To speak of “networked learning” (e.g., NLEC, 2021a) is to subsume a wide range of educational questions under two overdetermined rubrics. “Learning” and “networked” are words that already carry a heavy semantic burden in both educational and technological discourses. First, the word “learning”—as used in networked learning and in educational discourse generally—tends to conflate the roles and responsibilities of student and teacher. Second, and again as in educational discourse broadly, the definitions provided for networked learning fail to clearly distinguish between (...) “is” and “ought,” between description and prescription. The task of carefully defining networked learning is justified as providing “a concise description of a field of research and practice” but relies on normative criteria that have no unambiguous descriptive corollaries. Third and finally, to speak of experiences as “networked” is to direct attention to structured, interconnected, or entangled manifestations of learning. This is incompatible with the ontological presuppositions of phenomenology and with phenomenological accounts of learning as “non-disponible:” inaccessible, non-available, and non-controllable. (shrink)

Why are the fundamentals of education apparently so little changed in our era of digital technology? Is their obstinate persistence evidence of resilience or obsolescence? Such questions can best be answered not by imagining an uncertain high-tech future, but by examining a well-documented past--a history of instruction and media that extends from Gilgamesh to Google. Norm Friesen looks to the combination and reconfiguration of oral, textual, and more recent media forms to understand the longevity of so many educational arrangements and (...) practices. Friesen examines the interrelationship of reading, writing, and pedagogy in the case of the lecture and the textbook--from their premodern to their postmodern incarnations. Over hundreds of years, these two forms have integrated textual, oral, and (more recently) digital media and connected them with changing pedagogical and cultural priorities. The Textbook and the Lecture opens new possibilities for understanding not only mediated pedagogical practices and their reform but also gradual changes in our conceptions of the knowing subject and of knowledge itself. Drawing on wide-ranging scholarship in fields as diverse as media ecology and German-language media studies, Foucauldian historiography, and even archaeological research, The Textbook and the Lecture is a fascinating investigation of educational media. (shrink)

The increasing use of online simulations as replacements for animal dissection in the classroom or lab raises important questions about the nature of simulation itself and its relationship to embodied educational experience. This paper addresses these questions first by presenting a comparative hermeneutic-phenomenological investigation of online and offline dissection. It then interprets the results of this study in terms of Borgmann’s (1992) notion of the intentional “transparency” and “pliability” of simulated hyperreality. It makes the case that it is precisely encumbrance (...) and disruption—elements that are by definition excluded from simulations and interfaces—which give dissection its educational value. (shrink)

Quine has been charged with eliminating the normative dimension from his naturalized epistemology. The aim of the paper is to look at the role of empathy in Quine's language learning situation, which in its simplest form is constituted by the parent-child relation. We will explore the normativity of the role of empathy thereof by exploiting the sociality of the language learning situation. Since the sociality of Quine's notion of empathy is implicit, to explore the normativity expression thereof, we will (...) examine the explicit sociality of Wittgenstein's language learning situation-also constituted in its simplest form by the master-novice relation-and the normative character of it. By explicating the normativity of the calibrating role of the master and of rule following generally, we will parse the social dimensions of the empathizing role of the linguist in Quine's language learning situation. Finally, by examining the nature of normativity in empathizing, we will establish that the normativity of empathizing involved in Quine's language learning situation is socially grounded without denying its individual dimension. We will conclude that the normativity objection against Quine's naturalism thus stands refuted. (shrink)

Normative naturalism holds that normative properties are identical with, or reducible to, natural properties. Various challenges to naturalism focus on whether it can make good on the idea that normative concepts can be used in systematically different ways and yet have the same reference in all contexts of use. In response to such challenges, some naturalists have proposed that questions about the reference of normative terms should be understood, at least in part, as normative questions (...) that can be settled through normative inquiry. In this paper I have two goals. First, I argue that these naturalist proposals do not yet allow for radical disagreement on normative matters, or at least do not explain how such disagreement is possible. Secondly, I argue that, in order to account for radical disagreement, naturalists should not only treat normative reference as a normative issue but also adopt a non-representationalist account of normative concepts, on which such concepts are individuated through their practical role. I illustrate this point by showing how a view that combines naturalism and expressivism about normative discourse can vindicate the elasticity of normative concepts, their referential stability, and the objectivity of normative truths. (shrink)

