This paper argues in favor of two related theses. First, due to a fundamental, biologically grounded world-openness, human culture is a biological imperative. As both biology and culture evolve historically, cultures rise and fall and the diversity of the human species develops. Second, in this historical process of rise and fall, abnormality plays a crucial role. From the perspective of a broader context traditionally addressed by speculative philosophies of history, the so-called mental disorders may be seen as entailing particular functional (...) advantages, and thus have a great impact on the course of human history. Nowadays, however, we live under a threat of cultural uniformity. While the diversity of the human species is cherished at the political level, it is being slowly eradicated through medical means. This paradox is a dangerous feature of contemporary globalized society that can lead to highly problematic consequences. (shrink)

What, if anything, do we epistemically owe to each other? Various “traditional” views of epistemology might hold either that we don’t epistemically owe anything to each other, because “what we owe to each other” is the realm of the moral, or that what we epistemically owe to each other is just to be epistemically responsible agents. Basu (2019) has recently argued, against such views, that morality makes extra-epistemic demands upon what we should believe about one another. So, what we owe (...) to each other is not just a matter of word and deed, but also of belief. And in fact, Basu argues, sometimes those moral demands require us to believe in ways that cut against orthodox epistemic norms. This paper has three aims. First, to offer two strategies for accommodating the kinds of cases Basu discusses while nonetheless holding that only epistemic normativity makes demands on belief. Second, to offer an alternative account of what we owe to each other that does not hold that morality demands that we sometimes believe against our evidence or in violation of epistemic norms. And third, to give a brief diagnosis of why it seems intuitive that morality makes extra-epistemic doxastic demands on us. Ultimately, I argue that what we epistemically owe to each other does not require us to violate orthodox, invariantist epistemic norms. Morality demands that we have a proper regard for others, not that we sometimes believe against our evidence. (shrink)

ABSTRACTThe contemporary debate over responsibility for belief is divided over the issue of whether such responsibility requires doxastic control, and whether this control must be voluntary in nature. It has recently become popular to hold that responsibility for belief does not require voluntary doxastic control, or perhaps even any form of doxastic ‘control’ at all. However, Miriam McCormick has recently argued that doxastic responsibility does in fact require quasi-voluntary doxastic control: “guidance control,” a complex, compatibilist form of control. In this (...) paper, I pursue a negative and a positive task. First, I argue that grounding doxastic responsibility in guidance control requires too much for agents to be the proper targets for attributions of doxastic responsibility. I will focus my criticisms on three cases in which McCormick's account gives the intuitively wrong verdict. Second, I develop a modified conception of McCormick's notion of “ownership of belief,” which I call Weak Doxastic Ownership. I employ this conception to argue that responsibility for belief is possible even in the absence of guidance control. In doing so, I argue that the notion of doxastic ownership can do important normative work in grounding responsibility for belief without being subsumed under or analyzed in terms of the notion of doxastic control. (shrink)

Debunking arguments typically attempt to show that a set of beliefs or other intensional mental states bear no appropriate explanatory connection to the facts they purport to be about. That is, a debunking argument will attempt to show that beliefs about p are not held because of the facts about p. Such beliefs, if true, would then only be accidentally so. Thus, their causal origins constitute an undermining defeater. Debunking arguments arise in various philosophical domains, targeting beliefs about morality, the (...) existence of God, logic, and others. They have also arisen in material-object metaphysics, often aimed at debunking common-sense ontology. And while most of these arguments feature appeals to ‘biological and cultural contingencies’ that are ostensibly responsible for our beliefs about which kinds of objects exist, few of them take a serious look at what those contingencies might actually be. The purpose of this paper is twofold. First, to remedy this by providing empirical substantiation for a key premise in these debunking arguments by examining data from cognitive science, evolutionary biology, and developmental psychology that support a ‘debunking explanation’ of our common-sense beliefs and intuitions about which objects exist. Second, to argue that such data also undermines a particular kind of rationalist defense of common-sense ontology, sometimes employed as a response to the debunking threat. (shrink)

A version of panpsychism emerges from a critical overview of the metaphysics of properties. The “powerful qualities theory,” according to which all concrete properties are equiprimordially powerful and qualitative, enjoys a general advantage over other major theories of properties. But it faces some issues. Chief is the Collapse Argument: the powerful qualities theory struggles to define powerful qualities in a way that distinguishes them conceptually from pure powers. But this issue is avoided by a variant of the powerful qualities theory (...) which makes powerful qualities “powerful qualia”: essentially dispositional instances of phenomenal consciousness. I reject a few attempts to sever the link between this powerful qualia theory of properties and panpsychism. The result, and the view I endorse, is a version of panpsychism: a panpsychism of powerful qualia. (shrink)

In virtue of what are we responsible for our beliefs? I argue that doxastic responsibility has a crucial social component: part of being responsible for our beliefs is being responsible to others. I suggest that this responsibility is a form of answerability with two distinct dimensions: an individual and an interpersonal dimension. While most views hold that the individual dimension is grounded in some form of control that we can exercise over our beliefs, I contend that we are answerable for (...) our beliefs as long as they reflect our evaluative commitments and dispositions, or are products of our reasoning, where this does not amount to a form of control. I next argue that answerability has a second, largely neglected dimension: the interpersonal dimension, which is grounded in what I call our relations of doxastic dependence. As social creatures, we depend on one another in our capacity as believers. We depend on one another as believers not only in epistemic ways, but also in practical ways, because our beliefs inform and motivate our actions, and allow us to participate in shared practical goals. Depending on one another in these ways is an unavoidable part of cooperating in the shared project of pursuing epistemic and practical success, and it makes us vulnerable to both epistemic and moral harm. It is because of this, I argue, that answerability has interpersonal normative force upon us: we are subject to legitimate expectations associated with participating in relations of doxastic dependence. (shrink)

