The definition of life has been one of the greatest philosophical questions of mankind. In recent years, this debate had intensified due to the discovery of naturally occurring biological entities, such as viruses and prions, which lie at the boundary of what we consider as living. “Are viruses alive?” has turned out to be the largest vote swinging debate in an introductory course to microbiology [1], with 79% of the students changing their opinions before and after the debate compared to (...) genetic engineering (56% opinion swing) and childhood immunization (25% opinion swing). Using boundary cases as classification criteria, also known as the decision boundary or decision surface, had been well established [2]. (shrink)

Reason: The article, Kgatle, M.S., 2017, ‘The unusual practices within some Neo-Pentecostal churches in South Africa: Reflections and recommendations’, HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 73, a4656. https://doi.org/10.4102/hts.v73i3.4656, published on 29 September 2017 in HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies has been retracted by the journal’s Editor-in-Chief, Prof. Andries van Aarde, because of sections of plagiarised text. Verbatim work was cited but presented to the readers as paraphrased from the original, providing the impression that the lifted passages were the author’s own words. The verbatim (...) text directly affects the findings of the paper and could not be removed. The article is hereby retracted to correct the publication record.We apologise for any inconvenience to the authors and readers of HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies. (shrink)

One of the most beautiful and enigmatic texts in the corpus of the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles is beyond doubt the so-called Hymn of the Pearl, whose meaning, however, is far from getting an academic consensus in the current bibliography. As A.F.J. Klijn in his «The So-Called Hymn of the Pearl », Vigiliae Christianae, vol. 14, n. 3 156, stated a coherent analysis of the poem should bring an answer to two main questions: «What is meant with the pearl? (...) and Who is the principal person in this hymn?». The following pages will try to propose a tenable meaning to this passage by allocating it in its due conceptual context and will offer a consequent hypothesis to those questions that remain still opened. (shrink)

https://hts.org.za/index.php/hts/article/view/4772.

The Harm Threshold (HT) holds that the state may interfere in medical decisions parents make on their children’s behalf only when those decisions are likely to cause serious harm to the child. Such a high bar for intervention seems incompatible with both parental obligations and the state’s role in protecting children’s well-being. In this paper, I assess the theoretical underpinnings for the HT, focusing on John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle as its most plausible conceptual foundation. I offer (i) a novel, (...) text-based argument showing that Mill’s Harm Principle does not give justificatory force to the HT; and (ii) a positive account of some considerations which, beyond significant harm, would comprise an intervention principle normatively grounded in Mill’s ethical theory. I find that substantive recommendations derived from Mill’s socio-political texts are less _laissez-faire_ than they have been interpreted by HT proponents. Justification for state intervention owes not to the severity of a harm, but to whether that harm arises from the failure to satisfy one’s duty. Thus, a pediatric intervention principle derived from Mill ought not to be oriented around the _degree_ of harm caused by a parent’s healthcare decision, but rather, the _kind_ of harm—specifically, whether the harm arises from violation of parental obligation. These findings challenge the interpretation of Mill adopted by HT proponents, eliminating a critical source of justification for a protected domain of parental liberty and reorienting the debate to focus on parental duties. (shrink)