What is ethics? -- How the Bible guides Christian ethics -- Moral agent -- Sin -- Virtue -- Conscience -- Moral norms -- Biblical norms -- Moral consequences -- Ultimate ends.

When information on a coma patient’s expected outcome is uncertain, a moral dilemma arises in clinical practice: if life-sustaining treatment is continued, the patient may survive with unacceptably poor neurological prospects, but if withdrawn a patient who could have recovered may die. Continuous electroencephalogram-monitoring is expected to substantially improve neuroprognostication for patients in coma after cardiac arrest. This raises expectations that decisions whether or not to withdraw will become easier. This paper investigates that expectation, exploring cEEG’s impacts when it becomes (...) part of a socio-technical network in an Intensive Care Unit. Based on observations in two ICUs in the Netherlands and one in the USA that had cEEG implemented for research, we interviewed 25 family members, healthcare professionals, and surviving patients. The analysis focuses on the way patient outcomes are constructed, the kind of decision support these outcomes provide, and how cEEG affects communication between professionals and relatives. We argue that cEEG can take away or decrease the intensity of the dilemma in some cases, while increasing uncertainty for others. It also raises new concerns. Since its actual impacts furthermore hinge on how cEEG is designed and implemented, we end with recommendations for ensuring responsible development and implementation. (shrink)

Aim: To elicit preferences for prognostic information, attitudes towards withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (WLST) and perspectives on acceptable quality of life after post-anoxic coma within the adult general population of Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the United States of America. Methods: A web-based survey, consisting of questions on respondent characteristics, perspectives on quality of life, communication of prognostic information, and withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, was taken by adult respondents recruited from four countries. Statistical analysis included descriptive analysis and chi2-tests for (...) dierences between countries. Results: In total, 2012 respondents completed the survey. In each country, at least 84% indicated they would prefer to receive early prognostic information. If a poor outcome was predicted with some uncertainty, 37-54% of the respondents indicated that WLST was not to be allowed. A conscious state with severe physical and cognitive impairments was perceived as acceptable quality of life by 17–44% of the respondents. Clear differences between countries exist, including respondents from the U.S. being more likely to allow WLST than respondents from Germany (OR = 1.99, p < 0.001) or the Netherlands (OR = 1.74, p < 0.001) and preferring to stay alive in a conscious state with severe physical and cognitive impairments more than respondents from Italy (OR = 3.76, p < 0.001), Germany (OR = 2.21, p < 0.001), or the Netherlands (OR = 2.39, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Over one-third of the respondents considered WLST unacceptable when there is any remaining prognostic uncertainty. Respondents had a more positive perspective on acceptable quality of life after coma than what is currently considered acceptable in medical literature. This indicates a need for a closer look at the practice of WLST based on prognostic information, to ensure responsible use of novel prognostic tests. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:An Introduction to Christian Ethics: Goals, Duties, and Virtues by Robin W. Lovin, and: The Moral Disciple: An Introduction to Christian Ethics by Kent A. Van TilPaul J. WadellAn Introduction to Christian Ethics: Goals, Duties, and Virtues ROBIN W. LOVIN Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2011. 288 pp. $29.00The Moral Disciple: An Introduction to Christian Ethics KENT A. VAN TIL Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2012. 160 pp. $18.00Over (...) the last several years a number of introductory texts in Christian ethics have been published. Robin Lovin’s An Introduction to Christian Ethics and Kent Van Til’s The Moral Disciple are impressive and worthy additions to that growing collection. Both are intended for undergraduate students—an audience, these authors realize, whose upbringing, history, and experiences are very different from their own. How can professors guide students through the thicket of choices and decisions that confront them every day, especially when they are bombarded with seemingly endlessly diverse answers about what is true, good, worthwhile, or fulfilling? When so much is constantly changing, how can professors help students understand what it means to live wisely, responsibly, and with integrity? How can they use the manifold traditions and resources of Christian ethics to help students discern the contours of a life that is truly worth living as well as the attitudes, dispositions, and choices that will enable them to achieve that? And, perhaps most challengingly, how can they do this when their students come to the study of ethics, as Lovin observes, with little more than “mere fragments of a moral vocabulary that has lost its meaning”? (238) With these questions in mind, Lovin and Van Til, wise and compassionate guides, lead the reader through the history of Christian ethics to illustrate how those who have gone before us, in all the different ways they understood the moral life, can assist us on our journey today.Both texts are structured around the customary focal points of goals and consequences (teleology), laws and norms (deontology), and character and virtue (areteology). In investigating each of these models for understanding ethics, [End Page 213] Van Til and Lovin give special attention to the influence of Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and Kant. And both offer an insightful, balanced overview of the natural law, the moral and theological virtues, and the abiding but sometimes overlooked influence of utilitarianism on our moral reasoning. Moreover, both texts offer ample examples or case studies along with clear, succinct definitions that help students connect the material to their lives and appreciate important differences among varied accounts of the moral life.But there are also interesting differences between these two books. Because Van Til is primarily concerned with what ethics means in a life of faithful discipleship, he places how one’s relationship with Christ shapes her identity, understanding of the world, and sense of moral agency more at the forefront of his analysis than does Lovin in his Introduction to Christian Ethics. This is not a shortcoming of Lovin’s text, but it indicates an important difference in their methodologies. For example, because Van Til emphasizes that the lives of Christians are primarily guided by the biblical narrative, he moves from asking in the opening chapter “What is ethics?” to considering in chapter 2 the role of the scriptures for illuminating how Christians understand God, themselves, and their place in the world. “Christians believe that the Bible is God’s true and complete revelation,” Van Til writes, “and we also trust that the moral guidance we receive from Scripture is the truest and most complete moral guidance available to us” (18). Nonetheless, Van Til rightly cautions that because the Bible is “not an ethics textbook … problems may arise if we try to make the Bible guide our morality in ways that the Bible itself does not intend” (18). Thus, determining how biblical teaching should inform moral decisions demands ongoing personal and communal discernment.By contrast, after an expansive and very helpful overview of the origin of ethics in his opening chapter, Lovin adopts Charles Curran’s well-known fivefold “Christian stance” to provide the overarching framework for understanding the distinctiveness of Christian ethics. He then probes four... (shrink)

