Compared to standard liberal approaches to public reason and justification, the asymmetric convergence model of public justification allows for the public justification of laws and policies based on a convergence of quite different and even publicly inaccessible reasons. The model is asymmetrical in the sense of identifying a broader range of reasons that may function as decisive defeaters of proposed laws and policies. This paper raises several critical questions about the asymmetric convergence model and its central but ambiguous presumption against (...) coercion. By drawing on the theory of structural coercion, a main conclusion of the paper is that the asymmetric convergence model ultimately encounters the very incompleteness problems that its proponents often associate with more familiar consensus models of public justification. The paper also develops an alternative, Rawlsian-inspired account of public justification that includes elements of both convergence and consensus but not asymmetry. The Rawlsian model enables us to understand how democratic decisions may possess a degree of procedural, but still morally significant, liberal legitimacy under conditions of pluralism even when citizens fail to agree fully about either the premises of or conclusions to their political arguments. (shrink)

The concept of reasonableness is essential to John Rawls’s political liberalism, and especially to its main ideas of public reason and liberal legitimacy. Yet the somewhat ambiguous account of reasonableness in Political Liberalism has led to concerns that the Rawlsian distinction between the reasonable and the unreasonable is arbitrary and ultimately indefensible. This paper attempts to advance a more convincing interpretation of reasonableness. I argue that the reasonable applies first to citizens, who then play an important role in determining which (...) comprehensive doctrines and political conceptions of justice are reasonable. In addition, while Rawls fails to specify explicitly the meaning of the reasonable in his standard of political justification (i.e. the liberal principle of legitimacy based on the criterion of reciprocity), I offer an interpretation of what it means for citizens to present reasonable claims and arguments to one another in public reason. (shrink)

A recent essay by Jürgen Habermas revisits political liberalism and takes up the question of the extent to which democratic citizens and officials should rely on their religious convictions in publicly deliberating about and deciding political issues. With his institutional translation proviso, a proposed alternative to Rawls' idea of public reason, Habermas hopes to dodge familiar (and often overstated) criticisms that liberal requirements of citizenship are unfair or disproportionately burdensome to religious believers. I argue that, due in part to its (...) sharp contrast between the obligations attributed to political officials and those attributed to ordinary citizens, Habermas' position is beset by additional, quite considerable difficulties. I conclude that Habermas' account of religion in the public sphere does not present a genuine alternative to the leading liberal theory of citizenship and public reasoning. (shrink)

Public reason liberals disagree about the relationship between public justification and deliberative democracy. My goal is to argue against the recent suggestion that public reason liberals seek a ‘divorce’ from deliberative democracy. Defending this thesis will involve discussing the benefits of deliberation for public justification as well as revisiting public reason’s standard Rawlisan restraint requirement. I criticize Kevin Vallier’s alternative convergence-based principle of restraint and respond to the worry that the standard Rawlsian restraint requirement reduces the likelihood of public justification (...) by limiting the diversity of inputs into the justificatory process. (shrink)

Beauchamp and Childress’ definition of autonomous decision‐making includes the conditions of intentionality, understanding, and non‐control. In genetics, however, a relational conception of autonomy has been increasingly recognized. This article aims to empirically assess aspects of social influence in genetic testing decision‐making and to connect these with principlist and relational theories of autonomy. We interviewed 18 adult genetic counsellees without capacity issues considering predictive genetic testing for cancer predisposition for themselves and two counselling physicians in Switzerland. We conducted a qualitative analysis, (...) building on a grounded theory study about predictive genetic testing decision‐making. We found that some participants agreed to predictive genetic testing predominantly because relatives wanted them to do it, with some even acting contrary to their own convictions. Others, in contrast, based their decision on purely individualistic reasons but expressed difficulties in explaining their decision to their social environment. Healthcare professionals had a critical influence on decision‐making in many cases without being manipulative, as perceived by counsellees. Still, cases of coercion and social pressure occurred within social relationships. In conclusion, predictive genetic testing decision‐making includes relational and individualistic aspects, and both are compatible with autonomous decision‐making. While the principlist and relational notions of autonomy compete on a theoretical level, they are two sides of the same coin when used as analytical lenses for genetic testing decision‐making. Social acceptance of refusal of testing should be improved to mitigate social pressure. Individuals should be encouraged to decide for themselves how much their social environment influences their decision regarding predictive genetic testing. (shrink)

Ryan Muldoon has recently advanced an interesting and original bargaining model of the social contract as an alternative to Rawlsian social contract theory and political liberalism. This model is s...