As an exception to an otherwise non-normative project, this chapter addresses some questions pertaining to how scholarship ought to be used by judges. To be sure, it does not give very precise answers to the questions, if, when, and how scholarship ought to be used in judicial argument. Jurisdictions differ significantly with respect to (among other things) reliability of available scholarly work and judicial ability to understand and apply scholarly ideas. Precise answers to “if-when-how” questions should not be general (...) but must take into account the various needs and particularities of different jurisdictions. It is argued in this chapter that (at least in democratic countries) judges should use scholarship candidly whenever they choose to use it. Examples are given of judicial decisions in which judges refer to scholarship in a way that suggests that it is serving to mitigate discretion when in fact it is not. The point is that this type of judicial decision exhibits an unjustified lack of sincerity. (shrink)

(2013). Autonomy and the Normativity Question: Framing Considerations. International Journal of Philosophical Studies. ???aop.label???. doi: 10.1080/09672559.2012.727014.

There is a reasonably well-known objection to metanormative realism, which Christine Korsgaard calls “The Normative Question” argument. Derek Parfit has a reply to this argument, and to similar arguments from Nowell-Smith, Hare, Gibbard, and Bernard Williams, in _On What Matters_. This chapter argues that the objection is a serious one. The first section sets out several versions of the objection and Parfit’s replies. The second section provides an interpretation of the objection and formulates it in a way that (...) shows how the replies miss the point. The third section argues that the kernel of the problem lies in the question of how reasons, motivations, and rationality are connected: the critics who pressed the objection have illuminating _explanations_ of this nexus, while Parfit’s realism apparently has none. The fourth section sketches further arguments that deepen the difficulty. (shrink)

Moral naturalism, as I use the term here, is the view that there are moral facts in the natural world – facts that are both natural and normative – and that moral claims are true or false in virtue of their corresponding or not to these natural facts. Moral naturalists argue that, since moral claims are about natural facts, we can establish the truth about moral claims through empirical investigation. Moral knowledge, on this view, is a form of empirical (...) knowledge.One objection to this metaethical view is that even if moral naturalists are correct in their claims about truth, they cannot answer the question of normativity. Jean Hampton, for instance, argues that it is not enough to explain the conduct's wrongness by showing it to be a property that necessarily supervenes on natural properties. For nothing in this analysis explains the relationship between these properties andus.The question is why should peoplecareabout these properties. Christine Korsgaard claims that moral realists take the normative question to be one about truth and knowledge. (shrink)

Moral naturalism, as I use the term here, is the view that there are moral facts in the natural world – facts that are both natural and normative – and that moral claims are true or false in virtue of their corresponding or not to these natural facts. Moral naturalists argue that, since moral claims are about natural facts, we can establish the truth about moral claims through empirical investigation. Moral knowledge, on this view, is a form of empirical (...) knowledge.One objection to this metaethical view is that even if moral naturalists are correct in their claims about truth, they cannot answer the question of normativity. Jean Hampton, for instance, argues that it is not enough to explain the conduct's wrongness by showing it to be a property that necessarily supervenes on natural properties. For nothing in this analysis explains the relationship between these properties and us. The question is why should people care about these properties. Christine Korsgaard claims that moral realists take the normative question to be one about truth and knowledge. (shrink)

