, and Sommers. The chronological sequence of these three logicians is a sequence towards perfection as well. The shortcomings of Aristotle's achievement are partially corrected by Leibniz and then fully repaired by Sommers, who finally extends the Aristotelian syllogistic into a "universal logic". Englebretsen himself has added "certain emendations and extensions in a modest way". (shrink)

Skepticism about moral responsibility, or what is more commonly referred to as moral responsibility skepticism, refers to a family of views that all take seriously the possibility that human beings are never morally responsible for their actions in a particular but pervasive sense. This sense is typically set apart by the notion of basic desert and is defined in terms of the control in action needed for an agent to be truly deserving of blame and praise. Some moral responsibility skeptics (...) wholly reject this notion of moral responsibility because they believe it to be incoherent or impossible. Others maintain that, though possible, our best philosophical and scientific theories about the world provide strong and compelling reasons for adopting skepticism about moral responsibility. What all varieties of moral responsibility skepticism share, however, is the belief that the justification needed to ground basic desert moral responsibility and the practices associated with it—such as backward-looking praise and blame, punishment and reward (including retributive punishment), and the reactive attitudes of resentment and indignation—is not met. Versions of moral responsibility skepticism have historically been defended by Spinoza, Voltaire, Diderot, d’Holbach, Priestley, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Clarence Darrow, B.F. Skinner, and Paul Edwards, and more recently by Galen Strawson, Derk Pereboom, Bruce Waller, Neil Levy, Tamler Sommers, and Gregg D. Caruso. -/- Critics of these views tend to focus both on the arguments for skepticism about moral responsibility and on the implications of such views. They worry that adopting such a view would have dire consequences for our interpersonal relationships, society, morality, meaning, and the law. They fear, for instance, that relinquishing belief in moral responsibility would undermine morality, leave us unable to adequately deal with criminal behavior, increase anti-social conduct, and destroy meaning in life. Optimistic skeptics, however, respond by arguing that life without free will and basic desert moral responsibility would not be as destructive as many people believe. These optimistic skeptics argue that prospects of finding meaning in life or of sustaining good interpersonal relationships, for instance, would not be threatened. They further maintain that morality and moral judgments would remain intact. And although retributivism and severe punishment, such as the death penalty, would be ruled out, they argue that the imposition of sanctions could serve purposes other than the punishment of the guilty—e.g., it can also be justified by its role in incapacitating, rehabilitating, and deterring offenders. (shrink)

In the context of his highly influential defence of compatibilism, P. F. Strawson 1962 introduced the terms "reactive attitude" and "objective attitude" to the free-will lexicon. He argued, in effect, that relinquishing such reactive attitudes as resentment and moral indignation isn't a real possibility for us, since doing so would commit us to exclusive objectivity, a stance incompatible with ordinary interpersonal relationships. While most commentators have challenged Strawson's link between personal relationships and the reactive attitudes, Tamler Sommers 2007 has (...) taken up Strawson's claim that exclusive objectivity would preclude meaningful relationships. Here I set out a defence of this claim by identifying a kind of interpersonal caring that is plausibly both required for such relationships and excluded by the objective attitude. I then argue that this defence helps to support Strawson's more controversial claim about personal relationships and the reactive attitudes. (shrink)

Das vorliegende Buch enthaJt den Text einer Dissertation, die im Sommer-Semester 1970 von der Philosophischen Fakultat der Universitat Freiburg i. Br. angenommen wurde. An dieser Stelle mochte ich meinem Lehrer, Herrn Prof. Dr. Werner Marx, fUr die stete Forderung meiner Arbeit meinen zu­ tiefst empfundenen Dank aussprechen. Herrn Prof. Dr. H. L. Van Breda, O. F. M., Direktor des Husserl-Archivs zu Lowen, bin ich auch fUr seine Unterstutzung und die Erlaubnis, aus unver­ offentlichten Manuskripten Husserls zitieren zu durfen, besonders zu (...) Dank verpflichtet. Dank schulde ich auch dem "Deutschen Akademischen Austauschdienst" fur die Gewahrung des Stipen­ diums, das die Abfassung dieser Arbeit ermoglichte. EINLEITUNG § I. Die "Reprrisentationstheorie" und das Form-Inhalt-Modell Die Repdisentationstheorie Husserls, die er zum ersten Mal in LUI formulierte, ist moglicherweise nicht die Grundidee, wohl aber eine der wichtigsten Hypothesen seiner erst en phanomeno­ logischen Untersuchungen. Sie muBte zwar mit der Entdeckung der transzendentalen Subjektivitat und der transzendentalen Konstitution einen neuen Sinn annehmen, indessen blieb der Hauptgedanke dabei stets derselbe: die Gegenstande unserer Er­ kenntnis stellen sich selbst aufgrund intuitiver Inhalte im Erleb­ nisstrom des BewuBtseins dar, wobei der intuitive Inhalt erst mittels einer subjektiv vollzogenen Auffassungssynthese zu einem 2 (den Gegenstand) darstellenden wird. Schon auf der untersten Erkenntnisstufe ist der intuitive Inhalt der bloBe Bestand an sinnlichen Merkmalen, welche "auBer der Auffassung" bloB "Empfindungsdaten" sind. (shrink)