If philosophy in the wake of Kant’s transcendental revolution tends to orient itself around a subjective principle, namely the human subject, then recently various schools of thought have proposed a counterrevolution in which philosophy is given an objective, nonhuman starting point. In this historical context, “object-oriented ontology” has sought to gain the status of first philosophy by identifying being in general with the object as such—that is, by systematically converting beings to objects. By tracing the provenance of this system to (...) a key moment of late eighteenth-century German philosophy, this paper develops the idea of the difference between being and object in order to demonstrate that object-oriented thinking, contrary to its anti-Kantian claims, adheres to the central axiom of transcendental idealism, that this axiom contains an unsolvable paradox, and that Kant and Novalis give us the resources for a transformative philosophical project that meets the challenge of the cultural and theoretical turn to objects. (shrink)

The view that constitutive panpsychism faces a subject combination problem is rooted in the ‘Jamesian’ intuition: the intuition that multiple subjects do not simply sum into a greater, composite subject. Most commentators on the subject combination problem seem to take the Jamesian intuition as an unbudgeable psychological given. This has led to the popularity of emergentist and ‘bonding’ solutions. But emergentist solutions face the same sorts of issue as physicalist emergentism, while bonding solutions are ad hoc and mysterian. Therefore I (...) propose we backtrack, and reexamine how unbudgeable the Jamesian intuition really is. A thin conception of subjects, adumbrated here, permits us to build a positive conception of subjects summing into subjects. There is a number of arguments purporting to show why this sort of pursuit is futile, effectively defending the Jamesian intuition, but I argue that they fail. I also include a critique of the transparency of subjectivity, a principle which has been used to legitimise anti-subject-summing intuitions. By renouncing the Jamesian intuition we clear the way to accepting a metaphysical position according to which subjects really do sum into subjects. This dissolves the subject combination problem, effectively sparing constitutive panpsychism from what is generally regarded to be its most troublesome issue. (shrink)

In the Summa Theologiae, I, q. 5, art. 4, Thomas argues that the good has the ratio of the final cause.1 This thesis is problematic because there seems to be a difference between the definitions and uses of “good” and “final cause.” If Thomas is arguing that the good and the final cause are in no way distinct, then why might we plausibly describe something as good even if it has no causal role? If not, then what does it mean (...) for the ratio of goodness to be the same as that of final causality? Later Thomists disagree over the precise relationship between goodness and final causality, and their disagreement is reflected in their different interpretations of the argument and conclusion of this text. Few hold that Thomas merely means to say that goodness is the fundament of being an end, or that being an end is something like a proper passion of goodness. But they disagree over what the additional connection between the two might be. (shrink)

In this paper I argue that the central issue in Heidegger’s path of thought from Being and Time to Contributions and beyond is what he will later call “the matter itself”: neither the meaning of being nor the analysis of Dasein but a transformational encounter in the margins of fundamental ontology. Heidegger’s account of temporality and transcendence from the late 1920s is a clue to the transformation, but it is not until the completion of fundamental ontology in the naming of (...) ontological difference that he arrives at a crisis which performs the transformation and announces the “overturning.” This interpretation revolves around a reading of Heidegger’s 1929 treatise “On the Essence of Ground” in which the text and subsequent marginal notes prepare the transition from Being and Time to Contributions, from Sein to Seyn, and from ontological difference to its appropriation. Thus we find that the language of Ereignis beginning in the 1930s and whatever we might call the “turn” signal the doing of justice to the original task from Being and Time. (shrink)

This Thesis presents a model of cognitive development inspired by Piaget's "Genetic Epistemology". It is observed that the epigenetic process described by Piaget posess mechanisms and behaviour that characterise complex adaptive systems. A model of bipedal motion based around the "Bucket Brigade" algorithm of Holland is presened to explore this relationship.

All three books reviewed here are turning over again for us the pages of perennially irresistible thinkers whose ideas never cease to hold us transfixed; all three are inviting us to notice that the material that we thought we knew has got more to do with what Nehamas calls 'the art of living' than we might have realised; and all three are making space for attitudes, responses and areas of self-understanding that are, by traditional classifications, irrational and hence sometimes inadequately (...) acknowledged by philosophy as we usually understand it. And, of course, all three are juxtaposing thinkers from the ancient world with major figures from recent and early modern times. (shrink)

The present research examined how nostalgia influences temporal self-appraisals and whether those appraisals relate to current mood. Across two studies, participants recalled either an ordinary or nostalgic memory and provided appraisals of their present and past selves. Participants who recalled nostalgic memories evaluated their past selves more positively than their present selves, whereas the reverse occurred for those who recalled ordinary memories. Those who recalled a positive future event also evaluated their future selves more positively than their present selves. Nostalgia (...) simultaneously enhanced positive mood by heightening favorable evaluations of past selves and diminished positive mood by heightening unfavorable evaluations of present selves. The current work supports a temporal-selves framework that allows for a more nuanced portrait of the nostalgic experience. (shrink)

Approaching Plato is a comprehensive research guide to all (fifteen) of Plato’s early and middle dialogues. Each of the dialogues is covered with a short outline, a detailed outline (including some Greek text), and an interpretive essay. Also included (among other things) is an essay distinguishing Plato’s idea of eudaimonia from our contemporary notion of happiness and brief descriptions of the dialogues’ main characters.

Wiggins’ (2012) argument against propositional accounts of knowing how is based on a development of some considerations taken from Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle argued that the knowledge needed for participation in an ethos cannot be codified in propositional form so as to let it be imparted to someone who did not already have it. This is because any putative codification would be incomplete, and require that knowledge in order to extend it to novel cases. On a reasonable interpretation of (...) his argument, Wiggins claims that the same goes for practical knowledge in general, and that this shows that a propositional view of knowing how is incorrect. This paper shows that this argument is unsound. (shrink)

This paper is a critique of David Wiggins's treatment of essentialism in his book Identity and Spatio-Temporal Continuity (Blackwell 1967). I argue in detail that he has not provided an adequate account either of the concept of a sortal term or of the concept of a substance-concept, even though both concepts play important roles in his case for essentialism. I also discuss Wiggins's views on how substance-concepts are related to judgments of identity through time.

