We estimate that 208,000 deep brain stimulation (DBS) devices have been implanted to address neurological and neuropsychiatric disorders worldwide. DBS Think Tank presenters pooled data and determined that DBS expanded in its scope and has been applied to multiple brain disorders in an effort to modulate neural circuitry. The DBS Think Tank was founded in 2012 providing a space where clinicians, engineers, researchers from industry and academia discuss current and emerging DBS technologies and logistical and ethical issues facing the field. (...) The emphasis is on cutting edge research and collaboration aimed to advance the DBS field. The Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank was held virtually on September 1 and 2, 2020 (Zoom Video Communications) due to restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The meeting focused on advances in: (1) optogenetics as a tool for comprehending neurobiology of diseases and on optogenetically-inspired DBS, (2) cutting edge of emerging DBS technologies, (3) ethical issues affecting DBS research and access to care, (4) neuromodulatory approaches for depression, (5) advancing novel hardware, software and imaging methodologies, (6) use of neurophysiological signals in adaptive neurostimulation, and (7) use of more advanced technologies to improve DBS clinical outcomes. There were 178 attendees who participated in a DBS Think Tank survey, which revealed the expansion of DBS into several indications such as obesity, post-traumatic stress disorder, addiction and Alzheimer’s disease. This proceedings summarizes the advances discussed at the Eighth Annual DBS Think Tank. (shrink)

Nozick argues, in “Anarchy, State, and Utopia”, correctly I think, that we can go from an equal distribution of wealth to an unequal one through just means. Nozick then asks: If people voluntarily move from a just distribution of wealth, D1, to a different distribution, D2, “isn’t D2 also just?” While Nozick thinks the new distribution of wealth, D2, is just, I think that it is at least possible to go from a just state of affairs to an un-just state (...) of affairs by just means. I then argue that any unequal distribution of wealth cannot maximize the good derived from wealth. Therefore, on the basis of plausible utilitarian ideas, any distribution of wealth that isn’t at least roughly equal is un-just, even if it was arrived at by just means from an equal and just distribution of wealth. (shrink)

In Anarchy, State, and Utopia, Robert Nozick contrasts entitlement theories of justice and “traditional” theories such as Rawls', utilitarianism or egalitarianism, and advocates the former against the latter. What exactly is an entitlement theory of justice? Nozick's book offers two distinct characterizations. On the one hand, he explicitly describes “the general outlines of the entitlement theory” as maintaining “that the holdings of a person are just if he is entitled to them by the principles of justice in acquisition and (...) transfer, or by the principle of rectification of injustice ”. On the other hand, his famous “Wilt Chamberlain” argument against alternative theories is first said to apply to “non-entitlement conceptions”, and later to any “end-state principle or distributional patterned principle of justice” — which amounts to an implicit characterization of an entitlement conception as a conception of justice which is neither end-state nor patterned. (shrink)

Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia is in large measure an ingenious elaboration of an argument for capitalism adumbrated by Plekhanov. The capitalism Nozick advocates is more pure than the one we know today. It lacks taxation for social welfare, and it permits degrees of inequality far greater than most apologists for contemporary bourgeois society would countenance. The present paper paper is only indirectly a critique of Nozick's defense of capitalism. Its immediate aim is to refute Nozick's major argument (...) against a rival of capitalism, socialism. The refutation vindicates socialism against that argument, but no one opposed to socialism on other grounds should expect to be converted by this paper. (shrink)

According to Eric Mack, the Wilt Chamberlain Argument makes two distinct points against all patterned and end-state theories of justice. First, the pattern theorist cannot explain how innocuous actions can give rise to an injustice. Second, the enforcement of a pattern theory requires constant redistribution of holdings, and that prevents people from forming legitimate expectations about their future holdings. This paper responds to both of these points. Mack’s first point denies or disregards the relevance of harmful consequences to the (...) justice or injustice of a distribution. The second point is based on a requirement that is either too demanding to be plausible, or too permissive to undermine pattern theories. The failure of Mack’s arguments illustrates the difficulty of resolving substantive political debates with a priori arguments alone. When faced with objections, the only possible defense of the Wilt Chamberlain argument resorts to empirical claims, which stand in need of empirical evidence. (shrink)

