Although a number of anthologies on the philosophy of punishment have been published in recent years, the inclusion of a number of important but rarely reprinted articles makes this volume a valuable addition to the field. Included are such historically important figures as Plato, Thomas Hobbes, and St. Thomas Aquinas; such rarely included figures as G. B. Shaw, Samuel Butler and Karl Marx; the important but ignored Mill-Gilpin controversy on capital punishment; and the hitherto nearly inaccessible paper by Richard (...) Wasserstrom, "Why Punish the Guilty?" Along with these fresh selections are numerous influential, widely-reprinted classical and contemporary essays. The selections are grouped into five sections, the largest of which, constituting nearly half the text, deals with the justification of punishment. The various justificatory theories are classified as teleological, retributivist, and teleological retributivist. The latter theory, not clearly defined by the editor, is represented by W. D. Ross, H. L. A. Hart, J. D. Mabbott, and K. G. Armstrong, who relate the teleological and retributivist elements in their theories in quite different ways. A section entitled "Alternatives to Punishment" provides selections which question the justice of punishment, its deterrent effect and the success of our present penal system. The other sections deal with the strict liability issue, the concept of punishment and the death penalty. Although containing good selections, the sections dealing with the latter two topics, including four and three articles respectively, are quite short. There are long bibliographies for each section and an introductory article by Professor Ezorsky examining the various justifications offered for punishment and arguing for a teleological retributivist theory.—M.G. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A THEORY OF BASIC GOODS: STRUCTURE AND HIERARCHY* I. FTEN, PERHAPS ALWAYS, moral theory emerges from particular problems. Just how is obscure. The logic of discovery is elusive; and it is harder to explain how we have come to see matters rightly than to recognize that we do, in fact, see them rightly. What counts as a theory, moreover, calls for explication as much as does a theory's emergence. (...) When we have in mind a theory that shapes our social vision, there is a progression from a central set of propositions, keyed to a range of paradigm cases and seen as a logical structure, to a " way of thinking " widely enough embraced to have political significance, at least for a given oommunity. In this essay I want to explore some fundamental questions raised by Germain Grisez's theory of natural law ethics.1 These questions are chiefly conceptual. But neither they nor Grisez's theory should be seen in a vacuum. Rather, I would begin by suggesting that the importance of his work, its emergence in some Catholic circles, is linked with two specific moral and political problems. The first is abortion; the second is the superpowers' policy of nuclear deterrence. *I thank David Blake, Robert Gordh, Carroll Kearley, Gary Mar. Martin Woods, and Linda Zagzebski for their comments on an earlier version of this essay. 1 For the theory's fullest presentation, see Germain Grisez, The Way of the Lord Jesus, vol. one, Ohristian Moral Principles, with the help of Joseph M. Boyle, Jr., Basil Cole, O.P., John Finnis, John A. Geinzer, Robert G. Kennedy, Patrick Lee, William E. May, and Russell Shaw (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1983). Especially critical are chapters two through twelve. 221 JAMES G. HANINK As a point of chronology, Grisez's early study of rubortion was the context for one of the first formulations of his natural law ethics.2 But why should this have been so? And why should abortion so engage Catholic thinkers, some of whom had felt a distance from explicitly Catholic positions, that Grisez's work should become pivotal? Answers to such questions must be tentative, but they include the following considerations. In a brief period, no more than a decade, legal abortion in the West became entrenched social policy.8 It was a policy, too, supported by dominant intellectual forces. But the new policy, defended in terms of individual freedom and a right to privacy, struck many Catholicsand non-Catholics-as vicious and tragic. It was vicious in that it made expendable the weakest and most vulnerable human beings. Human rights somehow became restricted to the strong and self-sufficient. The policy was tragic in its denial of human community. We are not, however much radical individualism supposes, merely a collection of separate egos. l/Ve are, rather, a community tied to a past and pledged to a future, so pledged, in part, by the children we bear and nurture.4 For in hearing and nurturing children we carry on the love of parents who have done as much for us; and we carry ourselves into a future where we hope our own love will be thus extended. But abortion, and surely unrestricted abortion, betrays this community of trust. Still, a policy so vicious and tragic can make us look for a fresh moral vision. And, of course, to the extent that we have contributed to,a climate in which abortion could become entrenched -either by our failures to support women in need or 2 Germain Grisez, Abortion: The Myths, the Realities, and the Arguments (New York and Cleveland: Corpus Books, 1970). a A milepost, of course, was the United States Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, in 1973. Recent U.S. Government figures indicate that there are now well over a million legal abortions annually in this country. 4 For a provocative discussion of this theme, see Stanley Hauerwas's " The Moral Value of the Family " in his A Commimity of Character (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1981). A THEORY OF BASIC GOODS: STRUCTURE & HIERARCHY 223 by an acquiescence in our culture's individualism-the call for theoretical reconstruction is all the more urgent... (shrink)