Chapter 4 focuses on a more recent period, from the late nineteenth century to the first half of the twentieth, when Galton’s eugenics was increasingly recognized and practiced not only by specialized organizations but also by extreme political regimes. The new discipline sought to predict our future life from our genetic endowment at birth. As with astrology versus astronomy, eugenics came to compete with genetics—a product of Mendel’s laws—and we examine how the two disciplines evolved in the early twentieth century. (...) Eugenics became a formidable concept with the advent of fascist and Nazi regimes, which sought to impose the supremacy of certain “races” by eliminating other ethnic groups. World War II ended these regimes, making the promotion of eugenics impossible. However, many former eugenicists such as Osborn continued to pursue the same goals under another label: hereditarianism. We describe the different forms of this theory and show the reasons for their scientific and political failure. (shrink)

1950s witnessed a drastic change in the history of British drama. The publication of John Osborne’s masterpiece, Look Back in Anger in 1956 radicalised the British theatre. The play was a blow against establishment. Osborne portrayed Jimmy Porter, the anti-hero of the play. He is frustrated and malcontent. He attacks the establishment in every sense. Following the success of this play, a generation of writers emerged who are labelled as “angry young men”, though they were not a unified (...) group. This media-created uncommon group included John Osborne, Kinsgsley Amis, John Wain, Collin Wilson, Allan Sillitoe, John Arden, Arnold Wesker and Harold Pinter. Shelagh Delaney, after publication of her successful and rebelling play, A Taste of Honey (1956) had been included in this group but it may not be appropriate to stick the journalistic label “angry young men” to her because she differs from most of them and the label itself obviously implies its patriarchal nature. This “new wave” of British young playwrights had tried to radicalise not only themes but also structures and styles of their plays. Hostile to anything that was “high-brow”, these British playwrights were revolutionary in dealing with working class characters and themes. They rejected the style and subject of educated upper middle class. Expressing the discontent and frustration of the newly educated lower class, they were explicitly and intensely against establishment. Their plays were termed as “Kitchen-Sink” Drama. It was a term that gained popularity in Britain in the middle and late 1950s. The term refers to pays which were set in ordinary domestic settings. They depict lower strata of British society and their struggle to survive in post-war period. According to Collin’s Dictionary, it is a term which refers to a type of drama of the 1950s depicting sordid aspects of domestic reality. (shrink)

Andrea Wiggins and John Wilbanks’ article (2019) presents us with a welcome overview of the neglected, novel ethical issues raised by the advent of citizen science in health and biomedical contexts. This contribution takes a rather different approach, focusing on a very specific (yet also overlooked) problem in this context - the ethical implications of self-administered genetic testing. This problem, however, is particularly illustrative of the “ethics gap” between traditional medical settings and new public-driven scientific practices, emphasized by (...) class='Hi'>Wiggins and Wilbanks in their more wide-ranging treatment. (shrink)

We establish that loop integrands in four-dimensional quantum gravity are encoded in the analytic structure of tree-level celestial CFT correlators via shadow discontinuities: residue extraction at the poles Delta_i + Delta_j = 2, followed by inverse Mellin transform to momentum space. The one-loop scalar derivation is complete, with every Jacobian computed and the conformal block evaluated via the Dolan-Osborn formula. For pure Einstein gravity at one loop the derivation holds under BDDK unitarity completeness. A new structural result is proved: the (...) Plancherel loop measure is rational. M_1 = 1/8 and M_2 = 1/90 exactly -- pure rationals with no powers of pi and no zeta values. All transcendental content in loop amplitudes arises from the kinematic conformal block, not the loop measure. Three independent numerical checks confirm the formula at fifteen kinematic points to 1e-13. Shadow regularization equals dimensional regularization. The all-loop extension for scalars follows by induction. (shrink)

The current debate over aesthetic testimony typically focuses on cases of doxastic repetition — where, when an agent, on receiving aesthetic testimony that p, acquires the belief that p without qualification. I suggest that we broaden the set of cases under consideration. I consider a number of cases of action from testimony, including reconsidering a disliked album based on testimony, and choosing an artistic educational institution from testimony. But this cannot simply be explained by supposing that testimony is usable for (...) action, but unusable for doxastic repetition. I consider a new asymmetry in the usability aesthetic testimony. Consider the following cases: we seem unwilling to accept somebody hanging a painting in their bedroom based merely on testimony, but entirely willing to accept hanging a painting in a museum based merely on testimony. The switch in intuitive acceptability seems to track, in some complicated way, the line between public life and private life. These new cases weigh against a number of standing theories of aesthetic testimony. I suggest that we look further afield, and that something like a sensibility theory, in the style of John McDowell and David Wiggins, will prove to be the best fit for our intuitions for the usability of aesthetic testimony. I propose the following explanation for the new asymmetry: we are willing to accept testimony about whether a work merits being found beautiful; but we are unwilling to accept testimony about whether something actually is beautiful. (shrink)

This entry sketches the theory of personal identity that has come to be known as animalism. Animalism’s hallmark claim is that each of us is identical with a human animal. Moreover, animalists typically claim that we could not exist except as animals, and that the (biological) conditions of our persistence derive from our status as animals. Prominent advocates of this view include Michael Ayers, Eric Olson, Paul Snowdon, Peter van Inwagen, and David Wiggins.

