Karsten M. Thiel interpretiert die Genealogie der Moral neu. Er rückt Nietzsches Kritik an der Geschichtsschreibung ins Zentrum der Betrachtung und nimmt so seiner Moralkritik alles Schrille, das ihr gewöhnlich anhaftet. Für Nietzsche muss die Geschichtsschreibung über einen belastbaren Begriff von Vergangenheit verfügen. Doch wie konnte es zu einer Geschichtsschreibung ohne einen solchen Begriff überhaupt kommen? Nietzsches Antwort ist verblüffend. Für ihn war Geschichtsschreibung bisher fast immer teleologisch, ausgerichtet auf ein Ideal statt auf die Vergangenheit. Sein Gegenmodell ist die Genealogie: (...) Sinn vergeht, indem er von späterem Sinn "überschrieben" wird. In der Genealogie der Moral ist ein solches Überschreiben mehrfach zu beobachten. die Sklavenmoral erobert den Sinn der Herrenmoral, der archaische Vertrag zwischen Schuldner und Gläubiger wird immer wieder neu ausgelegt, wird zu Gerechtigkeit, schlechtem Gewissen und Schuld. (shrink)

In recent years, public health law has seen some important court decisions. Those are presented below.In Pelman v. McDonaldS Corporation, the court dismissed a complaint filed by three children who claimed that McDonald’s practices in making and selling its products were deceptive. This deception, the children alleged, caused them to consume McDonald’s products with great frequency and become obese, thereby injuring their health. The plaintiffs pled five causes of action against McDonald’s, alleging that McDonald’s: 1) failed to adequately disclose the (...) ingredients and health effects of its products and described their food as nutritious without disclosing detrimental health effects; 2) engaged in marketing techniques geared toward inducing children to consume their products; 3) acted negligently in selling foods high in fat, cholesterol, salt, and sugar when studies show that foods containing these ingredients cause obesity and detrimental health effects; 4) failed to warn consumers of the quantity and qualities of levels of fat, cholesterol, salt, and sugar in its products or of the detrimental health effects of such foods; and 5) acted negligently in marketing foods that were physically and psychologically addictive. (shrink)

In recent years, public health law has seen some important court decisions. Those are presented below.In Pelman v. McDonaldS Corporation, the court dismissed a complaint filed by three children who claimed that McDonald’s practices in making and selling its products were deceptive. This deception, the children alleged, caused them to consume McDonald’s products with great frequency and become obese, thereby injuring their health. The plaintiffs pled five causes of action against McDonald’s, alleging that McDonald’s: 1) failed to adequately disclose the (...) ingredients and health effects of its products and described their food as nutritious without disclosing detrimental health effects; 2) engaged in marketing techniques geared toward inducing children to consume their products; 3) acted negligently in selling foods high in fat, cholesterol, salt, and sugar when studies show that foods containing these ingredients cause obesity and detrimental health effects; 4) failed to warn consumers of the quantity and qualities of levels of fat, cholesterol, salt, and sugar in its products or of the detrimental health effects of such foods; and 5) acted negligently in marketing foods that were physically and psychologically addictive. (shrink)