A promise to do some action seems to create a binding obligation to do that action. And yet, paradoxically, an obligation seems not to be a fact that we can create or bring into existence; we can create an obligation only by creating or bringing into existence something else. The only way to avoid the paradox is to show that the act of promising creates something other than an obligation, which nonetheless binds us to perform the action in question. After (...) considering and rejecting various options such as the promisee's expectation and the promisor's resolve, Prichard locates the bindingness of a promise in a prior general promise, which allows the noises we make when promising to generate an obligation to perform the promised action. (shrink)

To the question ‘What does it mean to act or to do something?’, replies that it is not easy to identify a common character in actions. Begins by examining the position of Cook Wilson, who maintains that ‘to do something’ means to originate, cause, or bring into existence, either directly or indirectly, some not yet existing state either in oneself or some other body. Although Prichard agrees that usually action involves causing something, he observes that causing a change is not (...) itself an activity. In moving one's hand, one performs that indefinable mental activity of willing some change. The movement of the hand is the effect of the action, not the action itself, a fact overlooked by thinkers like Locke. Turning to the nature of the desire behind one's willing, Prichard rejects the view that this desire is actually a desire for the change willed. Despite forceful objections, Prichard maintains that this desire is the desire for the willing of that change. (shrink)

The act of exchanging one thing for another seems to involve a promise. The confidence needed to relinquish something one has on the understanding that one will receive what another has in exchange can be expressed in terms of resolve. In binding oneself, one thinks that if the other binds himself or herself to perform a given action, then he or she will do that action. In cases in which one person's action does not precede the other's, one's promise involves (...) thinking that if the other binds himself or herself, then he or she will carry out the promised action. (shrink)

This chapter addresses the question of why many cognitive and behavioural scientists still fail to recognize the truth of nativism despite the power of poverty of stimulus arguments. It argues that this is primarily because the domains in which these arguments have hitherto been applied, for example, language or naive physics, are all ones in which the knowledge that children acquire is objectively present in their environment. Thus, the possibility always remains open that children could somehow be acquiring this knowledge (...) from the environment through general learning. In the case of motivation, however, this last bastion of resistance is unavailable, since desires do not serve to represent information that is already present in the environment. The closest thing to a knockdown argument for nativism can therefore be developed in respect of innate motivational systems. (shrink)

In his general account of moral thought, Prichard holds that to regard a given action as right, we must imagine ourselves to be in a certain set of circumstances. In doing so, we conceive of ourselves as bound by those circumstances to perform that action. Since we have various general convictions about moral obligation, no single characteristic leads us to regard right acts as right. When two general convictions conflict, we are not in a position to know what our duty (...) is. Being ignorant of some relevant circumstances, we cannot answer the question ‘What ought we to do?’ This follows from the fact that no common characteristic renders actions into duties. (shrink)

To the many moral theorists who have sought to establish a necessary connection between duty and interest, Prichard replies that their project ought not to be undertaken as it commits us to the view that our only duty is to do what is to our advantage. In discussing the attempts of Plato, Butler, and Green to link duty and interest, Prichard, like Kant, maintains that the rightness of action does not depend either upon our own good or upon our belief (...) that it depends upon our own good. Similarly, Prichard dismisses the view that our desire for our own good is our only motive. (shrink)

Analyses Green's rather obscure treatment of two important questions: ‘Why does a subject have the duty to obey the ruler or sovereign?’; and ‘Why is the receipt of an order backed by a threat sufficient to establish this duty when the order comes from a ruler?’ Prichard considers Green's position regarding the grounds and justification for obedience to law to be part of a larger theory of moral obligation that is inconsistent with our ordinary moral ideas. To Green's seeming denial (...) of the existence of any natural rights or duties, Prichard responds that Green in fact has failed to state a sense in which there really are natural rights and obligations. Moreover, Green's denial that we can answer the question ‘Why ought we to obey the government?’ can be formulated only by maintaining the existence of an obligation independent of our government's commands. The core of truth in Green's position, according to Prichard, lies in his recognition that a factor necessary to secure obedience is the subject's unselfish interest in the welfare of other members of her community. (shrink)

