Truth, Meaning and Logical Form Reflections on Davidson's Philosophy of Language WOLFGANG KUNNE I. Introduction: Davidson and Tarski The governing idea of ...
Given the many marvelous things animals can do and moreover the success we have in employing the intentional stance towards animals, it seems to be almost unthinkable to say that animals could not act at all. Nonetheless, this is exactly what I argue for. I claim that strictly speaking there is no animal action, only behaviour. I defend this claim in three steps. Firstly, I recapitulate some of the weighty grounds that speak in favour of animal agency. Secondly, I explain (...) why I still doubt that animals act. The argument is that the account of agency that I take to be the most attractive one entails that animals can't act. Since this account of agency is non-standard, I spend the bulk of the paper with providing a sketch of what, according to it, actions are. Finally, I explain why it is still so natural and promising to regard animals as agents, although in fact they aren't. As one might put it: of course they act, only strictly speaking they don't. (shrink)
This chapter relates the problem of demarcating the pathological from the non-pathological in psychiatry to the general problem of defining ‘disease’ in the philosophy of medicine. Section 2 revisits three prominent debates in medical nosology: naturalism versus normativism, the three dimensions of illness, sickness, and disease, and the demarcation problem. Sections 3–5 reformulate the demarcation problem in terms of semantic vagueness. ‘Disease’ exhibits vagueness of degree by drawing no sharp line in a continuum and is combinatorially vague because there are (...) several criteria for the term’s use that might fall apart. Combinatorial vagueness explains why the other two debates appear hopeless: Should we construe ‘disease’ in a naturalistic or in a normative way? Neither answer is satisfactory. How should we balance the three dimensions of pathology? We do not have to, because illness, sickness and disease (narrowly conceived) are non-competing criteria for the application of the cluster term ‘disease’. (shrink)
There is a widely accepted view in action theory according to which actions are events, reasons are intentional attitudes of the agent, and acting for a reason entails that the reason rationalizes as well as causes the action. In the first part of my contribution I list seventeen difficulties for this standard account; in the second part I give an outline of how a more plausible conception of reasons and actions could look like. According to this conception, which is based (...) on Gilbert Ryle's criticism of a mechanistic understanding of psychological concepts, agency is due to a special kind of disposition of the agent, namely the disposition to behave as if the agent were permanently deliberating about what to do. The conception has surprising consequences for the ontological status of intentional attitudes and actions and for the relationship between action and responsibility. (shrink)
Definition of the problem: The developement of intensive care and transplantation medicine gave rise to ethical problems of the proper treatment of dying patients: How long should they be upheld and from which point on could their organs be removed? Brain oriented concepts of death promised to ease these problems, but on closer look turn out to be untenable. Hence, an alternative attitude towards death and the morally proper treatment of the dying is urgently needed.Suggested solution: In former times, before (...) intensive care was developed, death always had comprised various different changes, usually losses, which do not necessarily or conceptually belong to death, but which none the less were responsible for the moral weight we still attach to death. Modern medicine cut the joints between these losses, and hence dissolved the traditional, morally weighty concept of death. This leaves medical ethics with the task to inquire, one by one, into the ethical consequences of these different losses.Zusammenfassung. Die Entwicklung der Intensiv- und Transplantationsmedizin hat eine Reihe neuartiger medizinethischer Probleme entstehen lassen: die Fragen, bis wann man einen Menschen mit allen Mitteln am Leben erhalten und ab wann man ihm lebensnotwendige Organe entnehmen darf. Die Identifikation des menschlichen Todes mit dem Hirntod bot eine attraktive Auflösung dieser Schwierigkeiten, ist aber in den letzten Jahren zunehmend in die Kritik geraten, weil die begrifflich/weltanschaulichen Argumente, die für diese Gleichsetzung angeführt werden, einer Überprüfung nicht standhalten. Es gilt anzuerkennen, daß die medizinische Entwicklung nicht etwa eine Neudefinition des Todes erforderlich, sondern jede derartige Definition müßig gemacht hat, weil die Auffächerung der Sterbeprozesse in der Intensivmedizin die herkömmliche Annahme, daß mit dem Tod ein plötzlicher Umschwung im moralischen Status eines Menschen verbunden ist, ihrer Legitimation beraubt. An ihre Stelle tritt die Anerkennung einer ganzen Reihe verschiedener moralisch folgenreicher Veränderungen , die ein Mensch im Laufe seines Sterbens durchmacht. Es ist die Aufgabe der medizinischen Ethik, die Auswirkungen dieser Veränderungen auf die Patienten-Arzt-Beziehung zu erforschen. (shrink)
The widely agreed view that actions are events faces the problem of how to describe the “branches” in so-called action trees, i.e. actions which are done by doing other actions. Moreover, the view is also inconsistent with the existence of two familiar species of agency: omitting something and letting things happen. In this article, an alternative conception of action is proposed which takes letting happen as the paradigm of agency. Agency should be construed as an explanatory relation between agents and (...) things happening in the world. This relational view of agency can accommodate for all kinds of agency: doing, letting happen, omitting, prohibiting. And it also provides a satisfactory account of the ontological basis of action trees. We should at first say that to do something is to originate or to bring into existence, i.e., really, to cause, some not yet existing state either of ourselves or of someone else, or, again, of some body. (shrink)
Is self-respect a necessary condition for human dignity ? On the one hand, if it were a necessary condition, we could neither respect nor violate the human dignity of small children, severely mentally disabled and unconscious persons, which would certainly be an absurd consequence. On the other hand, it seems to be characteristic for violations of human dignity that they are humiliating for the victim, and humiliation usually is construed as a violation of self-respect. The dilemma is solved when we (...) realize that self-respect is a disposition to take care of one’s personal dignity, and that human dignity basically consists in having the opportunity of maintaining one’s personal dignity. Since personal dignity does not disappear when a person looses her ability to take care of it, respecting human dignity may consist in taking care of someone’s personal dignity who has lost self-respect. Therefore, self-respect is not necessary for human dignity. (shrink)