Recently the demand for rectification of past injustices has become an increasingly important issue. Each of the last three decades has witnessed democratization processes in the Mediterranean basin, Latin America, in Central and Eastern Europe and in Africa where debates have arisen over rectification of past wrongs which naturally include the unjust expropriation of property. Most recently, moreover, the idea of land restitution to indigenous people, particularly in Australia, Canada and Zimbabwe, has become a prominent, if not always equanimous, part (...) of those countries' domestic political agendas. The difficulties associated with satisfying such demands have been discussed with particular regard to the framing of new post-Communist constitutions in eastern and central Europe by, among others, Jon Elster and Claus Offe. Yet, not only in the field of public policy has the issue of rectification become important. Perhaps because of these developments, there has been a resurgence of interest in rectification in political philosophy as is shown by a forthcoming collection of essays on the subject edited by Elster. (shrink)

Gordon Barnes accuses Robert Nozick and Eric Mack of neglecting, in two ways, the practical, empirical questions relevant to justice in the real world.1 He thinks these omissions show that the argument behind the Wilt Chamberlain example—which Nozick famously made in his seminal Anarchy, State, and Utopia—fails. As a result, he suggests that libertarians should concede that this argument fails. In this article, we show that Barnes’s key arguments hinge on misunderstandings of, or failures to notice, key aspects (...) of the entitlement theory that undergirds Nozick’s and Mack’s work. Once the theory is properly understood, Barnes’s challenges fail to undermine the Chamberlain example, in particular, and the entitlement theory, in general. (shrink)

Presents Robert Nozick's Wilt Chamberlain argument in premise-conclusion form.

Robert Nozick addresses the idea of egalitarian redistribution in an argument standardly considered original: the “Wilt Chamberlain Argument”. However, this argument is found in David Hume's An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, first published in 1751. Placing this argument within a Humean and Hayekian, rather than a Lockean or Kantian, perspective radically changes its import for issues of economic justice. Rather than vindicating the radical individualism of Nozick and other libertarians, applied to our circumstances using Hume's conventionalist (...) and evolutionary account of justice, Hume's Wilt Chamberlain argument vindicates moderate redistribution constrained by the rule of general laws and the goal of fostering innovation and industriousness. (shrink)

In Anarchy, State and Utopia Robert Nozick criticizes a broad range of theories of distributive justice using a thought experiment that involves the financial incentives for playing basketball. In this paper, I defend the so-called “patterning” conceptions of justice that are the targets of Nozick’s “Wilt Chamberlain” argument, via the development of an extended analogy between the distribution of politically relevant resources and the playing of games, as this latter activity is characterized by Bernard Suits in his influential (...) book on the subject, The Grasshopper. I argue that the plausibility of this analogy makes possible a more decisive refutation of Nozick’s argument than those suggested by Thomas Nagel and G.A. Cohen. I also briefly speculate about the implications of my game analogy for how philosophers should think about particular types of economic utopianism, especially those that involve conjectures about what human life would be like in a post-scarcity environment. (shrink)

Resumo: O presente artigo tem como objetivo propor uma hipótese para superação das críticas feitas por Robert Nozick e Michael Sandel à teoria da justiça de John Rawls, no que concerne à necessidade de se considerar aspectos históricos e práticos, na formulação de princípios na posição original. Para tanto, é preciso analisar inicialmente as correntes filosóficas do liberalismo, do libertarianismo e do comunitarismo, a fim de fundar as bases necessárias ao desenvolvimento do estudo. Na sequência, será apresentada a teoria (...) da justiça de John Raws, seguida das críticas formuladas pelo libertário Robert Nozick, no que se refere à necessidade de se levar em conta o princípio histórico. Nozick comprova, por meio do exemplo de Wilt Chamberlain, como aspectos históricos podem alterar as estruturas pré-estabelecidas pelas teorias de estado final. Após, serão examinados os apontamentos feitos por Michael Sandel, especialmente no que concerne ao individualismo metodológico. Sandel também chama a atenção para o fato de que, para garantir efetividade aos princípios, é preciso que os indivíduos se utilizem de sua experiência e das particularidades da comunidade e de seus integrantes. Ao final, será sugerida uma proposta de superação das críticas dirigidas a Rawls, mediante a relativização da abstração da posição original.: The present article aims to overcome the criticisms made by Robert Nozick and Michael Sandel of John Rawls’ theory of justice, specifically with regard to the need for considering historical and practical aspects in the formulation of principles in the original position. We first analyze the philosophical currents of liberalism, libertarianism, and communitarianism, in order to lay the foundations necessary for the development of the study. Next, Rawls’ theory of justice is presented, followed by the critique made by the libertarian Robert Nozick of the need to consider the historical principle. Nozick proves, through the example of the American basketball player Wilt Chamberlain, how historical aspects can alter structures that are pre-established by theories of final state. Michael Sandel’s observations are then analyzed, especially with regard to methodological individualism. Sandel draws attention to the fact that to ensure the effectiveness of principles, individuals need to draw on their experience and on the particularities of the community and its members. Finally, a proposal is made for overcoming the criticisms directed at Rawls; this is achieved by relativizing the abstraction of the original position. (shrink)