Het nihilisme speelt niet alleen een rol binnen de westerse filosofie. Ook binnen de boeddhistische filosofische traditie is aandacht besteed aan deze problematiek. Het oude boeddhisme kent een heilsleer die uitmondt in nirwana, dat letterlijk ‘uitdoving’ betekent: het uitdoven van begeerte, haat en onwetendheid. In het latere mahayana-boeddhisme speelt het niets een nog grotere rol: de filosoof Nâgârjuna stelt keer op keer dat alles ‘leeg’ is : de dingen hebben geen substantie, geen eigen wezen, en bestaan niet op zichzelf. (...) De heilsleer van het mahayana-boeddhisme is gericht op het existentieel realiseren van deze sunyata. Mede vanwege deze opvattingen is het boeddhisme vanaf de negentiende eeuw in het Westen vaak gerecipieerd als een nihilisme. De boeddhistische opvattingen over sunyata zijn echter juist bedoeld om het nihilisme te overwinnen. (shrink)

I argue that the epistemology underlying Cornelius Van Til’s presuppositional apologetic methodology is quasi-fideist. According to this view, the rationality of religious belief is dependent on absolutely certain ungrounded grounds, called hinges. I further argue that the quasi-fideist epistemology of presuppositional apologetics explains why Van Til’s method is neither fideist nor problematically circular: hinges are rational in the sense that they are partly constitutive of rationality, and all beliefs (not just religious ones) depend on hinges. In addition, it illuminates something (...) of why it may strike one as a misguided or uncompelling apologetic method: instead of starting by tackling the comparatively minor epistemic commitments of the nonbeliever, it directly approaches their deepest and surest commitments. (shrink)

Cornelius Van Til and Alvin Plantinga represent two strands of American Protestant philosophical thought influenced by Dutch neo-Calvinism. This paper compares and synthetizes their models of knowledge in non-Christians given the noetic effects of sin and non-Christian worldview commitments. The paper argues that Van Til’s distinction between the partial realization of the antithesis in practice and its absolute nature in principle correlates with Plantinga’s insistence on prima facie–warranted common-sense beliefs and their ultimate defeasibility given certain metaphysical commitments. Van Til endorsed (...) more radical claims than Plantinga on epistemic defeat in non-Christian worldviews, the status of the sensus divinitatis, and conceptual accuracy in knowledge of the world. Finally, an approach to the use of evidence in apologetics is developed based on the proposed synthesis. This approach seeks to make more room for evidence than is generally recognized in Van Tilianism, while remaining consistent with the founder’s principles. (shrink)