Rationality requires that our mental attitudes exhibit specific patterns of coherence. Do we have reason to comply? 'Prichardian Quietists' regard this question as fundamentally confused: the only reasons to comply with rational requirements are the ones given by the requirements themselves. In this paper, I argue that PQ fails. I proceed by granting that Prichard's own position, from which PQ draws inspiration, is defensible, while identifying three serious problems with the parallel position about rationality. First, as I argue, PQ (...) is not plausibly combined with either the narrow-scope or the wide-scope formulations of rational requirements. Second, PQ implies that the reasons to comply with rational requirements are reasons of the wrong kind. And finally, PQ lacks a crucial component of its explanation, viz. a plausible theory of what constitutes being rationally required to V. (shrink)

In recent time there has been ample discussion concerning censorship of research conducted in two labs involved in avian influenza virus research. Much of the debate has centered on the question whether the methods and results should reach to open disclosure given the “dual use” nature of this research which can be used for nefarious purposes.

My claim in this essay is that Kierkegaard’s concept of “the single individual” is a precursor of “the normative question” in Christine Korsgaard’s The Sources of Normativity. The normative question refers to what one asks oneself when considering whether one is obligated by a particular moral claim, and it essentially serves to illustrate the necessity of justifying these claims from a first-person perspective. The single individual is a concept Kierkegaard employs throughout his works to emphasize the (...) first-person perspective that an individual must bring to bear on issues of existential significance. I analyze the correlations between Kierkegaard’s notion of the single individual and Korsgaard’s notion of normativity, and suggest what these correlations more broadly indicate about moral theory. (shrink)

In their article, ‘Responsibility, Second Opinions, and Peer-Disagreement—Ethical and Epistemological Challenges of Using AI in Clinical Diagnostic Contexts,’ Kempt and Nagel argue for a ‘rule of disagreement’ for the integration of diagnostic AI in healthcare contexts. The type of AI in question is a ‘decision support system’, the purpose of which is to augment human judgement and decision-making in the clinical context by automating or supplementing parts of the cognitive labor. Under the authors’ proposal, artificial decision support systems which (...) produce automated diagnoses should serve chiefly as confirmatory tools; so long as the physician and AI agree, the matter is settled, and the physician’s initial judgement is considered epistemically justified. If, however, the AI-DSS and physician disagree, then a second physician’s opinion is called on to resolve the dispute. While the cognitive labour of the decision is shared between the physicians and AI, the final decision remains at the discretion of the first physician, and with it the moral and legal culpability. The putative benefits of this approach are twofold: healthcare administration can improve diagnostic performance by introducing AI-DSS without the unintended byproduct of a responsibility gap, and assuming the physician and AI disagree less than the general rate of requested second opinions, and the AI’s diagnostic accuracy supersedes or at least …. (shrink)

RésuméDans Fellow creatures, Christine Korsgaard soutient que les êtres humains auraient l'obligation morale de traiter les animaux sensibles comme des fins en soi. Cependant, cet article tente de démontrer que la méthode korsgaardienne dépasse ce que permet une théorie constructiviste conséquente et soutient que nous devrions opter pour une version humienne plutôt que kantienne du constructivisme. Selon moi, une telle conception permet tout à fait de soutenir des positions éthiques substantielles sur la question animale sans avoir à compromettre ses (...) engagements ontologiques. (shrink)

In this paper I present an account of a distinctive form of ‘practical’ or ‘deliberative’ uncertainty that has been central in debates in both ethics and metaethics. Many writers have assumed that such uncertainty concerns a special normative question, such as what we ought to do ‘all things considered.’ I argue against this assumption and instead endorse an alternative view of such uncertainty, which combines elements of both metaethical cognitivism and non-cognitivism. A notable consequence of this view is (...) that even if there are objective and irreducible truths about how we ought to act, all things considered, the ‘central deliberative question,’ as it’s sometimes called, doesn’t concern such truths. Instead, that question doesn’t have a true answer. (shrink)