In diesem Beitrag zeichne ich erstens Nozicks Kritik an strukturellen Gerechtigkeitstheorien nach und überlege, was sie wirklich zu zeigen vermag und was nicht; zweitens diskutiere ich, ob Nozicks Anspruchstheorie durch das von ihm akzeptierte „Lockesche Proviso“ ebenfalls strukturell ist; drittens stelle ich zwei Gerechtigkeitstheorien vor, die die Lehren von Nozicks Kritik an strukturellen Gerechtigkeitstheorien annehmen, ohne deswegen gleich alle strukturellen Prinzipien über Bord zu werfen: Den „Links-Libertarismus“ und den „moderaten Libertarismus“. Beide kombinieren eine Anspruchstheorie mit einem strukturellen Prinzip, und bei (...) beiden Theorien nimmt das strukturelle Prinzip die Form eines Lockeschen Provisos an. (shrink)

In this article I introduce a simple classroom exercise intended to help students better understand Robert Nozick’s famous Wilt Chamberlain thought experiment. I outline the setup and rules of the Basic Version of the Game and explain its primary pedagogical benefits. I then offer several more sophisticated versions of the Game which can help to illustrate the difference between Nozick’s libertarianism and luck egalitarianism.

Interview with Robert K. Logan by Marcin Trybulec.

White, Robert; Moo, Jonathan In an age when many have begun to consider widespread environmental collapse inevitable, the certain hope held out in the Christian gospel rules out both complacency and despair. Scripture's vision of a future for all of creation that is secure in Christ and given by God's grace challenges Christians to a radical environmental ethos that is marked by wisdom, self-sacrifice, perseverance, love and joy.

This book argues that the primary function of human thinking in language is to make judgments, which are logical-normative connections of concepts. Robert Abele points out that this presupposes cognitive conditions that cannot be accounted for by empirical-linguistic analyses of language content or social conditions alone. Judgments rather assume both reason and a unified subject, and this requires recognition of a Kantian-type of transcendental dimension to them. Judgments are related to perception in that both are syntheses, defined as the (...) unity of representations according to a rule/form. Perceptual syntheses are simultaneously pre-linguistic and proto-rational, and the understanding makes these syntheses conceptually and thus self-consciously explicit. Abele concludes with a transcendental critique of postmodernism and what its deflationary view of ontological categories—such as the unified and reasoning subject—has done to political thinking. He presents an alternative that calls for a return to normativity and a recognition of reason, objectivity, and the universality of principles. (shrink)

Eminent spécialiste de Spinoza, Robert Misrahi a consacré l'essentiel de son oeuvre aux questions du bonheur et de la liberté. Professeur émérite de philosophie éthique à la Sorbonne, il est l'auteur de très nombreux ouvrages, dont Le Bonheur. Essai sur la joie ; La Nacre et le Rocher (salué par Lire comme meilleure autobiographie de l'année) et La joie d'amour. Pour une érotique du bonheur (Autrement, 2014).

ABSTRACTSince 2010, there have been series of discussions by stakeholders to revamp Ghana’s current juvenile justice system to make it more relevant and sustainable within Ghana’s domestic context....