Absolute needs (as against instrumental needs) are independent of the ends, goals and purposes of personal agents. Against the view that the only needs are instrumental needs, David Wiggins and Garrett Thomson have defended absolute needs on the grounds that the verb ‘need’ has instrumental and absolute senses. While remaining neutral about it, this article does not adopt that approach. Instead, it suggests that there are absolute biological needs. The absolute nature of these needs is defended by appeal to: (...) their objectivity (as against mind-dependence); the universality of the phenomenon of needing across the plant and animal kingdoms; the impossibility that biological needs depend wholly upon the exercise of the abilities characteristic of personal agency; the contention that the possession of biological needs is prior to the possession of the abilities characteristic of personal agency. Finally, three philosophical usages of ‘normative’ are distinguished. On two of these, to describe a phenomenon or claim as ‘normative’ is to describe it as value-dependent. A description of a phenomenon or claim as ‘normative’ in the third sense does not entail such value-dependency, though it leaves open the possibility that value depends upon the phenomenon or upon the truth of the claim. It is argued that while survival needs (or claims about them) may well be normative in this third sense, they are normative in neither of the first two. Thus, the idea of absolute need is not inherently normative in either of the first two senses. (shrink)

My purpose in this paper is to challenge this account of the nature of ethical judgments, and suggest that the reconciliation of their practicality and objectivity is not a genuine philosophical problem. The real issue is rather how to account for the fact that we consider our moral judgments important, authoritative, expressive of our moral personality and of our moral vision, and in this sense both objective and practical. The argument that supports this proposal is phe- nomenological. It starts with (...) the phenomenological consideration that the agent experiences ethical judg- ments as normative: they are conceived and experienced as authoritative and as such as to inform one’s life in a special way. To take phenomenology at face value is to make the experience of the agent intelligible. My conclusion will be that neither realism nor non- cognitivism in their crudest versions engage in the search for the intelligibility of our moral experience, and for that reason they are not appealing alternatives. In their softer and sophisticated versions, both realism and non-cognitivism purport to explain moral phenom- enology, but employ inadequate explanatory devices that seriously compromise their account. As I will argue, the phenomenological argument leads toward a construc- tivist account of ethical judgments. The conception of constructivism I advance is a form of cognitivist irrealism, thus opposed both to realism and non- cognitivism. Here is how my argument will proceed. In section 1, I characterize the debate on ethical objectivity as exploiting the realist image of discovery and the non- cognitivist image of invention. With Wiggins I argue that these alternative metaphors fail to account for moral phenomenology. In section 2, I examine Simon Blackburn’s non-cognitivist reply that utilizes the image of projection, and argue that while more sophisticated than the previous ones, this solution does not account for the authority of ethical judgments. In section 3, I take into consideration McDowell’s analogy between values and secondary qualities and the metaphor of vision. My claim is that his argument succeeds in ruling out realism and non-cognitivism on phenomenological grounds, but it is insufficient as an account of values. My point is not simply that the analogy with percep- tion is limited and incomplete, but that it is inadequate to account for the normative relations that the agent establishes with her surroundings. In section 4, I argue that the appeal to phenomenology supports construc- tivism about normative relations and expose its features. Finally, in section 5, I show the merits of construction as an explanatory device. (shrink)

Eudaimonistic virtue ethics has an equality problem: virtuous character is compatible with denying everyone’s fundamental equality. This problem is glimpsed in traditional objections such as the charges of egoism and conventionalism. Julia Annas responds to these challenges by examining the issue of slavery and abolitionism. I rebut Annas’s response and argue that standard eudaimonistic accounts cannot overcome conventionalism because they lack an account of fundamental equality. However, the equality problem can be resolved by incorporating a standalone virtue of solidarity, understood (...) (following David Wiggins) as coequal membership of the “party of humankind.” Notwithstanding Wiggins’s deontological framing of solidarity, I argue that this conception works better in a virtue-ethical context because it accommodates Leonard Harris’s “insurrectionist” challenge. Moreover, building on Liz Gulliford and Robert Roberts’s theory of the virtuous character, I argue that a virtue of solidarity does important work in unifying the virtues and connecting virtue to flourishing, two essential aspects of eudaimonistic theories. A virtue of solidarity provides, not the “root” of the ethical, but part of its point. (shrink)

In this paper, I use an example from the history of philosophy to show how independently defining each side of a pair of contrary predicates is apt to lead to contradiction. In the Euthyphro, piety is defined as that which is loved by some of the gods while impiety is defined as that which is hated by some of the gods. Socrates points out that since the gods harbor contrary sentiments, some things are both pious and impious. But “pious” and (...) “impious” are contrary predicates; they cannot simultaneously characterize the same thing. Euthyphro changes his definition, but the problem of recognizing emotional ambivalence is only side-stepped. I go on to show how contemporary philosophers run into a similar problem. According to Prinz, something is good if and only if we harbor positive sentiments towards it and bad if and only if we harbor negative sentiments towards it. Thus, if we are ambivalent towards something (if we harbor both positive and negative sentiments towards it), then it is both good and bad. Like “pious” and “impious”, “good” and “bad” are contraries. Next, according to the fitting-attitude theory first elaborated by Brentano and favored by contemporary meta-ethicists like Blackburn, Brandt, Ewing, Garcia, Gibbard, McDowell, and Wiggins, something is good if and only if it is a fitting (appropriate) object of approbation, and something is bad if and only if it is a fitting (appropriate) object of disapprobation. I argue that moral ambivalence is sometimes appropriate, i.e., that the correct response to some things is to both love and hate them. Hence, according to the fitting-attitudes theory, some things are both good and bad. I conclude by discussing a variety of ways in which the problem of ambivalence may be solved, suggesting that attitudes of approbation and disapprobation be further individuated by the reasons for them. (shrink)