Features of threatening cues and the associated context influence the perceived imminence of threat and the defensive responses evoked. To provide additional knowledge about how the directionality of a threat (i.e. directed-towards or away from the viewer) might impact defensive responses in humans, participants were shown pictures of a man carrying a gun (threat) or nonlethal object (neutral) directed-away from or towards the participant. Cardiac and electrodermal responses were collected. Compared to neutral images, threatening images depicting a gun directed-towards the (...) participant induced sustained bradycardia and an increased electrodermal response, interpreted as immobility under attack. This defensive immobility reaction is evoked by high perceived threat and inescapable situations and indicates intense action preparation. Pictures of guns directed-away from the participant induced shorter bradycardia and no significant modulation of the electrodermal response compared to neutral pictures, which might be consistent with the perception of a less threatening situation. The results show that the directionality of threat stimuli is a key factor that prompts different patterns of defensive responses. (shrink)

Are the places that superhuman beings purportedly act and dwell randomly or arbitrarily distributed? Inspired by theoretical work in cognitive science of religion, descriptions of superhuman beings were solicited from informants in 20 countries on five continents, resulting in 108 usable descriptions, including information about these beings’ properties, their dwelling location, and whether they were the target of rituals. Whether superhuman beings are the subject of religious and ritual practices appeared to co-vary in relation to both features of physical geography (...) and cognitive factors. Good gods were more likely the focus of religious practices than evil gods, and where the gods are thought to dwell mattered. If either the being was thought to dwell in a dangerous place or a resource rich place, it was more likely to have practices directed at it. (shrink)

If “Big Gods” evolved in part because of their ability to morally regulate groups of people who cannot count on kin or reciprocal altruism to get along, then powerful gods would tend to be good gods. If the mechanism for this cooperation is some kind of fear of supernatural punishment, then we may expect that mighty gods tend to be punishing gods. The present study is a statistical analysis of superhuman being concepts from 20 countries on five continents to explore (...) whether the goodness of a god is related to its mightiness. Gods that looked more like the God of classical theism and gods that were low in anthropomorphism were more likely to be regarded as morally good and to be the target of religious practices. Mighty gods were not, however, especially likely to punish or to be a “high god.”. (shrink)

Time, of course, will provide the opportunity for a deeper and fuller contemplation of the historical significance of the June 1983 Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU. But even now it is clear that it went far beyond the mere examination of current questions of the ideological and general political work of the party, above all because the speech of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Comrade Iu. V. Andropov set forth the most important (...) theoretical positions having to do with the preparation of the new version of the program of the CPSU, positions which over the long term will determine the activity of the party and the nation and the development of Soviet society. The importance of the plenum also consisted in the fact that its proceedings brought to light the full scope of the tremendous role played by ideology, by the ideological struggle, and by ideological activity in today's world. There is a struggle going on between two polar opposite world outlooks, two political courses, socialism and imperialism, which is unprecedented throughout the entire postwar period as regards its intensity and ascerbity. There is a struggle taking place for the hearts and minds of billions of people on the planet. The future of mankind depends to no little degree on the outcome of this ideological struggle. Finally, the importance of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU also lay in the fact that it posed a whole series of extremely important practical tasks in the area of ideological activity, including scientific activity, and the task of intensifying the influence of ideology on solving economic, social, political, and educational problems. (shrink)

The title of this presentation may suggest that the subject is homocystinuria. It is not. Rather, the subject is how our epistemology influences our concept of disease, which in turn determines our ability to help patients.

Every expansion of power, economic or any other, must find a justification, a principle of legitimacy. All concepts and formulas, expressions and slogans that serve this purpose evidence that all human activity, including politics and imperialism, is by its very nature intellectual and cultural. Carl Schmitt clearly demonstrates that American imperialism corresponds to the legitimating principles and justifying forms of “modern” imperialism. It is in this sense that we must understand his statement: “American imperialism is certainly an economic imperialism; but, (...) as such, it is no less intensively imperialistic.”. (shrink)

Celebrated and castigated as the “Hobbes of the twentieth century” and even a modern Machiavelli. Carl Schmitt (1888–1984) is undoubtedly the most controversial legal and political theorist of the twentieth century. He greatly influenced the thinking of such political scientists and political philosophers as Hans J. Morgenthau, Franz Neumann, Otto Kirchheimer, Leo Strauss, and Julien Freund. But Schmitt always spoke and wrote as a jurist. He grounded his thinking in jurisprudence and was the teacher in the wider sense of such (...) jurists as Ernst‐Wolfgang Böckenförde and Ernst‐Rudolf Huber. (shrink)

“Who are you? Tu quis es?” The interrogator was the German philosopher and pedagogue Eduard Spranger. The subject was Carl Schmitt. The place: Berlin. The time: summer of 1945. The question was “precipitous,” as Schmitt acknowledged in Ex Captivitate Salus, the book he completed following his release from Nuremberg in 1947. “Who are you?” Who, but one of the most highly acclaimed and esteemed jurists and political thinkers of the Weimar Republic, whose writings captured the attention of Georg Lukács, Karl (...) Korsch, Felix Gilbert, Leo Strauss, Ferdinand Toennies, and whose concepts significantly influenced Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, Otto Kirchheimer, Franz Neumann, Karl Mannheim and many other intellectuals and writers on the Left and the Right? (shrink)