After the challenges of the Enlightenment from philosophers such as David Hume, contemporary philosophers of religion tend to think that proof is not possible and that at best humans have arguments for the probability or plausibility of belief in God. But, Christianity maintains that humans should know God. This book explores attempts to respond to the Enlightenment challenges by thinkers at Princeton Theological like Benjamin Warfield. It considers Warfield's view of reason and knowledge of God, his debate with Abraham Kuyper, (...) and the attempt to reconcile differences between these two by Cornelius Van Til. It also considers Reformed Epistemology, which has become popular in recent decades and is credited for a renewed interest in Christian philosophy. (shrink)

The Polish logician Jan Lukasiewicz and the American theologian Cornelius Van Til are famous for challenging Aristotle’s Principle of Contradiction.Whereas apparent contradictions such as God and physical reality being both One and Not One (Many) are accepted in terms of an idealism held by Van Til, the Principle’s violations in theology and science reflect a realism held by Lukasiewicz. Lukasiewicz is favored for explaining why the Principle’s violation may be rational for a scientific and theological realism.

This book investigates for the first time key theological and philosophical convictions of an influential, yet hitherto neglected, Dutch theologian who developed his ideas on the threshold between the age of Protestant orthodoxy and the emerging Enlightenment.

Once upon a time it was assumed that speaking literally and directly is the norm and that speaking nonliterally or indirectly is the exception. The assumption was that normally what a speaker means can be read off of the meaning of the sentence he utters, and that departures from this, if not uncommon, are at least easily distinguished from normal utterances and explainable along Gricean lines. The departures were thought to be limited to obvious cases like figurative speech and conversational (...) implicature. However, people have come to appreciate that the meaning of a typical sentence, at least one we are at all likely to use, is impoverished, at least relative to what we are likely to mean in uttering it. In other words, what a speaker normally means in uttering a sentence, even without speaking figuratively or obliquely, is an enriched version of what could be predicted from the meaning of the sentence alone. This can be because the sentence expresses a “minimal” (or “skeletal”) proposition or even because it fails to express a complete proposition at all.1 Indeed, it is now a platitude that linguistic meaning generally underdetermines speaker meaning. That is, generally what a speaker means in uttering a sentence, even if the sentence is devoid of ambiguity, vagueness, or indexicality, goes beyond what the sentence means. The question is what to make of this Contextualist Platitude, as I’ll call it. It may be a truism, but does it require a radical revision of the older conception of the relation between what sentences mean and what speakers mean in uttering them? Does it lead to a major modification, or perhaps even outright rejection, of the semantic-pragmatic distinction? I think.. (shrink)

Religion: A Study in Beauty, Truth, and Goodness covers the wide array of elements, including the concepts of ultimate being, scripture, ritual, morality, and beauty, which make up the fascinating entity known as religion. Taking a phenomenological approach that emphasizes the standpoint of the religious believer--a view from the inside of religion--Kent Richter uses the categories of experience, belief, and behavior ("Beauty, Truth, and Goodness") as a way to think about religion in general. This approach helps students understand both (...) the great variety in religious traditions and the internal coherence that religion holds for its practitioners. (shrink)

a comprehensive, somewhat Gricean theory of speech acts, including an account of communicative intentions and inferences, a taxonomy of speech acts, and coverage of many topics in pragmatics -/- .