Leibniz' Bedeutung für die Entwicklung der amerikanischen Philosophie ist bisher wenig erforscht worden. In diesem Aufsatz untersuche ich den Beitrag zweier amerikanischer Idealisten der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts zur Leibniz-Forschung. Der erstere, Frederic Henry Hedge, ein enger Mitarbeiter Emersons und eine zentrale Figur der transcendentalist movement, legte die erste Übersetzung der Monadologie ins Englische vor und schrieb die erste wichtige wissenschaftliche Abhandlung über Leibniz in einer amerikanischen Zeitschrift. Der zweite, H. A. P. Torrey, von prägendem Einfluß auf die Gedanken John (...) Deweys, schrieb eine Reihe kritischer Essays zur Théodicée, die Auswirkungen auf Deweys Buch über Leibniz hatten. In diesem Aufsatz gebe ich eine Überblick der Arbeiten von Hedge und Torrey, bewerte ihre Arbeiten zu Leibniz und untersuche einige Aspekte ihres Einflusses auf das amerikanische Denken. Ich folgere, daß Leibniz' Einfluß auf die amerikanische Philosophie größer ist als allgemein angenommen und schlage weitere Forschungsmöglichkeiten vor. (shrink)

Robert Zafft presents the too-often abstract language of business ethics in straight-forward language, laying out two themes commonly ignored: in the real world, it is often easy to lay out an ethical path but often very difficult to implement and encourage adherence to that path, and reputation is the single most important asset in business.

The second edition of this text has been thoroughly revised and updated to ensure that it continues to provide a comprehensive survey of social work practice and theory. New chapters covering the changing nature of social work and advocacy and empowerment approaches have been included, and the editors have added a new conclusion in which they reflect on the past, present and future of social work. All of the chapters have been revised to cover the most recent debates and developments (...) in research and practice. (shrink)

Focusing on Hans Kelsen's concept of the 'ought', the main problem is whether the 'ought' qua obligation or the 'ought' qua empowerment or competence serves as his fundamental normative concept. Stanley L Paulson has adduced strong textual arguments for the thesis that the fundamental role played by empowerment represented Kelsen's opinion ever since the late 1930s. But to accept the thesis of the fundamental character of empowerment as an interpretive thesis is not, eo ipso , to accept it as a (...) norm-theoretic thesis. In light of this background, I take up three arguments for conceiving the modality of obligation as being at least as fundamental: the chain argument, the argument from unlawfulness, and the argument from overload. This leads to the conclusion that Kelsen's 'ought' would be incomplete if it did not comprise obligation as a modality that is at least as fundamental as the modality of empowerment or competence. (shrink)

Paul A. Vatter, Lawrence E. Fouraker Professor of Business Administration, Harvard University, writing of Global Disasters: Inquiries into Management Ethics, ‘In my view one of the most important things that can be done to improve ethics in management is, through cases, to sensitize managers to ethical issues in situations in which they did not perceive themselves as being involved. His well-documented and detailed cases stimulate great interest. His diagnosis of the process through which ethical behavior could have prevented each disaster (...) is provocative and sensitising.’ -/- A. L. Minkes, Fellow, Royal Society of Arts, Emeritus Professor of Business Organization, University of Birmingham, in writing of Global Disasters: Inquiries into Management Ethics, ‘Dr. Allinson has very substantially enlarged the whole nature of the discussion of crisis, disaster and safety. The powerful and highly apposite phrase that he has coined, ‘The Buck Stops Here and It Stops Everywhere Else As Well’, illustrates the significant contribution of his philosophical analyses to a wide range of applied managerial problems in organizations. -/- S. Prakash Sethi, Director, Center for Management Development and Organization Research, Baruch College, City University of New York, writing of Global Disasters: Inquiries into Management Ethics, ‘Global Disasters is a thought-provoking book and provides excellent insights into how management systems can be built that would prevent hitherto “unpreventable” disasters. Professor Allinson makes a convincing argument and an intriguing suggestion that, notwithstanding commonly held beliefs, most industrial crises are preventable through sound management structures and decision-making processes only when they are rooted in ethical values and beliefs on the part of top management.’ This book, by a professor of philosophy at Soka University of America, former professor of philosophy at The Chinese University of Hong Kong and former Visiting Fellow of Business Ethics at the University of Oxford argues that major disasters can be prevented. He shows how corporate management must accept its moral responsibility to create a corporate ethos that recognizes the basic principle that people matter most. (shrink)