This book empirically investigates the nature of time biases. Many philosophers think that it is rationally permissible to prefer a life that is overall worse to one that is overall better, as long the badness of that life lies in the past rather than the future. These philosophers think that it is rationally permissible to be time biased. Time biased individuals differently value the wellbeing of their various selves in virtue of where those selves are located in time. This book (...) focuses on three key kinds of time bias: near, present, and future bias. It presents a rich picture of the conditions under which we display these biases, and it outlines several psychological explanations for them. It then uses this new empirical research we conducted to inform arguments regarding the normative status of these biases. At its heart it considers the question: does having time biased preferences of one sort or another make us better off or worse off? And it uses the answers to these questions to inform our theorizing about whether we have reason either to have, or to avoid having, such preferences. (shrink)

Our concept bald displays all of the features paradigmatic of vagueness. For instance, it is sorites-susceptible. Moreover, the concept allows for cases of a distinctive kind in the middling part of the sorites series -- cases for which it seems ''there is just no fact of the matter'' whether the member is bald. Our concept ought displays some of these same features. For instance, it too is sorites-susceptible. However, there is a difference. The middling cases in an ought sorites series (...) lack the ''no fact of the matter'' phenomenology. In this paper, I ask: why do we have the no fact of the matter phenomenology for descriptive concepts? And what's special about our concept of ought that it lacks that phenomenology? I start by giving a rigorous characterization of the ''no fact of the matter'' phenomenology in terms of questioning attitudes. When it comes to middling cases of our concept bald, it is confused to continue to ask whether the person is bald. This isn't so for middling cases of our concept ought: we can reasonably wonder what one ought to do in the middling cases. I then offer an explanation for this zetetic difference. I argue that, asking questions about middling cases in a sorites is typically costly. But for certain normative concepts, the questions are inescapable, and so it's a cost we must pay. (shrink)

Recently, many epistemologists have proposed instrumental norms of inquiry, that is, norms that concern taking means to answer the questions we are pursuing. But which questions should we pursue in the first place, and why? In this paper, I offer a novel defense of the radical pragmatist view, according to which there are no epistemic norms of inquiry, and all reasons to pursue questions and take means to answering them are practical. This includes reasons linked with the intrinsic or prudential (...) value of cognitive goods like knowledge or understanding. We can confirm this by observing that fitting reactions to failure to respond to such reasons are practical rather than epistemic in nature (e.g. pity rather than epistemic downgrading). Given that reasons don’t transubstantiate when they are transmitted, any instrumental 'zetetic' reasons to take means to answer questions are practical as well. All of the above is nevertheless compatible with granting that some ways of inquiring do merit epistemic criticism. But that’s not because they violate some specifically zetetic epistemic norm, but because they are based on means-end beliefs that don’t constitute knowledge or lack justification, and thus entail violations of traditional epistemic norms. In the big picture, what this means is that the part of epistemology that concerns norms of inquiry overlaps with value theory and theory of practical rationality. (shrink)

Recent years have seen a growing number of philosophers come to defend normative nihilism. Even if their arguments do not induce in many a belief in normative nihilism, there may be grounds on which to be less than certain about the falsity of normative nihilism. How, then, can we accommodate the possibility of normative nihilism when deliberating about what to do? In this article, I defend two theses. First, I distinguish between normative questions and deliberative (...) questions and argue that the question “what am I to do under uncertainty about the truth of normative nihilism?” is best understood as an example of the latter. Second, I propose a novel framework for deliberation under uncertainty about the truth of normative nihilism: maximize expected decision-relevance. A striking upshot of this article is that there is an important sense in which we need make no mistake by flouting normative considerations under uncertainty about the truth of normative nihilism. (shrink)