Abstract: Philosophers who have addressed the problems of enduring racial injustice have been suspicious of the role played by ideal theory in ethics and political philosophy generally, and in contemporary liberal political philosophy in particular. The theoretical marginalization of race in the work of Rawls has led some to charge that ideal theory is at the very least unhelpful in understanding one of the most significant forms of contemporary injustice, and is at worst ideological in the pejorative sense. To explore (...) these concerns, I formulate five related criticisms of ideal theory and examine each as it would be applied to Rawls's political philosophy. My thesis is that the strongest criticisms—namely, that ideal theory is essentially ideological and cannot provide adequate grounds for justifying race-conscious, equality-securing measures—ultimately miss the mark. But other criticisms of ideal theory are more plausible, and most plausibly directed to an area of Rawls's thought often ignored in discussions of liberalism and race, namely, his account of citizenship and public reasoning. (shrink)

Although lie detection procedures have been fundamentally criticized since their inception at the beginning of the 20th century, they are still in use around the world. In addition, they have created some remarkable appeal in the context of counterterrorism policies. Thereby, the links between science and fiction in this topic are quite tight and by no means arbitrary: In the progressive narrative of the lie detection devices, there is a promise of changing society for the better, which is entangled in (...) a fictional narrative provided by many cinematic and literary examples. By drawing on the concept of “diegetic technologies” formulated by David Kirby, we want to highlight the role of science fictional narratives in the historical development and current application of lie detection procedures. We therefore aim to use this conceptual frame to analyze the role of prevention-oriented mind reading procedures, which are developed for or already used in the “war on terror” with reference to their fictional predecessors. One virulent factor has to be highlighted in this context: The fictional engagement with possible new lie detection practices is in itself creating a legitimating ground for future security technologies. (shrink)

Die globalen Veränderungen fordern unser Wissen über die Welt und über uns selbst heraus. Der Klimawandel, die globale Covid-19-Pandemie und Konflikte um die Bedeutung wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnisse führen uns unweigerlich zu einer Vielzahl komplexer philosophischer Fragen. Dabei rücken verstärkt Themen der theoretischen Philosophie in den Vordergrund: Was ist eigentlich Wissen? Auf welche Informationen können wir uns verlassen? Ist die Wahrheit relativ? Was macht ExpertInnen aus? Was ist gute wissenschaftliche Praxis? Was bedeutet 'evidenzbasiert'? Welchen sozialen und globalen Einflüssen ist unser Wissenserwerb ausgesetzt? (...) In der Ausbildung von Philosophie- und Ethikstudierenden gibt es oft eine große Scheu, Disziplinen wie Erkenntnistheorie und Wissenschaftsphilosophie zu erlernen und zu unterrichten. Zu abstrakt und lebensweltlich irrelevant, sagen viele. Dieses Buch soll diese Berührungsängste beseitigen helfen, indem die theoretischen Grundlagen auf die Probleme der Gegenwart angewendet und mit vielseitigen Methoden erschlossen werden. Zwei Ziele stehen im Vordergrund: Zum einen soll deutlich werden, dass die Beschäftigung mit theoretischer Philosophie für das persönliche und das gesellschaftliche Zusammenleben von zentraler Bedeutung ist. Zum anderen zeigen eine Reihe didaktischer Tools, wie man Lernende dabei aktiv in den Lernprozess miteinbezieht. (shrink)

The representation of history continues to evolve in the domain of museum exhibitions. This evolution is informed in part by the creation of new display methods—many of which depart from the traditional conventions used to achieve the “museum effect”—in part by an increased attention to the museum–visitor relationship. In this context the ethical force of bearing witness, at times a crucial aspect of the museum experience, has emerged as a particularly compelling issue. In seeking to represent and address atrocity, injustice, (...) and the abrogation of human rights, museums have the potential to become “sites of conscience” and to encourage “historical consciousness.” Through a series of three exhibitions devoted to slavery, the New-York Historical Society demonstrated how such sites can be constructed and how objects can be deployed to represent extreme or “limit cases.” In this review/essay I investigate and interrogate these exhibitions, looking closely at the use of objects as a source of “indirect testimony” and at the “dialogical situation” that might arise in an encounter among objects, exhibit narratives, and visitors. Thinking in terms of point of view, I look at the variety of rhetorical platforms from which objects speak in these exhibitions; thinking in terms of syntax, I look at the effects of ordering and of the radical juxtaposition of objects; thinking in terms of irony, I look at the provocations of double-voiced narratives and at how objects are used to support those historical sentences. (shrink)

