ABSTRACT Academic dishonesty has been found to be on the increase globally, affecting the quality of education, ethics of professional practices and career outcome. Substantial literature exists on the role of religious commitment in reducing academic dishonesty, but few or no studies have examined the pathways explaining this link. The present study examined whether self-efficacy mediates the relationship between RC and AD. Undergraduates of the University of Nigeria, Nsukka completed the Academic Dishonesty Scale, Religious Commitment Inventory and New General Self-Efficacy (...) Scale and also provided relevant demographic information. Results of statistical analysis indicated that RC was negatively associated with AD. Self-efficacy was also a partial mediation in the relationship between RC and AD. This implies that self-efficacy contributes to the pathways through which RC influences AD among students. Our findings suggest that consideration of students’ level of self-judgment on their ability to cope with academic demands may be an important target toward enhancing the influence of RC in reducing academic dishonest behaviors among students. (shrink)

In The Ethics of Food, Gregory E. Pence brings together a collection of voices who share the view that the ethics of genetically modified food is among the most pressing societal questions of our time. This comprehensive collection addresses a broad range of subjects, including the meaning of food, moral analyses of vegetarianism and starvation, the safety and environmental risks of genetically modified food, issues of global food politics and the food industry, and the relationships among food, evolution, and human (...) history. (shrink)

In the literature on transitional justice, there is disagreement about whether countries like the United States can be characterized as transitional societies. Though it is widely recognized that transitional justice mechanisms such as truth commissions and reparations can be used by Global North nations to address racial injustice, some consider societies to be transitional only when they are undergoing a formal democratic regime change. We conceptualize the political situation of low-income Black communities under the U.S. imprisonment and policing regime in (...) terms of three criteria for identifying transitional contexts: normalized collective and political wrongdoing, pervasive structural inequality, and the failure of the rule of law. That these criteria are met, however, does not necessarily mean that a transition is taking place. Drawing on the American political development and abolition democracy literatures, we discuss what it would mean for the United States to transition out of its present imprisonment and policing regime. A transitional justice perspective shows the importance of not only pushing for truth and reparation, but for an actual transition. (shrink)

This article explores the distinction between anti-colonial longing and postcolonial becoming through a commentary on Antjie Krog’s Begging to Be Black. The epistemology and ontology of postcolonial becoming is the central concern. Begging to Be Black is a mytho-poetic narrative in which a world is imagined where King Moshoeshoe, missionaries from the 19th century, Antjie Krog and her friends and colleagues, ANC cadres, the Deleuzian philosopher Paul Patton, Nelson Mandela, Archbishop Desmond Tutu and the ANC Youth League are (...) placed in the same narrative space where they can intermingle. And this is done to respond to a crisis of the present — the difficulties South Africans face in grappling with the legacies of colonialism and Apartheid, and the fact that there is a process of un-homing and re-homing that Krog feels white South Africans in particular need to think about more deeply. The article compares Krog’s approach to decolonization with that of the leading South African philosopher of ubuntu, Mogobe Ramose. Both Krog and Ramose offer the epistemological and ontological resources for grappling with the relationship between past, present and future in a decolonizing setting. The article examines how postcolonial critique may take place through liminal figures. Liminality is characterized as central to postcolonial becoming. (shrink)

While the debate on values in science focuses on normative questions on the level of the individual (e.g. should researchers try to make their work as value free as possible?), comparatively little attention has been paid to the institutional and professional norms that researchers are expected to follow. To address this knowledge gap, we conduct a content analysis of leading national codes of conduct for research integrity of European countries, and structure our analysis around the question: do these documents allow (...) for researchers to be influenced by “non-epistemic” (moral, cultural, commercial, political, etc.) values or do they prohibit such influence in compliance with the value-free ideal (VFI) of science? Our results return a complex picture. On the one hand, codes of conduct consider many non-epistemic values to be a legitimate influence on the decision-making of researchers. On the other, most of these documents include what we call _VFI-like positions_: passages claiming that researchers should be free and independent from any external influence. This shows that while many research integrity documents do not fully endorse the VFI, they do not reject it and continue to be implicitly influenced by it. This results in internal tensions and underdetermined guidance on non-epistemic values that may limit some of the uses of research integrity codes, especially for purposes of ethical self-regulation. While codes of conduct cannot be expected to decide how researchers should act in every instance, we do suggest that they acknowledge the challenges of how to integrate non-epistemic values in research in a more explicit fashion. (shrink)

