In common with traditional forms of epistemic internalism, epistemological disjunctivism attempts to incorporate an awareness condition on justification. Unlike traditional forms of internalism, however, epistemological disjunctivism rejects the so-called New Evil Genius thesis. In so far as epistemological disjunctivism rejects the New Evil Genius thesis, it is revisionary. -/- After explaining what epistemological disjunctivism is, and how it relates to traditional forms of epistemic internalism / externalism, I shall argue that the epistemological disjunctivist’s account of the intuitions underlying the New (...) Evil Genius thought experiment is at best incomplete. As presented, therefore, epistemological disjunctivism is unable to accommodate the core guiding intuitions of epistemic internalism. Given the stated aim of not being revisionary on this score, the view is at a dialectical disadvantage over the traditional forms of epistemic internalism the position is meant to replace. Unfortunately, therefore, at present, the impasse between internalism and externalism remains. (shrink)

Is there a moral right to freedom of conscience? Should a legal right to freedom of conscience be established in each country on Earth? This essay argues for negative answers to both questions. The term freedom of conscience might refer to freedom of thought and the freedom of expression that sustains freedom of thought. In this sense we might affirm the right of each person to form individual opinions about the right and the good, about what we owe one another (...) by way of due consideration of others, and about what is worthy of pursuit in life, on the basis of free discussion of these matters. In the present discussion, these freedoms, important as they might be, are not under consideration. Let us assume freedom of thought and expression are secured. The status of freedom of conscience in the sense that is our concern in this discussion is still wide open. (shrink)

According to assurance views of testimonial justification, in virtue of the act of testifying a speaker provides an assurance of the truth of what she asserts to the addressee. This assurance provides a special justificatory force and a distinctive normative status to the addressee. It is thought to explain certain asymmetries between addressees and other unintended hearers (bystanders and eavesdroppers), such as the phenomenon that the addressee has a right to blame the speaker for conveying a falsehood but unintended hearers (...) do not, and the phenomenon that the addressee may deflect challenges to his testimonial belief to the speaker but unintended hearers may not. Here I argue that we can do a better job explaining the normative statuses associated with testimony by reference to epistemic norms of assertion and privacy norms. Following Sanford Goldberg, I argue that epistemic norms of assertion, according to which sincere assertion is appropriate only when the asserter possesses certain epistemic goods, can be ‘put to work’ to explain the normative statuses associated with testimony. When these norms are violated, they give hearers the right to blame the speaker, and they also explain why the speaker takes responsibility for the justification of the statement asserted. Norms of privacy, on the other hand, directly exclude eavesdroppers and bystanders from an informational exchange, implying that they have no standing to do many of the things, such as issue challenges or questions to the speaker, that would be normal for conversational participants. This explains asymmetries of normative status associated with testimony in a way logically independent of speaker assurance. (shrink)

Why is it that some business managers appear to behave differently in private and at work? How, if at all, are the decisions managers make affected by the nature of their organisations? What impact do organisational values have on the moral autonomy of managers? A research project into these questions is now under way in three disparate Australian business firms and this paper sets out the premise underlying it. For purposes of research the general premise is that the moral character (...) of a business influences the moral judgements and actions of its members. More specifically, it is suggested that the economic paradigm renders a business organisation amoral rather than moral or immoral, and as a result moral responsibility comes to be assigned to individual members. However, the socio-cultural nature of such firms interferes with the ability of managers to exercise moral autonomy. Governed as it is by the market or laws of economics, the amoral organisation is likely to transform its members into individuals without moral standards. (shrink)

This ~4000 word essay introduces topics of essentialism, as they arise in social sciences. It distinguishes empirical (e.g., psychological) from philosophical studies of essentialisms, and both metaphysical and scientific essentialisms within philosophy. Essentialism issues in social science are shown to be more subtle and complex than often presumed.

This essay presents a model-theoretic account of dispositional properties, according to which dispositions are not ordinary properties of real entities; dispositions capture the behavior of abstract, idealized models. This account has several payoffs. First, it saves the simple conditional analysis of dispositions. Second, it preserves the general connection between dispositions and regularities, despite the fact that some dispositions are not grounded in actual regularities. Finally, it brings together the analysis and the explanation of dispositions under a unified framework.