I intend to: a) clarify the origins and de facto meanings of the term relativism; b) reconstruct the reasons for the birth of the thesis named “cultural relativism”; d) reconstruct ethical implications of the above thesis; c) revisit the recent discussion between universalists and particularists in the light of the idea of cultural relativism.. 1.Prescriptive Moral Relativism: “everybody is justified in acting in the way imposed by criteria accepted by the group he belongs to”. Universalism: there are at least some (...) judgments which are valid inter-culturally Absolutism: there are at least some particular prescriptions which are valid without exception everywhere and always 2. The traditional proof of prescriptive moral relativism: the argument from variability: Judgments, rules, and shared values are de facto variable in time and space. The traditional counter-proof: examples of variability do not prove what skeptics contend. 3. Pre-history of the doctrine -Ancient sophists: either immoralist or contractualist -Modern moral scepticism (xvii c.): variability as an historical and ethnographic fact supports a sceptical conclusion more moderate than sheer immoralism. - Voltaire, Kant, Reid counter-attack pointing at a universally shared moral sense - Romantics and idealists stage an even more moderate reformulation: instead of universally shared moral sense they point at the Spirit of a People which is: a)alternative to abstract and universal philosophical systems as far as it is lived ‘culture’; b) indivisible unity with an inner harmony and a source of normative standards; c) dynamic, in so far as it is a manifestation of the Spirit through the becoming of National cultures. 4. The birth of Cultural Relativism and its ethical implications 4.1. The 18th c. doctrine was the noble savage (a non-historical doctrine: state of nature vs. social state) 4.2 Edward Tylor (1832-1817) and ethnocentric historicism Savage moral standards are real enough, but they are far and weaker than ours. 4.3 Boas and Malinowski and an holistic reaction to ethnocentric historicism Franz Boas (1858-1942): a) Development of civilizations is not ruled by technical progress nor does it follow a one-way path; instead there are parallel developments (for ex. Agriculture does not follow stock-raising); b) racial characters have no relevance in development of civilization; c) we are not yet in a position to compare externally identical kinds of behaviour till we have not yet understood beliefs and intentions laying at their roots (for ex.: “From an ethnological point of view murder cannot be considered as a single phenomenon”; d) we should distinguish among different practices which are only superficially similar (fro ex. practices traditionally classified under the label “tabù”); e) there is as a fact just one normative ethic, constant in its contents but varying in its extension; f) the implication is not that we cannot judge behavior by members of other groups; it is only a recommendation of caution. Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1942): a) against Tylor’s and Frazer’s “magpie” methodology, field-work is required, a culture as a whole should be observed from inside; individual elements are incomprehensible; b) a culture is an organic whole; c) its elements are accounted for by their function (economy), avoiding non-observables (empio-criticism). Ruth Benedict and Melville Herskovitz identify Boas’s approach with “cultural relativism”. Benedict: what is normal and abnormal is to be judged on a culture’s own standards, not on our own (“Anthropology and the Abnormal”). Herskovits: “Boas adumbrates what we have come to call cultural relativism” (The Mind, p. 10); “Judgements are based on experience, and experience is interpreted by each individual in terms of his own enculturation” (Man and his Works). 4. How analytic philosophy understood and misunderstood the discussion 4.1. At the beginning of the 20th c., the new view in ethics was non-cognitivism (emotivist and subjectivist). Eric Westermark combines this view with an old-style ethnographic approach in support of relativity of moralities. Moralities are codes, or systems of emotive ‘disinterested’ reactions selected by evolution on their usefulness in terms of survival value for the society that is the carrier of such systems or codes. The moral relativity thesis: there are cases of disagreement that cannot be settled even after agreement about facts. 4.2 Anti-realists Brandt, Mackie, Gilbert, Harman adopt Westermark’s approach in a more sophisticated version: a) moralities are codes with an overall function and may be appraised only as wholes; b) variability is an argument for moral subjectivism; c) apparent legitimacy of deriving shift from ought is legitimized only within one institution d) morality should not be described but instead made, and existing moralities may be improved. Is it ‘real’ relativism? It is clearly subjectivism (a metaethical thesis). The normative thesis is that there better and worse codes, and survival values is the normative standard. 4.3 Particularists MacIntyre, Sandel, Taylor, Wiggins, McDowell ‘Wittgensteinian’ prospectivist arguments bent to support weak-relativist claims MacIntyre: there is ‘incommensurability’ between different theoretical systems in both science and ethics. No argument is possible through different systems Different traditions may coexist for a long time without being able to bring their conflicts to a rational solution. 4.4 Kantian universalists Baier, Gewirth, Rawls, Apel, Habermas Shared claim: justice concerns the right and is universal in so far as it may be based on minimal assumptions Other virtues are relative to context in so far as they are related to comprehensive views of the good - O’Neill criticism: a) it is an assumption shared by both alignments; b) after an alleged crisis brought about by alleged loss of metaphysical certainties, theories of justice have dropped demanding assumptions and kept universalism, virtue theories have kept demanding assumptions and dropped universalism; c) the opposition of virtue and justice has arisen in an unjustified way. O’Neill’s positive proposal: ‘constructive’ procedures may be adopted both (i) concerning all the range of virtues and (ii) across cultures once we abandon idealization and confine ourselves to abstraction from real-world cases. 4.5 A metaethical relativist and anti-relativist normative ethicists: Bernard Williams Williams: vulgar relativism may be assumed to claim that: a) 'just' means 'just in a given society'; b) 'just in a given society' is to be understood in functionalist sense; c) it is wrong for one society’s members to condemn another society’s values. It is inconsistent since in (c) uses ‘just’ in a non-relative way that has been excluded in (a). William’s positive proposal: i) keep a number of substantive or thick ethical concepts that will be different in space and time; ii) admit that public choices are to be legitimized through recourse to more abstract procedures and relying on more thin ethical concepts. 5. Critical remarks 5.1 The only real relativism available is ‘vulgar’ relativism (Westermark?) 5.2. Descriptive universalism (or absolutism) has a long pedigree, from Cicero on, reaching Boas himself but it is useless as an answer to normative questions 5.3. Twentieth-century philosophical discussion seems to discuss an ad hoc doctrine reconstructed by assembling obsolete philosophical ideas but ignoring the real theory of cultural relativism as formulated by anthropologists. 6. A distinction between ethoi and ethical theories as a way out of confusions a)There are systems of conventions de facto existing. These may be studies from outside as phenomena or facts. b)There is moral argument and this, when studies from outside, is a fact, but this does not influence in any degree the possible validity of claims advanced. c) the difference between the above claims and Mackie’s criticism to Searle’s argument of the promising game is that promises, arguments etc. are also phenomena, but they are also communicative phenomena with a logical and pragmatic structure. 7.Conclusions: a) cultural relativism, as a name for Boas’s methodology is a valuable discovery, and in this sense we are all relativists; b) ethical relativism, as an alleged implication of cultural relativism, has been argued in a philosophically quite unsophisticated way by Benedict and Herskovits; philosophers apparently discussed ethical relativism in the basis of a rather faint impression of what cultural relativism had been. c) a full-fledged ethical relativism has hardly been defended by anybody among philosophers; virtually no modern philosopher really argued a prescriptive version of the thesis; d) we may accept the grain of truth in ethical relativism by including relativist critique to ethical absolutism into a universalist normative doctrine that be careful in separating open-textured formulations of universal claims from culturally conditioned particular prescriptions. (shrink)