Breaches of research integrity have gained considerable attention due to high-profile scandals involving questionable research practices by reputable scientists. These practices include plagiarism, manipulation of authorship, biased presentation of findings and misleading reports of significance. To combat such practices, policymakers tend to rely on top-down measures, mandatory ethics training and stricter regulation, despite limited evidence of their effectiveness. In this study, we investigate the occurrence and underlying factors of questionable research practices (QRPs) through an original survey of 3,005 social and (...) medical researchers at Swedish universities. By comparing the role of the organizational culture, researchers´ norms and counter norms, and individual motivation, the study reveals that the counter norm of Biasedness—the opposite of universalism and skepticism—is the overall most important factor. Thus, Biasedness was related to 40–60% of the prevalence of the questionable practices. The analysis also reveals the contradictory impact of other elements in the organizational environment. Internal competition was positively associated with QRP prevalence, while group-level ethics discussions consistently displayed a negative association with such practices. Furthermore, in the present study items covering ethics training and policies have only a marginal impact on the prevalence of these practices. The organizational climate and normative environment have a far greater influence. Based on these findings, it is suggested that academic leaders should prioritize the creation and maintenance of an open and unbiased research environment, foster a collaborative and collegial climate, and promote bottom-up ethics discussions within and between research groups. (shrink)

‘Normative powers’ are capacities to create normative reasons by our willing or say-so. They are significant, because if we have them and exercise them, then sometimes the reasons we have are ‘up to us’. But such powers seem mysterious. How can we, by willing, create reasons? In this paper, I examine whether normative powers can be adequately explained normatively, by appeal to norms of a practice, normative principles, human interests, or values. Can normative explanations of (...) normative powers explain how an exercise of the will can afford us special freedom in determining our reasons? I argue that normative approaches to answering this question prove to be inadequate. To vindicate the thought that normative powers can make our reasons ‘up to us’, we need an altogether different approach to understanding them, one that is located not in the normative but in the metaphysical. I end the paper by sketching a metaphysical explanation of normative powers. This metaphysical defence of normative powers provides a window into a different, more agent-centered way of thinking about rational agency. (shrink)

I argue for the claim that there are instances of a priori justified belief – in particular, justified belief in moral principles – that are not analytic, i.e., that cannot be explained solely by the understanding we have of their propositions. §1–2 provides the background necessary for understanding this claim: in particular, it distinguishes between two ways a proposition can be analytic, Basis and Constitutive, and provides the general form of a moral principle. §§3–5 consider whether Hume's Law, properly interpreted, (...) can be established by Moore's Open Question Argument, and concludes that it cannot: while Moore's argument – appropriately modified – is effective against the idea that moral judgments are either reductively analyzable or Constitutive-analytic, a different argument is needed to show that they are not Basis-analytic. Such an argument is supplied in §6. §§7–8 conclude by considering how these considerations bear on recent discussions of “alternative normative concepts”, on the epistemology of intuitions, and on the differences between disagreement in moral domains and in other a priori domains such as logic and mathematics. (shrink)

BackgroundThis study investigates the determinants of engagement in questionable research practices (QRPs), focusing on both individual-level factors (such as scholarly field, commitment to scientific norms, gender, contract type, and career stage) and institution-level factors (including industry type, researchers' perceptions of their research culture, and awareness of institutional policies on research integrity).MethodsUsing a multi-level modelling approach, we analyse data from an international survey of researchers working across disciplinary fields to estimate the effect of these factors on QRP engagement.ResultsOur findings indicate that (...) contract type, career stage, academic field, adherence to scientific norms and gender significantly predict QRP engagement. At the institution level, factors such as being outside of a collegial culture and experiencing harmful publication pressure, and the presence of safeguards against integrity breaches have small associations. Only a minimal amount of variance in QRP engagement is attributable to differences between institutions and countries.ConclusionsWe discuss the implications of these findings for developing effective interventions to reduce QRPs, highlighting the importance of addressing both individual and institutional factors in efforts to foster research integrity. (shrink)

Some authors have called into question the normativity of logic, using as an argument that the bridge principles for logical normativity (MacFarlane, In what sense (in any) is logic normative for thought, 2004 )? are just by-products of general epistemic principles for belief. In this paper, I discuss that suggestion from a formal point of view. I show that some important bridge principles can be derived from usual norms for belief. I also describe some possible ways to block (...) this derivation by modifying the epistemic norms or weakening the bridge principles. Finally, I discuss different philosophical interpretations of these results. (shrink)

In this short conversation, I will engage Jonathan Chimakonam’s essay entitled “The knowledge Question in African Philosophy: A Case for Cogno-Normative Epistemology” published as the chapter four of [Atuolu Omalu: Some Unanswered Questions in Contemporary African Philosophy]. I will identify the major submissions of the essay and engage them critically with the aim of opening new vistas of thought. My method will be conversationalim. Keywords : Conversational philosophy, Jonathan Chimakonam, African philosophy, epistemology, cogno-normative.

