Normative Ethics, Miscellaneous

There is a well known moral quandary concerning how best to account for the rightness or wrongness of acts that clearly contribute to some morally significant outcome – but which each seem too small, individually, to make any meaningful difference. One consequentialist-friendly response to this problem is to deny that there could ever be a case of this type (e.g. a case where a collection of individually harmless acts causes a grave harm). This paper pursues this general strategy, but in (...) an unusual way. Existing arguments for this consequentialist-friendly position are sorites-style arguments. Such arguments imagine varying a subject’s predicament bit by bit until it is clear that a relevant difference has been achieved. The arguments offered in this paper are structurally different, and do not rely on any sorites series. For this reason, they are not vulnerable to objections that have been leveled against the sorites-style arguments. (shrink)

The 1994 Letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis of Pope John Paul II focuses mainly on the argument from Scripture. It states that women cannot be ordained priests in the Roman Catholic Church because Jesus consciously and in harmony with God’s will only chose men to be his apostles. In this article we confront the arguments and presuppositions of this way of reason with the results of historical-critical exegesis. We arrive at the conclusion that the letter’s identification of the apostles with the Twelve (...) takes as historical the theology of apostleship found in Luke and neglects Paul’s views on apostleship as well as thee evidence of women’s involvement in ministry in the Pauline churches. In a second part this study pursues the question why, according to Ordinatio sacerdotalis, the Twelve had to be men. While the letter does not take any explicit stand on this issue, we come to the conclusion that it implicitly presupposes a theological difference between men and women. (shrink)

A widely accepted thesis in the philosophy of friendship is what I call "the self-knowledge thesis," which says that good friendship is essentially such as to conduce to self-knowledge. I argue in this paper that the self-knowledge thesis is false. Good friendship need not conduce to self-knowledge, for it is part of the nature and value of friendship that it might lead us to form false beliefs about ourselves.

Subsequent consent can be morally efficacious. First, it licenses nostalgia and dismissiveness no more than its prior cousin does. Second, it's coherent because linked to the mental state of not minding. Third, it's just as vulnerable to bilking as prior consent is, as is clear once we distinguish between basing moral assessments on expectations versus on actual outcomes. Fourth, mind control is illegitimate because it short circuits the subject's will, not because its consent is subsequent. Finally, our intuitions about rape (...) show that dissent sometimes outweighs consent in matters of sex, not that subsequent consent is always inefficacious. (shrink)

Play and games are among the basic means of expression in intelligent communication, influenced by the relevant cultural environment. Games have found a natural expression in the contemporary computer era in which communications are increasingly mediated by computing technology. The widespread use of e-games results in conceptual and policy vacuums that must be examined and understood. Humans involved in design-ing, administering, selling, playing etc. computer games encounter new situations in which good and bad, right and wrong, are not defined by (...) the experience of previous generations. This article gives an account of the historical necessity of games, the development of e-games, their pros- and cons, threats and promises, focusing on the ethical awareness and attitudes of game developers. (shrink)

Simon Rippon believes that a certain argument is not sound.1 I agree. I do not agree with the role he assigns the argument in the debate about organ sales. Nor do I agree with the much stronger argument he puts forward that organ sales should be forbidden.The argument he believes unsound, which I shall use his terminology to refer to as the Laissez-Choisir or LC argument, has three premises. The one be believes false says, “If we take away what some (...) regard as their best option, we thereby make them worse off, at least from their own perspective”.Applied to the case of a market for organs, this says that if we take away what the potential organ seller regards as his best option, that is, there being a market for his organs, we make him worse off as judged by him. The reason Rippon thinks this argument is false is that, as I have argued and have been cited by Rippon, adding an option can, in addition to merely adding a choice, have adverse effects on the agents, can harm the agent by his own lights. Thus, says Rippon, if the argument is unsound, then it does not follow that if we deny the agent the option to sell his organs, we must be acting paternalistically. The option we are taking away is one that the agent himself regards as harmful.This is correct as far as it goes, but it might leave the reader thinking that the premise is never true. This would be to overlook the fact that even if the additional option …. (shrink)

This book proposes a new, rationally-justified, evidence-based theory concerning values. It discusses practical applications of these universally-applicable values, especially to morality, society, education and upbringing. In doing so, it discusses sexism, sexuality, racism, freedom, politics, law, animal rights, environmental ethics, health-care, war, economics, psychology, science, literature, religion, and much more.