Artefacts can influence our actions in several ways. They can be instruments, enabling and facilitating actions, where their presence affects the number and quality of the options for action available to us. They can also influence our actions in a morally more salient way, where their presence changes the likelihood that we will actually perform certain actions. Both kinds of influences are closely related, yet accounts of how they work have been developed largely independently, within different conceptual frameworks and for (...) different purposes. In this paper I account for both kinds of influences within a single framework. Specifically, I develop a descriptive account of how the presence of artefacts affects what we actually do, which is based on a framework commonly used for normative investigations into how the presence of artefacts affects what we can do. This account describes the influence of artefacts on what we actually do in terms of the way facts about those artefacts alter our reasons for action. In developing this account, I will build on Dancy’s (2000a) account of practical reasoning. I will compare my account with two alternatives, those of Latour and Verbeek, and show how my account suggests a specification of their respective key concepts of prescription and invitation. Furthermore, I argue that my account helps us in analysing why the presence of artefacts sometimes fails to influence our actions, contrary to designer expectations or intentions. (shrink)

Centuries of scientific progress have been devoted to reducing uncertainty. Newtonian physics, introduced over 300 years ago, allowed for precise prediction of planetary and tidal motion, falling bodies and infinitely more, in addition to allowing the construction of the material world. The 20th century witnessed a revolution in our understanding of organ and cellular function and dysfunction, elucidation of pathways, mediators, receptors, and molecular interactions, and breakthroughs in the characterization of replication, transcription, and translation, all of which has been integral (...) to our understanding of human physiology and pathophysiology. Clinical epidemiology has had a revolutionary impact on our .. (shrink)

This reply to Gash’s (Found Sci 2013) commentary on Nescolarde-Selva and Usó-Doménech (Found Sci 2013) answers the three questions raised and at the same time opens up new questions.

The 25th anniversary of R. Edward Freeman’s Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach provides an opportunity to consider where stakeholder theory has been, where it is going, and how it might influence the behavior of academics conducting stakeholder-oriented research. We propose that Freeman’s early work on the stakeholder concept supports the normative claim that a stakeholder’s contribution to value creation implies a right to stakeholder voice with regard to how a corporation makes decisions. Failure to account for stakeholder voice (especially for (...) non-shareholder stakeholders) works to the detriment of stakeholders. We further propose that business ethicists and stakeholder scholars have a role to play with regard to supporting the interests — including a right to voice — of non-shareholder stakeholders through advocacy, teaching, and scholarship. We use the example of industrial relations teaching and scholarship as a model for future business ethics teaching and scholarship. (shrink)

If we lack the kind of free will required for moral responsibility, what does that entail for the justification of particular punitive practices and punishment generally? Everyone seems to agree that incarceration can still be justified, and that retributive justifications of punishment will be unavailable. Beyond this, however, there is little agreement. In this article, I evaluate Derk Pereboom’s discussion of this issue in Living Without Free Will, and then articulate and defend my own positive position. In my view, significant (...) punishment can be justified on consequentialist grounds by the free will denier without betraying important concerns about justice. (shrink)

Michael J. Zimmerman explores whether and how our ignorance about ourselves and our circumstances affects what our moral obligations and moral rights are. He rejects objective and subjective views of the nature of moral obligation, and presents a new case for a 'prospective' view.