Robert Brandom's normative-pragmatic theory is intended to represent the minimal set of practical abilities whose exhibition qualifies creatures as speaking a language. His model of a minimally discursive practice (MDP) is one in which participants, devoid of logical vocabulary, are only capable of making assertions and drawing inferences. This dissertation argues that Brandom's purely assertional practices are not MDPs and that speech acts of asking questions (queries) must be included in any practice that counts as an MDP. I propose (...) several novel alternations to Brandom's deontic scorekeeping model of discourse, which I then utilize to generate a normative-pragmatic analysis of inquisitive practices. This analysis supports the claim that agents who can assert need to be able to ask questions and vice versa. The upshot is that intentionality belongs to those who can ask and answer questions. (shrink)

According to a certain pluralist view in philosophy of mathematics, there are as many mathematical objects as there can coherently be. Recently, Justin Clarke-Doane has explored what consequences the analogous view on normative properties would have. What if there is a normative pluriverse? Here I address this same question. The challenge is best seen as a challenge to an important form of normative realism. I criticize the way Clarke-Doane presents the challenge. An improved challenge is presented, (...) and the role of pluralism in this challenge is assessed. (shrink)

In answering normative questions, researchers sometimes appeal to the concept of basic needs. Their guiding idea is that our first priority should be to ensure that everybody is able to meet these needs—to have enough in terms of food, water, shelter, and so on. This article provides an opinionated overview of basic needs in normative contexts. Any basic needs theory must answer three questions: (1) What are basic needs? (2) To what extent do basic needs generate reasons for (...) action and how are these reasons to be understood? (3) How are basic needs and their satisfaction to be measured? I address these questions in turn. Then I also briefly discuss the theoretical potential of appealing to basic needs in normative contexts. It turns out that future research in this area could benefit from a higher degree of interdisciplinarity and methodological reflection, and that, generally speaking, basic needs theories are more promising than they have often been claimed to be. (shrink)

There are all sorts of normative expectations in epistemology—expectations about the epistemic condition of other subjects—that would appear to be relevant to epistemic assessment in ways that do not conform to epistemic standards as traditionally understood. The expectations in question include expectations of inquiries pursued or completed, expectations of certain competences, professional expectations, expectations of having consulted with experts, institutional expectations, moral expectations, expectations of friends, and so forth. My goals in this paper are two. First, I aim (...) to highlight the prevalence of such expectations, and the range of distinct types of circumstance in which they arise. Second, I assess several responses to the allegation that normative epistemic expectations are relevant to epistemic assessment. These range from “explaining away” the appearances to trying to offer one or another positive account of their significance. The former sort of reaction comes at a greater cost than many appear to appreciate, given the prevalence of these expectations and the range of circumstances in which they arise. The latter sort of reaction comes at the cost of having to revise our account of epistemic assessment itself. My own favored view does so in terms of the doctrine of normative defeat; I present my reasons for preferring this view, though I cannot claim in this paper to vindicate it. (shrink)

The Normativity Challenge holds that certain norms that we might take to be robustly normative are only generically normative. This challenge has been raised about norms of morality, structural rationality, and fit, among others. This paper addresses this challenge by developing a new test for robust normativity. On this ‘metaethics test’, robust normativity is, very roughly, the normativity which raises central questions of metaethics – it is normativity that seems stance-independent, sui generis, and armchair accessible. I argue that (...) this test supports a presumption that norms of morality, structural rationality, and fit are robustly normative. This presumption is not undermined by the more familiar ‘reasons test’, on which robust normativity is that which implies normative reasons. My discussion has more general upshots for theorising about robust normativity, which I touch upon in closing. (shrink)