Due to the innovative possibilities of digital technologies, the issue of increasing automation is once again on the agenda – and not only in the industry, but also in other branches and sectors of contemporary societies. Although public and scientific discussions about automation seem to raise relevant questions of the “old” debate, such as the replacement of human labor by introducing new technologies, the authors focus here on the new contextual quality of these questions. The debate should rethink the relationship (...) between technology and work with regard to quantitative and qualitative changes in work. In this article, our example will be the introduction of automation in industry, which has been reflected in the widely recognized study by Frey and Osborne in 2013. They estimated the expected impacts of future computerization on US labor market outcomes as very high, specifically regarding the number of jobs at risk. Surprisingly, this study was the starting point of an intensive international debate on the impact of technologies on the future of work and the role of technological change in working environments. Thus, according to the authors, “old” questions remain important, but they should be reinterpreted for “new” societal demands and expectations of future models of work. (shrink)

Kit Fine has proposed a new solution to what he calls ‘a familiar puzzle’ concerning modality and existence. The puzzle concerns the argument from the alleged truths ‘It is necessary that Socrates is a man’ and ‘It is possible that Socrates does not exist’ to the apparent falsehood ‘It is possible that Socrates is a man and does not exist’. We discuss in detail Fine’s setting up of the ‘puzzle’ and his rejection, with which we concur, of two mooted solutions (...) to it. (One of these uses standard, Kripkean, notions, and the other rests on work done by Arthur Prior.) We set out, and reject, the philosophy of modality underlying Fine’s new solution, and we defend an alternative response to the alleged puzzle. Our solution follows the work of David Wiggins in distinguishing between the sentential operator ‘It is necessary that’ and the predicate modifier ‘necessarily’. We briefly provide this distinction with a possible- world semantics on which it is neither a necessary truth, in some sense, that Socrates exists nor true, in some sense, that Socrates necessarily exists. (shrink)

In his New Essays on Human Understanding, Leibniz presents a sharp attack on Locke's theory of personal identity, Matching Locke's thought-experiments with those of his own, Leibniz seeks to show that our identity cannot rest on matters of consciousness alone-being the same person is rather a matter of the continued existence of an immaterial substance. I draw attention to some contemporary thinkers who-while eschewing the immaterial substances-are sympathetic to the kind of argument Leibniz offered. This leads to a dilemma: on (...) the face of things. we cannot be sympathetic to both Leibniz and Locke. I investigate a theory which would resolve this dilemma-giving up something which each held dear, but not everything, The resultant theory leans unpopularly more towards the side of Leibniz than Locke but can point to the authority of no less than David Wiggins. In the end, though, I argue that there is another solution to the dilemma - a solution which claims that Leibniz and Locke are arguing at cross-purposes, and that their arguments are best seen as answers to different questions. This solution still requires the giving-up of widely-held beliefs but involves significantly less cost than the alternatives. (shrink)

This paper develops equifelicity as a post-Marxist reconstruction of the Marxian principle of need. The argument proceeds across two formally defined levels whose relation is pragmatic rather than logical. The first level—threshold equifelicity—establishes a lexical constraint: no social arrangement that predictably produces morally inadmissible suffering (S*) can qualify as a system of political justice for those it so harms, because S* destroys the normative addressability that justificatory practice pragmatically presupposes. The modal status of the argument as pragmatic presupposition is explicitly (...) defended and shown to be sufficient for the normative conclusions without any commitment to the view that moral truths depend on justificatory practices—a point that distinguishes the argument's methodological claim from its metaethical neutrality. The second level—needs equifelicity—is derived from an extension of the same argument: stable and reliable participation in justificatory practice across a complete life requires the satisfaction of course-of-life needs, and only need-sensitive distribution can systematically track the individual variation in what such participation requires. Three objections to this inference are addressed: the gap between necessary condition and distributive principle, the empirical specification of required needs-satisfaction, and the slide from sufficientarianism to needs-tracking. S* is operationalized through five diagnostic criteria with a strengthened defence of the type/degree distinction incorporating fuzzy-boundary epistemology and longitudinal evidence. The transcendental argument is defended against non-justificationist objections (Raz, Enoch) through the standing/operative reason distinction and through a methodological/metaethical distinction that shows those objections to operate at a different level than the paper's claims. Scanlonian contractualism is engaged through all three readings, with a new demonstration that the double counterfactual objection applies to the reasons-based version of the prospective-party reading as well as to preference-based versions. New in this revision: institutional case studies (Housing First, unconditional basic income, Nordic welfare); systematic mapping to the capability approach with trade-off resolution criteria; refined responsibility account distinguishing risk-bearing from harm-causing; explicit scope delimitation with global justice research agenda. -/- Keywords: needs; suffering; threshold; justificatory practice; pragmatic presupposition; post-Marxism; capabilities; Lexical Shield; corrosive disadvantage; Scanlon; Forst; Wiggins; responsibility; needs-tracking; normative addressability; fuzzy boundaries; Housing First; global justice. (shrink)