Some public reason liberals identify coercive law as the subject matter of public justification, while others claim that the justification of coercion plays no role in motivating public justification requirements. Both of these views are mistaken. I argue that the subject matter of public justification is not coercion or coercive law but political decision-making about the basic institutional structure. At the same time, part of what makes a public justification principle necessary in the first place is the inherent coerciveness of (...) a legally organized basic institutional structure. While most public reason liberals seem to presuppose that the meaning of “coercion” is sufficiently obvious so as not to warrant further analysis, my defense of the essay’s main thesis explicitly draws on an account of coercion as a powerful agent’s employment of enforceable constraints to determine the will of another agent. (shrink)

The differences between the "habits of the heart" in German and U.S.-American corporations can be described by analyzing the way corporations deal with norms and values within their organizations. Whereas many U.S. corporations have introduced formal business ethics programs, German companies are very reluctant to address normative questions publicly. This can be explained by the different cultural backgrounds in both countries. By defining these different "habits of the heart" underlying German and American business ethics it is possible to show the (...) problems and questions within the intercultural management of values, but also the possible solutions. (shrink)

Definition of the problemThe Shared Decision Making model is becoming increasingly popular also in the German-speaking context, but it only considers values of patients to be relevant for medical decisions. Nevertheless, studies show that the values of physicians are also influential in medical decisions. Moreover, physicians are often unaware of this influence, which makes it impossible to control it.ArgumentsThe influence of both patients’ and physicians’ values is examined from an empirical and normative perspective. The review about the empirical data provides (...) a necessary overview about the status quo, whereas I deduct rules for value-influenced behaviour in the decision making process in the normative approach. Therefore, different scenarios are taken into account to explore in which situations it is acceptable for physicians to let their values be part of the decision making process. The conscious use of values is only possible, when physicians are aware of their influence. To raise awareness, the best option would be to educate future physicians about it in their training. Therefore, this article provides a teaching concept for a unit that could be part of an ethics class for physicians in training. Furthermore, patient’s rights and responsibilities in the decision making process are discussed.ConclusionI conclude that it is necessary to take the influence of values into account and include this knowledge into the training of physicians. Conclusively, recommendations for patients and physicians and their dealing with values in shared decision making processes are suggested. (shrink)

Definition of the problemThe Shared Decision Making model is becoming increasingly popular also in the German-speaking context, but it only considers values of patients to be relevant for medical decisions. Nevertheless, studies show that the values of physicians are also influential in medical decisions. Moreover, physicians are often unaware of this influence, which makes it impossible to control it.ArgumentsThe influence of both patients’ and physicians’ values is examined from an empirical and normative perspective. The review about the empirical data provides (...) a necessary overview about the status quo, whereas I deduct rules for value-influenced behaviour in the decision making process in the normative approach. Therefore, different scenarios are taken into account to explore in which situations it is acceptable for physicians to let their values be part of the decision making process. The conscious use of values is only possible, when physicians are aware of their influence. To raise awareness, the best option would be to educate future physicians about it in their training. Therefore, this article provides a teaching concept for a unit that could be part of an ethics class for physicians in training. Furthermore, patient’s rights and responsibilities in the decision making process are discussed.ConclusionI conclude that it is necessary to take the influence of values into account and include this knowledge into the training of physicians. Conclusively, recommendations for patients and physicians and their dealing with values in shared decision making processes are suggested. (shrink)