Normative explanations of why things are wrong, good, or unfair are ubiquitous in ordinary practice and normative theory. This paper argues that normative explanation is subject to a justification condition: a correct complete explanation of why a normative fact holds must identify features that would go at least some way towards justifying certain actions or attitudes. I first explain and motivate the condition I propose. I then support it by arguing that it fits well with various (...) theories of normative reasons, makes good sense of certain legitimate moves in ordinary normative explanatory discourse, and helps to make sense of our judgments about explanatory priority in certain cases of normative explanation. This last argument also helps to highlight respects in which normative explanation won’t be worryingly discontinuous with explanations in other domains even though these other explanations aren’t subject to the justification condition. Thus the paper aims not only to do some constructive theorizing about the relatively neglected topic of normative explanation but also to cast light on the broader question of how normative explanation may be similar to and different from explanations in other domains. (shrink)

Steven Crowell has been for many years a leading voice in debates on twentieth-century European philosophy. This volume presents thirteen recent essays that together provide a systematic account of the relation between meaningful experience and responsiveness to norms. They argue for a new understanding of the philosophical importance of phenomenology, taking the work of Husserl and Heidegger as exemplary, and introducing a conception of phenomenology broad enough to encompass the practices of both philosophers. Crowell discusses Husserl's analyses of first-person authority, (...) the semantics of conscious experience, the structure of perceptual content, and the embodied subject, and shows how Heidegger's interpretation of the self addresses problems in Husserl's approach to the normative structure of meaning. His volume will be valuable for upper-level students and scholars interested in phenomenological approaches to philosophical questions in both the European and the analytic traditions. (shrink)

This paper aims to answer the following question: what is the normative connection between paternalism and the paternalist’s belief about the recipient’s agency? I consider the following two views. _The Robust View_ says that paternalism is _pro tanto_ wrong insofar as the paternalist’s belief about the recipient’s agency is always disrespectful. _The Less Robust View_ says that whenever the paternalist’s belief about the recipient’s agency is disrespectful, paternalism is _pro tanto_ wrong. I interpret the major motive-based theories of (...) paternalism as endorsing the Robust view. While this view is susceptible to a devastating criticism, I argue that the Less Robust view is true. To make my case, I elucidate three ways in which the paternalist may come to hold a disrespectful belief about the recipient’s agency. I then argue that any paternalistic action which is predicated on or motivated by a disrespectful belief about the recipient’s agency is _pro tanto_ wrong. Consequently, I suggest that motive-based theorists endorse the Less Robust view instead. (shrink)

Here is a surprisingly neglected question in contemporary epistemology: what is it for an agent to believe that p in response to a normative reason for them to believe that p? On one style of answer, believing for the normative reason that q factors into believing that p in the light of the apparent reason that q, where one can be in that kind of state even if q is false, in conjunction with further independent conditions such (...) as q’s being a normative reason to believe that p. The primary objective of this paper is to demonstrate that that style of answer cannot be right, because we must conceive of believing for a normative reason as constitutively involving a kind of rationality-involving relation that can be instantiated at all only if there is a known fact on the scene, which the agent treats as a normative reason. A secondary objective, achieved along the way, is to demonstrate that in their Prime Time Errol Lord and Kurt Sylvan do not succeed in undermining the factoring picture in general, only a simple-minded version of it. (shrink)