The authors proposes a philosophical hinterland of nomological type for various conceptions of alethic modalities. Differences among these conceptions are explained by the fact, that moda­lizators can be relativized to various types of laws. Thus one can speak respectively about logic and definitional, ontical and physical, technical and dispositional, psychological and methodo­logical, and finally deontic modalities. The authors shows that in their conceptual appa­ratus modal logics find intuitive interpretation more clear and ontologically more cautious than the semantics of possible worlds (...) philosophically interpreted. The nomological explication of main notions of this semantics (like “possible world” and “accessibility relation”) is also given. (shrink)

This essay contrasts two characterizations of the subject: One derived from continental philosophy—the subject as a lack of being, and the other, derived from ancient Indian philosophy of Vedanta, which posits the subject as plenum. This modern contrast of viewpoints reveals how reason breaks down when faced with what is immediate, over-proximate, and primordially inaccessible in human experience. A modern examination of the fundamental tenets of Advaita Vedanta demonstrates how the linguistic signifier functions in thought’s native impulse towards totality, unity, (...) and identity. This essay further suggests how the condition for the possibility of experience necessarily precludes both complete/perfect knowledge and obviates the possibility of ever directly experiencing absolute oneness. (shrink)

Are soldiers to blame for the wars in which they fight? If a war is unjust or illegal, do soldiers bear any responsibility? The traditional, and still dominant, view both in morality and law is that soldiers do not bear responsibility and therefore are not to blame for the wars in which they fight, no matter how unjust or illegal they may be because: a) soldiers are incapable of knowing whether the wars in which they fight are unjust or illegal; (...) and b) even if they are capable of knowing, have no choice but to fight them anyway. Soldiers, in other words, are excused for their participation in unjust and illegal wars by what amounts to reasons of insanity (lack of mental responsibility) and duress (obedience to orders). In this article, I explore whether they should be, especially since soldiers are considered to be responsible and therefore blameworthy for what they do (or fail to do) in war and rarely, if ever, excused by reasons of insanity or duress. (shrink)

In the healthcare sector, race, ethnicity and religion have become an increasingly important factor in terms of patient care due to an increasingly diverse population. Health agencies at a national and local level produce a number of guides to raise awareness of cultural issues among healthcare professionals and hospitals may implement additional non-medical services, such as the provision of specific types of food and dress to patients or the hiring of chaplains, to accommodate the needs of patients with religious requirements. (...) However, in an attempt to address the spiritual, cultural and religious needs of patients healthcare providers often assume that ethnic minority groups are homogenous blocks of people with similar needs and fail to recognize that a diverse range of views and practices exist within specific groups themselves. This paper describes the example of the Sikh community and the provision of palliative care in hospitals and hospices. Although, the majority of patients classifying themselves as Sikhs have a shared language and history, they can also be divided on a number of lines such as caste affiliation, degree of assimilation in the west, educational level and whether baptized or not, all of which influence their beliefs and practices and hence impact on their needs from a health provider. Given that it is unfeasible for health providers to have knowledge of the multitude of views within specific religious and ethnic communities and accounting for the tight fiscal constraints of healthcare budgets, this paper concludes by raising the question whether healthcare providers should step away from catering for religious and cultural needs that do not directly affect treatment outcomes, and instead put the onus on individual communities to provide resources to meet spiritual, cultural and religious needs of patients. (shrink)

Das Phänomen des Ethischen ist dem Konflikt der Interpretationen ausgesetzt. Er äußert sich nicht nur in ethischen Kontroversen, sondern auch als Konflikt ethischer Grundkonzeptionen und Menschenbilder. Verstärkt wird in jüngster Zeit über das spezifische Profil evangelischer Ethik und Urteilsbildung nachgedacht. Die Beiträge dieses Buches konfrontieren entsprechende Bemühungen mit der provokanten These R. Bultmanns, es gebe gar keine christliche Ethik, sofern darunter einer Theorie über das verstanden werde, was Christen zu tun und zu lassen haben.

Artykuł poświecony jest sposobom indywidualnego sprostania warunkom tego, co społeczne. Autor broni tezy, iż tylko indywidualna odpowiedź mędrca — geniusza — zasługuje na zainteresowanie jako ta, dzięki której możliwe jest sprostanie tym warunkom. Bagaż metafizycznych symbolizacji wspólnotowych jest przeszkadzającym w myśleniu balastem — jednakże tylko geniusz, mimo iż dzieli się ową wiedzą z innymi ,jest w stanie tego dokonać. Autor posługuje się przykładem mitu śmierci Homera oraz Platona relacją z obrony Sokratesa.