Examines four principle questions about moral obligation raised by key philosophers: Plato asks in The Republic ‘Will a man be better off for doing his duty?’; Plato then asks ‘Ought man to do his duty?’; we may also ask ‘What is the criterion of a duty?’; and we may ask ‘What is moral obligation?’ Rejecting the last question as unreal, Prichard then argues against the connection between duty and happiness or duty and personal or general advantage. After critiquing both teleological (...) and quasi‐teleological theories of obligation, he ends by contrasting goodness and obligation. (shrink)

Concerning the nature of desires that pertain to actions, considers the view that we cannot desire something unless we know or think, first, that it does not exist, and second, that it does not exist now. Finds a core of truth in this, but modifies the formula to claim that ‘we can only desire the existence of that of the existence of which in the past, present, or future, as the case may be, we are uncertain.’ Put more simply, a (...) desire is not a desire for the existence of something, but rather a desire for something to be. It follows from this view that we cannot desire something to be the case when we think that, without a doubt, it will be the case. (shrink)

Caesars "Bellum Civile" ist als Dokument römischer Geschichtsschreibung und als Quellenwerk über den Bürgerkrieg für jeden am antiken Rom Interessierten von außerordentlicher Bedeutung. Dennoch führt er neben dem "Gallischen Krieg" fast ein Schattendasein: zu Unrecht, wie sich erweist. Denn an Klarheit der Diktion und Prägnanz des Gedankens steht der "Bürgerkrieg" diesem nicht nach. Dazu ist der Zweikampf um die Macht zwischen Caesar und Pompeius ein erregender historischer Stoff, selbst dort, wo er weniger objektive Historiographie als eine Rechtfertigung für Caesars Handeln (...) darstellt. Es liegt Caesar daran zu beweisen, dass ihm der Krieg, den er gern vermieden hätte, vom Gegner aufgezwungen wurde und dass er selbst schuldlos daran sei. Wie abenteuerlich in Rom intrigiert wurde, wie Caesar stets edel ist und die anderen üble Rechtsbrecher und Staatsfeinde sind, das lohnt sich auch 2000 Jahre später noch nachzulesen. (shrink)

Lives on the Fringes: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Incarceration Editors: Caterina Benelli, Giovanni Cogliandro, Giovanna Costanzo.

Ist das menschliche Handeln vorbestimmt oder kann der Einzelne frei entscheiden? In Auseinandersetzung mit den Positionen von Chrysipp, Epikur und Karneades gelangt Cicero zur Auffassung, dass es für den menschlichen Willen keine von außen wirkenden und vorausgehenden Ursachen gebe, die diesen Entscheidungsprozess bestimmen. Die Mitte 44 v.Chr. begonnene und unvollendet gebliebene Schrift schließt sich unmittelbar an "De divinatione" und "De natura deorum" an.

This account of poverty and deviance during recent times in the city of Antwerp compares situations of the 1930's with present times. Undoubtedly social security prevented, since the end of the war, that many people feit into poverty. Still in the presence of massive unemployment, public relieve organisations, such as the 0.C.M.W. are more and more confronted with what is called precarity.About 25% of the Antwerp population is estimated to be living in a precair situation. After glancing on the near (...) future and warningfor a number of social challenges, the article insists very much on preventional politics and coordinated total development projects in the depressed areas. (shrink)

There is a well-worn image and phrase for libertarianism: "atomized individualism." This hobgoblin has spread so thoroughly that even some libertarians think their philosophy unreservedly supports private persons, whatever the situation, whatever their behavior. Smith's Self-Interest and Social Order in Classical Liberalism, corrects this misrepresentation with careful intellectual surveys of Hume, Smith, Hobbes, Butler, Mandeville, and Hutcheson and their respective contributions to political philosophy.