1m Juni 1971 hatte das Weizmann-Institut, die berlihmte intematio­ nale Forschungsstatte des Landes Israel, zu einem Symposium unter dem Titel "The Impact of Science on Society" nach Brlissel einge­ laden. Wahrend zweier Tage versuchten Wissenschaftler die Situ­ ation unserer heutigen, durch die Wissenschaft veriinderten Welt zu analysieren. Man fragte sich, welchen Nutzen uns die Wissenschaft gebracht habe und wohin sie uns fUhre. Stellt die Wissenschaft die hochste Ausformung des menschlichen Geistes, die groBte Kultur­ leistung dar? Wie weit geht die Verantwortung (...) des Forschers fUr die Resultate seiner Forschung? Welches ist die Rolle der Wissen­ schaft in einer klinftigen Gesellschaft? In ihren Referaten gaben die Forscher hochst individuelle und origi­ nelle Antworten zu diesem Thema. Der vollstandige W ortlaut des Symposiums wurde 1973 von A. R. MICHAELIS und H. HARVEY unter dem Titel "Scientists in Search of their Conscience" beim Springer-Verlag Berlin - Heidelberg - New York veroffentlicht. Die hiervorliegende deutsche Ausgabe habe ichaus dieser Originalausgabe stark liberarbeitet und durch einftihrende Zwischenkapitel erganzt. Dr. A. R. MICHAELIS, London, Dr. JOSEF COHN und Frau RENATE V. BAMBERG, Europaisches Komitee des Weizmann-Instituts, ZUrich, danke ich fUr die Zusammenarbeit und Hilfe bei der Abfassung der deutschen Ausgabe. Dr. DIETER GAUSS, Gottingen, und Dr. HARALD K. WIEBKING, Springer-Verlag Heidelberg, bin ich fUr die redak­ tionelle Bearbeitung des Manuskripts verbunden. Gottingen, im Sommer 1974 F. CRAMER Inhaltsverzeichnis Einftihrung: Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft in unserer Zeit FRIEDRICH CRAMER........... (shrink)

Experimental philosophy is a new interdisciplinary field that uses methods normally associated with psychology to investigate questions normally associated with philosophy. The present review focuses on research in experimental philosophy on four central questions. First, why is it that people's moral judgments appear to influence their intuitions about seemingly nonmoral questions? Second, do people think that moral questions have objective answers, or do they see morality as fundamentally relative? Third, do people believe in free will, and do they see free (...) will as compatible with determinism? Fourth, how do people determine whether an entity is conscious? (shrink)

In recent defenses of moral responsibility skepticism, which is the view that no human agents are morally responsible for their actions or character, a number of theorists have argued against Peter Strawson’s (and others’) claim that “the sort of love which two adults can sometimes be said to feel reciprocally, for each other” would be undermined if we were not morally responsible agents. Among them, Derk Pereboom (2001, 2009) and Tamler Sommers (2007, 2012) most forcefully argue against this conception (...) of love. However, in this paper, I plan to defend the claim that there is an essential connection between love and moral responsibility, a thesis I will call love internalism. To begin, I will specify the content and scope of love internalism, and consider ways in which other theorists have attempted to motivate it. I will then consider the various arguments that Pereboom and Sommers advance against love internalism. These arguments, it seems to me, offer us powerful reasons to reject several of the ways in which philosophers have tried to connect moral responsibility to love. Consequently, in light of these criticisms, I will further precisify the content of love internalism. And as we will see, love internalism (as I argue for it) is immune to Pereboom’s and Sommers’ criticisms. Moreover, when its content is sufficiently clarified, love internalism can serve as a plausible premise in an anti-skeptical argument. I thus conclude by arguing that this suitably reformulated statement of love internalism offers a significant challenge to moral responsibility skepticism of the sort Pereboom and Sommers endorse. (shrink)