In der sozialphilosophischen Debatte um Freiheit bei Foucault wird das ‚Freiheitsproblem‘ verhandelt: Wie können Freiheit und Widerstand innerhalb von Foucaults Theorie der Macht und Subjektivierung konzipiert werden? Die Arbeit unterscheidet systematisch vier verschiedene Interpretationsstrategien von Foucaults Werk, die es als kohärente sozialphilosophische Theorie konstruieren und dabei das Freiheitsproblem lösen sollen; sie rekonstruiert die Arbeiten von exemplarischen Vertreter_innen dieser Strategien: 1. Foucault ist kohärent (Paul Patton), 2. Foucault korrigiert sich (Thomas Lemke), 3. Foucault kritisiert kohärent (Martin Saar), 4. Foucault ist (...) nicht genug (Amy Allen). Das erste Ziel der Arbeit ist, die Debatte und die in ihr verhandelten Probleme und Begriffe durch die systematische Rekonstruktion zu differenzieren und klarer zu fassen. Dafür werden einige neue systematische Unterscheidungen entwickelt: u.a. das Freiheitsproblem der Machtdetermination im Gegensatz zum Freiheitproblem der Subjektivierung, Freiheit als Anders-handeln-Können im Gegensatz zu Freiheit als Kritik, verschiedene Modalitäten dieser Freiheitsbegriffe und eine Foucault-Lesart der Regierungstranszendenz im Gegensatz zu einer Lesart der radikalen Immanenz. Das zweite Ziel der Arbeit ist die Entwicklung einer neuen These zur Freiheit im Rahmen einer Subjektivierungstheorie durch die interne Kritik der vier Interpretationsstrategien auf Grundlage der dort entwickelten Differenzierungen. Freiheit als die Fähigkeit zur reflexiven Kritik der eigenen Subjektivierung ‒ kurz: Freiheit als Kritik ‒ kann verstanden werden als das Resultat von freiheitlicher Subjektivierung, deren gesellschaftlicher Ort politische Institutionen sind, die im Rahmen einer postfundamentalen, pluralen und liberalen politischen Theorie bestimmt werden können. Drittens verfolgt die Arbeit das Ziel, durch den Begriff der Freiheit als Kritik die allgemeine sozialphilosophische Debatte um Freiheitsbegriffe zu erweitern und ihn als einen Kandidaten neben der negativen, reflexiven und sozialen Freiheit zu präsentieren, der einerseits plausible Einsichten dieser drei Ansätze aufnimmt und andererseits ihre blinden Flecken korrigiert. (shrink)

Forcing extensions yield models of ZFC in which a long sequence of club subsets of ω 1 has the following property: every subsequence of size ℵ 1 has a finite intersection.

The articles in the present issue are the result of a study day on William Desmond’s recent book, Ethics and the Between, held at the K.U.Leuven's Institute of Philosophy. This important book certainly deserves a thorough discussion and for many reasons. It is the manifestation of an ambition that reminds us of past periods in the history of philosophy. These days not so many philosophers venture to set up a body of work — three volumes — in the tradition (...) of the great philosophical systems that once tried to cover and understand the whole of reality. When reading Ethics and the Between, Hegel’s system comes to mind not only because we know that William Desmond is a Hegel scholar but also because of its ambition to give everything a place within an encompassing system.Of course Desmond takes care to explain where the difference lies between his metaxological approach and an insufficiently open and pluralist dialectics. His is an attempt to rethink the notion of system so that it is more hospitable to otherness as other, to the rich inexhaustibility of being. He wants to be true to the equivocities of our being and not to give in to the seduction of mediated univocity, as some forms of dialectics do. What is at stake in his work is not forgetting the surplus, the excess, the otherness of the good which suggests a transcendence of each dialectical completion in terms of self-determination.Desmond’s oeuvre is not only unusual today because of its systematic ambition. A second characteristic marks off more specifically his book on ethics: the attempt to write an ethics dominated by the idea of the good, raising the question of the relation between metaphysics and ethics, between being and being good. Desmond seems to tell us that something has been forgotten: the good which continues to be there incognito, present even in philosophies that forget it. This seems to be Desmond’s way of situating himself in an age characterized by the subtle ethos of valuelessness, the perplexity about the inherent value of being, of being as good; an age oscillating between foundationalist unity and postmodern plurality.If it were my task to give an introduction to Desmond’s thought I would have to pay attention to the richness of the concept of metaxu, the between, the way it seems to encompass the whole and keep it together, while at the same time being excessive. I would have to speak about the fourfold meaning of being and the way it shapes different ways of being ethical that dwell more and more intensively with what is at play in the ethos, that is to say in the metaxu.But it is not my task to do this; others have made the attempt more extensively in the papers reproduced here. I doubt whether they will be sufficient to bring to light all the rich dimensions of this book that is written at the same tempo as William speaks when discussing and, I suppose, when he goes running in the morning. (shrink)

1. Haeje, Ch'ongmok, T'ongnye 1, Ch'ongsaegin -- 2. T'ongnye 2, Kwallye, Hollye -- 3. Sangnye 1-3 -- 4. Sangnye 4-6 -- 5. Sangnye 7-8 -- 6. Cherye 1-2, Pyŏllye mongnok.

다산 역학의 성립과 정수, 그리고 그 경학적.사상사적의의를 논구한 저술.

The principle of clinical equipoise has been variously characterized by ethicists and clinicians as fundamentally flawed, a myth, and even a moral balm. Yet, the principle continues to be treated as the de facto gold standard for conducting randomized control trials in an ethical manner. Why do we hold on to clinical equipoise, despite its shortcomings being widely known and well-advertised? This paper reviews the most important arguments criticizing clinical equipoise as well as what the most prominent proposed alternatives are. (...) In the process, it evaluates the justification for continuing to use clinical equipoise as the gold standard for randomized control trials. (shrink)

Can philosophy laugh at itself? Like Houdini I weigh myself down with chains, the harder to test my virtuosity as an escape artist. So I take the heaviest burden on myself: Hegel. If any philosopher was serious, Hegel was. But - to parody Nietzsche - here is the heaviest thought: Hegel had a sense of humor. My reader will think that already I am joking, but please do not laugh. I am deadly serious: Hegel had a sense of humor. I (...) will proceed seriously to substantiate this audacity to the logical concept by looking at the relation of Hegel and Aristophanes. Let me dampen any suspicion of frivolity or outrage to logical respectability. So I slip back into the tone of scholarly sobriety and purr: To my best knowledge, this relation is one of the most overlooked by commentators. It is also one of the most interesting for the following reasons. (shrink)