This article makes a number of points about reference, both speaker reference and linguistic reference. The bottom line is simple: reference ain't easy — at least not nearly as easy as commonly supposed. Much of what speakers do that passes for reference is really something else, and much of what passes for linguistic reference is really nothing more than speaker reference. Referring is one of the basic things we do with words, and it would be a good idea to understand (...) what that involves and requires before worrying about the linguistic means by which this is done. (shrink)

Think of linguistification by analogy with personification: attributing linguistic properties to nonlinguistic phenomena. For my purposes, it also includes attributing nonlinguistic properties to linguistic items, i.e., treating nonlinguistic properties as linguistic. Linguistification is widespread. It has reached epidemic proportions. It needs to be eradicated. That’s important because the process of communication is not simply a matter of one person putting a thought into words and another decoding them back into the same thought. Much of what a speaker means cannot be (...) traced to what his words mean or to their possibly context-sensitive semantic contents. Words carry information all right, but that information hardly determines what speakers mean in uttering them. They leave plenty of pragmatic gaps and sometimes even semantic slack. I’ll mention various reasons for that, but the important thing is to recognize how much people exploit extralinguistic information in communicating and to avoid confusing this process with semantic context sensitivity. To appreciate the limitations of semantics, we shouldn’t fall for the fallacy of misplaced information or for the more specific fallacies enumerated below. (shrink)

Symbolen, zo luidt de gemeenplaats, zijn een zaak van taal en kunst – van literatuur en plastische kunst, en ook wel van religie en spiritualiteit –, maar niet van politiek. Nochtans is de band tussen politiek en symboliek niet vreemd. Iedereen kent wel politieke symbolen of heeft het wel eens over symbooldossiers in de politiek. In wat volgt wil ik duidelijk maken dat dit te maken heeft met wat de politiek doet: het symboliseren van de gemeenschap.

Where does normal brain or psychological function end, and pathology begin? The line can be hard to discern, making disease sometimes a tricky word. In addiction, normal ‘wanting’ processes become distorted and excessive, according to the incentive-sensitization theory. Excessive ‘wanting’ results from drug-induced neural sensitization changes in underlying brain mesolimbic systems of incentive. ‘Brain disease’ was never used by the theory, but neural sensitization changes are arguably extreme enough and problematic enough to be called pathological. This implies that ‘brain disease’ (...) can be a legitimate description of addiction, though caveats are needed to acknowledge roles for choice and active agency by the addict. Finally, arguments over ‘brain disease’ should be put behind us. Our real challenge is to understand addiction and devise better ways to help. Arguments over descriptive words only distract from that challenge. (shrink)

Different brain mechanisms seem to mediate wanting and liking for the same reward. This may have implications for the modular nature of mental processes, and for understanding addictions, compulsions, free will and other aspects of desire. A few wanting and liking phenomena are presented here, together with discussion of some of these implications.

Confusion in terms inspires confusion in concepts. When a relevant distinction is not clearly marked or not marked at all, it is apt to be blurred or even missed altogether in our thinking. This is true in any area of inquiry, pragmatics in particular. No one disputes that there are various ways in which what is communicated in an utterance can go beyond sentence meaning. The problem is to catalog the ways. It is generally recognized that linguistic meaning underdetermines speaker (...) meaning because of the need for disambiguation and reference assignment and because people can speak figuratively or indirectly. But philosophers and linguists are coming to recognize that these are not the only ways. The situation may be described in Gricean terms: the distinction between what is said and what is implicated is not exhaustive. Charting the middle ground between the two will require attending to specific examples, noting their distinctive features, and articulating the relevant concepts. That is what I aim to do here. The basic idea will be to distinguish not only the implied from the explicit but the implicit from the implied. (shrink)

Psychopaths constitute less than 1% of the general population, but they commit a much larger proportion of crime and violence in society. This volume chronicles the latest science of psychopathy, various ways that psychopaths challenge the criminal justice system, and the major ethical issues arising from this fascinating condition.

What is empiricism and what could it be? Bas . van Fraassen, one of the world’s foremost contributors to philosophical logic and the philosophy of science, here undertakes a fresh consideration of these questions and offers a program for renewal of the empiricist tradition. The empiricist tradition is not and could not be defined by common doctrines, but embodies a certain stance in philosophy, van Fraassen says. This stance is displayed first of all in a searing, recurrent critique of metaphysics, (...) and secondly in a focus on experience that requires a voluntarist view of belief and opinion. Van Fraassen focuses on the philosophical problems of scientific and conceptual revolutions and on the not unrelated ruptures between religious and secular ways of seeing or conceiving of ourselves. He explores what it is to be or not be secular and points the way toward a new relationship between secularism and science within philosophy. (shrink)