Der Streit um den Humanismus ist älter als das Wort. Was die Sache selber sei, ist aber schon zur Zeit der griechischen Klassik umstritten. Seit Humanismus auch noch als Epochenbegriff verwendet wird, konkurrieren sogar Humanismen im Plural miteinander. Dabei versuchen die unterschiedlichen Richtungen, den Begriff für sich zu besetzen, ja zu monopolisieren. Freilich entstehen bald auch ausdrückliche Antihumanismen, die nur insofern humanistisch bleiben, als sie sich weiterhin der griechisch-römischen Antike verpflichtet fühlen: eine andere, zum Beispiel "archaische" und "heroische" Antike der (...) wie auch immer "humanen" konfrontieren. Seitdem gibt es einen Humanismusstreit im engeren und bis heute andauernden Sinn. Entscheidende Voraussetzung dafür ist, dass Humanismus stets Antike-Rezeption und Humanität zugleich meinte, also auch "Humanitarismus" gewesen ist. - Vorwort - I. Antiker und moderner Barmherzigkeitsdiskurs - H. Cancik: Entrohung und Barmherzigkeit, Herrschaft und Würde. Antike Grundlagen von Humanismus - F. Hartmann: "Das Wohlergehen des Kranken... oberster Grundsatz"? Über Menschlichkeit und Menschen-Heilkunde - II. Menschenrechtsdiskurse und ihre Problematik - A. Haratsch: Entstehung und Entwicklung der Menschenrechte - E. Stölting: Humanismus und Eurozentrismus - C. Elsas: Potentiale religiös-kultureller Traditionen zur Achtung von Menschenrechten - K. Meyer: Feminismus zwischen Neo- und Posthumanismus. Betrachtungen zu Martha Nussbaum und Judith Butler - III. Antihumanistische Diskurse des späten 19. und 20. Jahrhunderts - E. Flaig: Kultur und Krieg. Antihumanismus bei Jakob Burckhardt und Friedrich Nietzsche - Richard Faber: Humanistische und faschistische Welt. Über Ludwig Curtius (1874-1954) - E. Rudolph: Humanismus und Antihumanismus im Streit. Cassirer und Heidegger in Davos - A. Geisenhanslüke: Antihumanismus? Über Michel Focault und die Folgen - IV. Prohumanistische Plädoyers bis heute - A.-U. Sommer: Franz Overbeck, ein skeptischer Humanist? - G. Wedekind: Europa im Exil. Erich Auerbachs säkulare Weltbürgerschaft - C. Türcke: Die Falle der Selbstentfaltung. Humanismus und kritische Theorie. (shrink)

Our think tank tasked by the Dutch Health Council, consisting of Radboud University Nijmegen Honours Academy students with various backgrounds, investigated the implications of Deep Brain Stimulation for psychiatric patients. During this investigation, a number of methodological, ethical and societal difficulties were identified. We consider these difficulties to be a reflection of a still fragmented field of research that can be overcome with improved organization and communication. To this effect, we suggest that it would be useful to found a centralized (...) DBS organization. Such an organization makes it possible to 1) set up and maintain a repository, 2) facilitate DBS studies with a larger sample size, 3) improve communication amongst researchers, clinicians and ethical committees, and 4) improve communication between DBS experts and the public at large. (shrink)

The globalization in business and tourism becomes crucial more and more for the economical sustainability of local communities. In the presence of an epidemic outbreak, there must be such a decision on the policy by the host community as whether to accept visitors or not, the number of acceptable visitors, or the condition for acceptable visitors. Making use of an SIRI type of mathematical model, we consider the influence of visitors on the spread of a reinfectious disease in a community, (...) especially assuming that a certain proportion of accepted visitors are immune. The reinfectivity of disease here means that the immunity gained by either vaccination or recovery is imperfect. With the mathematical results obtained by our analysis on the model for such an epidemic dynamics of resident and visitor populations, we find that the acceptance of visitors could have a significant influence on the disease’s endemicity in the community, either suppressive or supportive. (shrink)

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by emotional deficits and a failure to inhibit impulsive behavior and is often subdivided into “primary” and “secondary” psychopathic subtypes. The maladaptive behavior related to primary psychopathy is thought to reflect constitutional “fearlessness,” while the problematic behavior related to secondary psychopathy is motivated by other factors. The fearlessness observed in psychopathy has often been interpreted as reflecting a fundamental deficit in amygdala function, and previous studies have provided support for a low-fear model of psychopathy. (...) However, many of these studies fail to use appropriate screening procedures, use liberal inclusion criteria, or have used unconventional approaches to assay amygdala function. We measured brain activity with BOLD imaging in primary and secondary psychopaths and non-psychopathic control subjects during Pavlovian fear conditioning. In contrast to the low-fear model, we observed normal fear expression in primary psychopaths. Psychopaths also displayed greater differential BOLD activity in the amygdala relative to matched controls. Inverse patterns of activity were observed in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) for primary versus secondary psychopaths. Primary psychopaths exhibited a pattern of activity in the dorsal and ventral ACC consistent with enhanced fear expression, while secondary psychopaths exhibited a pattern of activity in these regions consistent with fear inhibition. These results contradict the low-fear model of psychopathy and suggest that the low fear observed for psychopaths in previous studies may be specific to secondary psychopaths. (shrink)

This topically organized, interdisciplinary anthology provides competing perspective on the claim that western culture faces a moral crisis. Using clearly written, accessible essays by well-known authors in philosophy, the social sciences, and the humanities, the book introduces students to a variety of perspectives on the current cultural debate about values that percolates beneath the surface of most of our social and political controversies.