Every theory of persistence must answer two questions: does this system continue to exist? And: does the continuing system remain the same system? These are not the same question. La Profilée formalizes the first as the persistence condition IR ≤ 1 and the second as the Frame Continuity Condition (FCC). The Q1/Q2 Separation Theorem establishes that Q2 presupposes Q1, while Q1 does not imply Q2. This paper presents the formal proof of structural non-equivalence, the four-regime architecture that follows (Persistence, Transmutation, (...) Collapse, and Dissolution, with one structurally impossible combination that closes the space), and the Asymmetry Theorem: Q2 (identity) implies Q1 (existence), but Q1 does not imply Q2. Identity without existence is structurally impossible; existence without identity (Transmutation) is structurally possible. The fourth regime — ¬Q1 ∧ Q2 — is not a missing case but a structural impossibility. The paper demonstrates Q1/Q2 separation across six domains: gradual cognitive change, material replacement, organisational identity, personal development, political continuity, and mind-upload scenarios. In each domain, the four-regime architecture generates determinate structural verdicts where single-condition theories produce indeterminate or contradictory results. -/- The structural limits identified in P164 are therefore not contingent features of particular philosophical frameworks. They are the forced consequences of attempting to answer two structurally distinct but asymmetrically related questions with a single condition. The formal proof makes this visible. This paper provides the formal proof. Theorems 1–5 establish that Q1 and Q2 are structurally non-equivalent and independently derived, with asymmetric dependence: Q2 presupposes Q1, while Q1 does not imply Q2. The Asymmetry Theorem establishes that the independence is not symmetric: Q2 presupposes Q1 (identity presupposes existence), but Q1 does not imply Q2 (existence does not guarantee identity). Together, the two theorems generate a complete four-regime architecture and explain why every tradition that derived one condition without the other encountered indeterminate verdicts in precisely the cases where the two conditions diverge. The structural diagnosis of the identity debate established in the companion paper (P164) identifies a recurring pattern across eight major traditions: Parfit glimpses the Q1/Q2 separation without formalising it; Sider derives Q1 with exceptional precision while importing Q2; Wiggins correctly identifies F-selection without deriving the admissibility conditions that Q2 requires. In each case, the structural limit is not accidental. It follows from the fact that Q1 and Q2 are structurally distinct but asymmetrically related conditions that cannot be jointly derived from any single-entry-point approach to the persistence problem. (shrink)

Every theory of persistence must answer two questions: does this system continue to exist? And: does the continuing system remain the same system? These are not the same question. La Profilée formalizes the first as the persistence condition IR ≤ 1 and the second as the Frame Continuity Condition (FCC). The Q1/Q2 Separation Theorem establishes that Q2 presupposes Q1, while Q1 does not imply Q2. This paper presents the formal proof of structural non-equivalence, the four-regime architecture that follows (Persistence, Transmutation, (...) Collapse, and Dissolution, with one structurally impossible combination that closes the space), and the Asymmetry Theorem: Q2 (identity) implies Q1 (existence), but Q1 does not imply Q2. Identity without existence is structurally impossible; existence without identity (Transmutation) is structurally possible. The fourth regime — ¬Q1 ∧ Q2 — is not a missing case but a structural impossibility. The paper demonstrates Q1/Q2 separation across six domains: gradual cognitive change, material replacement, organisational identity, personal development, political continuity, and mind-upload scenarios. In each domain, the four-regime architecture generates determinate structural verdicts where single-condition theories produce indeterminate or contradictory results. -/- The structural limits identified in P164 are therefore not contingent features of particular philosophical frameworks. They are the forced consequences of attempting to answer two structurally distinct but asymmetrically related questions with a single condition. The formal proof makes this visible. This paper provides the formal proof. Theorems 1–5 establish that Q1 and Q2 are structurally non-equivalent and independently derived, with asymmetric dependence: Q2 presupposes Q1, while Q1 does not imply Q2. The Asymmetry Theorem establishes that the independence is not symmetric: Q2 presupposes Q1 (identity presupposes existence), but Q1 does not imply Q2 (existence does not guarantee identity). Together, the two theorems generate a complete four-regime architecture and explain why every tradition that derived one condition without the other encountered indeterminate verdicts in precisely the cases where the two conditions diverge. The structural diagnosis of the identity debate established in the companion paper (P164) identifies a recurring pattern across eight major traditions: Parfit glimpses the Q1/Q2 separation without formalising it; Sider derives Q1 with exceptional precision while importing Q2; Wiggins correctly identifies F-selection without deriving the admissibility conditions that Q2 requires. In each case, the structural limit is not accidental. It follows from the fact that Q1 and Q2 are structurally distinct but asymmetrically related conditions that cannot be jointly derived from any single-entry-point approach to the persistence problem. (shrink)

