In 1988 the Journal of Business Ethics published a paper by David Mathison entitled Business Ethics Cases and Decision Models: A Call for Relevancy in the Classroom. Mathison argued that the present methods of teaching business ethics may be inappropriate for MBA students. He believes that faculty are teaching at one decision-making level and that students are and will be functioning on another (lower) level. The purpose of this paper is to respond to Mathison's arguments and offer support for the (...) present methods and materials used to teach Master level ethics classes. The support includes suggested class discussion ideas and assignments. (shrink)
The project of constructing a logic of scientific inference on the basis of mathematical probability theory was first undertaken in a systematic way by the mid-nineteenth-century British logicians Augustus De Morgan, George Boole and William Stanley Jevons. This paper sketches the origins and motivation of that effort, the emergence of the inverse probability (IP) model of theory assessment, and the vicissitudes which that model suffered at the hands of its critics. Particular emphasis is given to the influence which competing interpretations (...) of probability had on the project, and to the role of the 'lottery' or 'ballot box' metaphor in the philosophical imagination of the proponents of the IP model. (shrink)
While historians of scientific method have recently called attention to the views of many of John Stuart Mill's contemporaries on the relation between probability and inductive inference, little if any note has been taken of Mill's own vigorous attack on the received "Laplacean" interpretation of probability in the first edition of the System of Logic. This paper examines the place of Mill's critique, both in the overall framework of his philosophy, and in the tradition of assessing the so-called "probability of (...) causes". It also offers an account of why, in later editions of the work, Mill appears to adopt a much more sympathetic stance toward the received view. (shrink)
The comparative analysis of the approaches to philosophy and philosophizing by the two prominent Russian thinkers of the Soviet era: Evald V. Ilyenkov and Merab K. Mamardashvili. The author discusses specific methodological and conceptual features of Ilyenkov's dialectic and Mamardashvili's phenomenology, showing their theoretical and topical affinity.
I expect every reader knows the hackneyed old joke: ‘What is matter? Never mind. What is mind? No matter.’ Antique as this joke is, it none the less points to an interesting question. For the so-called mind–body dichotomy, which has been raised to almost canonical status in post-Cartesian philosophy, is not in fact at all easy to draw or to defend. This of course means that ‘the mind–body problem’ is difficult both to describe and to solve—or rather, as I would (...) prefer, to dissolve. (shrink)
In 1970, K. Kunen, working in the context of Kelley–Morse set theory, showed that the existence of a nontrivial elementary embedding j:V→V is inconsistent. In this paper, we give a finer analysis of the implications of his result for embeddings V→V relative to models of ZFC. We do this by working in the extended language , using as axioms all the usual axioms of ZFC , along with an axiom schema that asserts that j is a nontrivial elementary embedding. Without (...) additional axiomatic assumptions on j, we show that that the resulting theory is weaker than an ω-Erdös cardinal, but stronger than n-ineffables. We show that natural models of ZFC+BTEE give rise to Schindler’s remarkable cardinals. The approach to inconsistency from ZFC+BTEE forks into two paths: extensions of ZFC+BTEE+Cofinal Axiom and ZFC+BTEE+¬Cofinal Axiom, where Cofinal Axiom asserts that the critical sequence is cofinal in the ordinals. We describe near-minimal inconsistent extensions of each of these theories. The path toward inconsistency from ZFC+BTEE+¬Cofinal Axiom is paved with a sequence of theories of increasing large cardinal strength. Indeed, the extensions of the theory ZFC +“j is a nontrivial elementary embedding” form a hierarchy of axioms, ranging in strength from Con to the existence of a cardinal that is super-n-huge for every n, to inconsistency. This hierarchy is parallel to the usual hierarchy of large cardinal axioms, and can be used in the same way. We also isolate several intermediate-strength axioms which, when added to ZFC+BTEE, produce theories having strengths in the vicinity of a measurable cardinal of high Mitchell order, a strong cardinal, ω Woodin cardinals, and n-huge cardinals. We also determine precisely which combinations of axioms, of the form result in inconsistency. (shrink)