Definition of the problemThe Shared Decision Making model is becoming increasingly popular also in the German-speaking context, but it only considers values of patients to be relevant for medical decisions. Nevertheless, studies show that the values of physicians are also influential in medical decisions. Moreover, physicians are often unaware of this influence, which makes it impossible to control it.ArgumentsThe influence of both patients’ and physicians’ values is examined from an empirical and normative perspective. The review about the empirical data provides (...) a necessary overview about the status quo, whereas I deduct rules for value-influenced behaviour in the decision making process in the normative approach. Therefore, different scenarios are taken into account to explore in which situations it is acceptable for physicians to let their values be part of the decision making process. The conscious use of values is only possible, when physicians are aware of their influence. To raise awareness, the best option would be to educate future physicians about it in their training. Therefore, this article provides a teaching concept for a unit that could be part of an ethics class for physicians in training. Furthermore, patient’s rights and responsibilities in the decision making process are discussed.ConclusionI conclude that it is necessary to take the influence of values into account and include this knowledge into the training of physicians. Conclusively, recommendations for patients and physicians and their dealing with values in shared decision making processes are suggested. (shrink)

Contributed research papers presented at seminar.

Summary This essay aims to elucidate the collaborative dimension of the knowledge-making process in eighteenth-century Linnaean botany. Due to its ever increasing and potentially infinite need for information, Linnaean botany had to rely more and more heavily on the accumulation and aggregation of contributions by many people. This, in turn, had a crucial impact on the genesis and form of botanical publications: the more comprehensive the project, the larger the effect. It was the botanist Carl Linnaeus who managed to establish (...) himself as the centre of this contributory knowledge-making process. Given the exponential growth in the number of known species and the resulting need for observation, this was the necessary condition which allowed him continuously to update and correct his systematic works, and allowed them to maintain their status as the central catalogues of a global botany for decades. (shrink)

The term ‘locked-in’ syndrome (LIS) describes a medical condition in which persons concerned are severely paralyzed and at the same time fully conscious and awake. The resulting anarthria makes it impossible for these patients to naturally communicate, which results in diagnostic as well as serious practical and ethical problems. Therefore, developing alternative, muscle-independent communication means is of prime importance. Such communication means can be realized via brain–computer interfaces (BCIs) circumventing the muscular system by using brain signals associated with preserved cognitive, (...) sensory, and emotional brain functions. Primarily, BCIs based on electrophysiological measures have been developed and applied with remarkable success. Recently, also blood flow–based neuroimaging methods, such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and functional near-infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS), have been explored in this context. After reviewing recent literature on the development of especially hemodynamically based BCIs, we introduce a highly reliable and easy-to-apply communication procedure that enables untrained participants to motor-independently and relatively effortlessly answer multiple-choice questions based on intentionally generated single-trial fMRI signals that can be decoded online. Our technique takes advantage of the participants’ capability to voluntarily influence certain spatio-temporal aspects of the blood oxygenation level–dependent (BOLD) signal: source location (by using different mental tasks), signal onset and offset. We show that healthy participants are capable of hemodynamically encoding at least four distinct information units on a single-trial level without extensive pretraining and with little effort. Moreover, realtime data analysis based on simple multi-filter correlations allows for automated answer decoding with a high accuracy (94.9%) demonstrating the robustness of the presented method.. (shrink)

Goal-setting theory states that challenging, specific, and concrete goals (i.e., subordinate goals) are powerful motivators and boost performance in goal pursuit more than vague or abstract goals (i.e., superordinate goals). Goal-setting theory predominantly focuses on single, short-term goals and less on broad, long-term challenges. This review article extends goal-setting theory and argues that superordinate goals also fulfill a crucial role in motivating behavior, particularly when addressing broad, long-term challenges. The purpose of this article is to show theoretically that people pursue (...) long-term goals more successfully when they focus on subordinate and superordinate goals simultaneously than when they focus on either subordinate or superordinate goals alone. (shrink)

Is it permissible for a citizen or political official to exercise coercive political power on the basis of a political justification associated with a religiously motivatedconception of justice? In this paper I accept John Rawls’s general approach to this question, but attempt to show how the Rawlsian approach is more inclusive ofreligious reasoning than many have supposed. My paper focuses specifically on the 1986 Catholic bishops’ pastoral letter on the U.S. economy. The bishops’ letter is certainly part of what Rawls (...) calls a “comprehensive doctrine.” But, as I argue in the paper, the letter is also consistent with political liberalism’s core idea of reasonableness, supports a reasonable political conception of justice and satisfies the Rawlsian “proviso” concerning the public-political use of religious argument. From the standpoint of political liberalism, the bishops’ letter may be interpreted as a form of public reason. (shrink)