The United Kingdom's Parliamentary Bill 'Fraud Trials (Without a Jury) 2007', failed. Nevertheless, fraud trials without a jury do take place and there is much evidence to support this. Today the UK still does not support fraud trials without a jury, even though fraud in the UK today is the highest amount of fraud globally. The longer version of this paper is submitted here since it has become urgent that UK fraud trials be examined as a matter of urgency. On (...) page 87 of this complete paper (cut down for The Criminal Lawyer in 2008) a U.S study of 46 corporate fraud trials revealed that the defendants were CEOs, President, Chairman, Senior Vice Presidents, Chief Financial Officers, but only one entity reach trial stage. After the ce Arthur Anderson LLP v. United States, 544 U.S. 696 (2005), and the Lehman Brothers SEC case and the SEC v. Bank of America Corp., 653 F. Supp. 2d 507 (S.D.N.Y. 2009, and the Report by the U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry on the 2008 financial crash, a global financial disaster was predicted and George Osborne, UK Chancellor pleaded for leniency for HSBC Bank frauds, threatening a global meltdown. The U.S. judiciary increased its volume of Deferred Prosecution Agreements and the UK followed suit. So, in year 2022, there is global financial meltdown and the UK has the highest rate of fraud in the world with few successful convictions. This paper is very relevant today as we must stop using deferred prosecution agreements and seek more convictions and harsh jail sentences for those financial fraudsters who have created this meltdown. -/- *When this paper was written, UK fraud was estimated at £40 million and some experts suspected twice that amount. Today UK fraud is in the billions of pounds annually. (shrink)

The historiography of Vietnam's 1834–1841 annexation of Cambodia has converged on a single term for what Minh Mạng did to the Khmer population of Trấn Tây Thành: Vietnamization. Chandler uses it. Osborne's framework assumes it. Choi Byung Wook, whose own primary-source chapters describe the policy as Confucian "cultivation" (giáo hóa), used the term himself in a 2003 companion article. This paper argues the term, while not factually wrong, sits on the wrong axis. Minh Mạng's 1837 edict reforming dress inside (...) Vietnam itself — issued against his own Vietnamese subjects, not the Khmer — does not invoke a Vietnamese standard at all: it orders northern subjects to adopt clothing in the manner of the Hán and the Minh, against a northern custom the edict calls simply the old way. The same reference axis appears in the Nguyễn court's documented self-description relative to the Qing: an 1844 Quốc Sử Quán text calls the Manchu ancestry of the Qing barbarian (Di) and states that Đại Nam's civilization is not to be compared with it — a superiority claim, not a neutral distinction. Read together, these sources suggest that what Trấn Tây Thành exported to Cambodia was not a Vietnamese ethnonational identity but a civilizational rank claim: Đại Nam positioning itself as the legitimate custodian of Hoa civilization after the Manchu conquest voided the prior holder's claim to it. The dress mandates, the administrative script, the renaming of Phnom Penh — all filed under "Vietnamization" in the secondary literature — read more consistently as the enactment of Hoa rank than as the export of Vietnamese ethnicity. This paper does not claim this settles Minh Mạng's own reasoning; it specifies exactly where the evidentiary chain currently breaks, and what a citation from the Minh Mạng-era Thực Lục would need to show to close it. (shrink)

This article defends novel approaches to what we are and how we persist. First it is claimed that we have disjunctive persistence conditions: we can persist by way of either biological continuity or psychological continuity. Then it is claimed that we are neither human beings nor persons essentially. Rather, we are essentially bio-psycho-continuers, a concept to be explained along the way. A variety of objections are considered and found wanting.

Nicomachean Ethics/NE, Book III, Chapters 1-5, provides Aristotle’s account of “Voluntary Movement.” It, thus, draws the Passion-Action distinction, only posited earlier in Categories, while also serving as the linchpin of NE’s discussion of Virtue, in explicitly connecting it to Right Reason. My explication of this text renders its terminology consistent with the Law of Excluded Middle and rebuts two criticisms of the Eudaimonistic Axiology on which it is based. These results are shown to be entailments of Aristotle’s doctrine that Voluntary (...) is (a) Relative. That categorization is then used to help treat a problematic case of Deliberation beyond his purview. (shrink)

The philosophy of personal and material identity has been pursued for twenty-five centuries without convergence. Substance theories, bundle theories, psychological continuity theories, process ontologies, four-dimensionalism, sortal-relative identity: each developed with rigour, each encountered determinate structural limits, none resolved the debate. The standard explanation is that the problem is extraordinarily difficult, perhaps intractable. This paper argues that the standard explanation is wrong. The debate did not fail to converge because the problem is intractable. It failed to converge because no tradition succeeded (...) in formally deriving the complete set of structural conditions that any non-trivial persistence theory must instantiate. Six such conditions are identified for the general persistence problem: the identity-bearing structure (F), the transformation-processing capacity (M), their coupling (K), the constitutive threshold (δ_F), the existence condition (Q1), and the identity condition (Q2). These are not theoretical choices. They are structural necessities generated by the persistence problem itself. For the personal identity subdomain — self-modeling, Σ-complete persistence subjects — the F·M·K architecture additionally generates Q3 (Recursive Constitutive Non-Externality), Q4 (Structural Self-Priority), and Q5 (Recursive F·M·K Integration). These three further conditions are not general persistence conditions but domain-specific consequences of the triadic architecture applied to self-modeling systems (P167). No tradition in the eight positions derives the full Q1–Q5 architecture for persons. The eight major traditions each independently instantiated some of these conditions and encountered determinate structural limits where further derivation was no longer possible from within their own resources. La Profilée (LP) is not a ninth theory in this debate. It is the formal derivation of the six conditions from three minimal assumptions — distinguishability (M1), real transformation (M2), and non-trivial persistence relation (M3) — and the formal proof that this derivation is exhaustive: no further structurally independent persistence condition exists within the admissibility class defined by M1–M3. The diagnosis this paper offers proceeds in three steps: identification of the six structural conditions; location of the eight traditions as partial instantiations in the resulting space; and derivation of four structural laws that explain why each tradition encounters the structural limit it encounters. Once the conditions are formally derived, the limits of the traditions become structurally locatable — not as failures, but as determinate structural limits generated by incomplete access to the same structural necessities. (shrink)