La philosophie de Nietzsche a longtemps servi de ligne de démarcation entre deux courants majeurs de la pensée critique contemporaine: l'École de Francfort, inspirée par Hegel et Marx, et le poststructuralisme français d'obédience nietzschéenne. C'est à une réévaluation originale de ce grand partage que le présent ouvrage se consacre. La pensée de Nietzsche est en fait une référence incontournable non seulement pour les théoriciens français de mai 68 (Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari), mais aussi pour la dialectique de l'Aufklärung d'Adorno et Horkheimer, (...) en passant par l'oeuvre de Canguilhem qui traite de la question des normes vitales et sociales à partir d'une lecture hétérodoxe de Nietzsche et de l'héritage français du comtisme. Il s'agit de comprendre comment une même pensée a pu irriguer des courants aussi différents et comment une philosophie apparemment conservatrice a pu nourrir et contribuer à l'élaboration des philosophies sociales critiques du XXe siècle."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

Imagine coming across an alternative community such that, while they have normative terms like 'ought' with the same action-guiding roles and relationships to each other, their normative terms come to pick out different properties. When we come across such a community, or even just imagine it, those of us who strive to be moral and rational want to ask something like the following: Further Question: Which set of concepts ought we use—theirs or ours? The problem, first raised (...) by Eklund, is that on almost any metasemantic theory, Further Question cannot be stated in a way that captures the spirit of what we want to ask. This is because any way of asking the question makes use of our own normative concepts, and thus their reference is already fixed on the properties that our current normative concepts refer to. Any purported solution to this problem must meet two conditions. First, it must capture the spirit of what Further Question is intuitively attempting to ask. Second, it must reframe the inquiry in a way that makes the answer neither trivial nor ineffable. In this paper, I propose a solution to this problem by appeal to edenic representation, inspired by, but not identical to, Chalmers’ notion of edenic content. The rough idea here is that representation is edenic to the extent that the representational vehicle mirrors, in quality and structure, the represented property. I argue that a reframing of Further Question in terms of edenic representation can capture the spirit of the question, without collapsing it into a question with a trivial or ineffable answer. Thus, the realist about normative properties can face the problem of the alternative normative community head on, without collapsing into incoherence or triviality. If correct, this solution is of further interest to any metanormative realist concerned with metasemantic questions, because it can tell us more about how the proper representation of the robustly normative would look. (shrink)

ABSTRACT This article questions Metz’s purification of the evaluative subject, and wishes to pose the theological question concerning the meaning of life from a normative and social conception of subjectivity. Before asking whether or not God is indispensable to the meaning of life, it is first necessary to identify the ways in which God is hidden in the fundamental evaluations that the contemporary subject makes in the globalized capitalist world.

Philosophers pursue a number of different explanatory projects when explaining various sorts of normative phenomena. For example, they may seek to explain why the right acts are right or why the things that are good for us are so, explain what it is for something to be obligatory, or explain the source of reasons for action. This chapter takes some steps towards understanding this variety. I first lay some general ground about explanation, suggest that explanations that are appropriate in (...) normative inquiry are objective in a certain sense, and discuss the relevant notion of the normative. I describe some key axes of debate about the form and the content of explanations that first-order normative inquiry (such as normative ethics) typically seeks to state and defend, such as whether normative principles are essential to first-order normative explanation and whether first-order normative explanations work by highlighting what grounds the normative phenomena that are being explained, or by unifying them with other seemingly disparate normative phenomena, or in some other way. I then discuss the function of explanation in normative inquiry and the question of whether normative explanation might be pluralist in various senses. More briefly I discuss how two other sorts of normative explanation that seem more concerned with the foundations of normative domains like ethics and practical reason (such as the source of reasons for action) and with explicating or analyzing the natures of normative properties might be understood and how they relate to first-order normative explanations. (shrink)

When a wrongdoer apologises and is forgiven, the normative situation seems to change. But what changes, and how? Philosophers writing about apology and forgiveness tend to assume that these practices—we call them redressive practices—bring about a variety of normative changes including undertaking new obligations, cancelling other obligations, and generating reasons to resume normal relations. We argue, to the contrary, that the range of normative changes following redressive practices is much narrower than many assume. The second question (...) asks how normative changes come about. One view, defended by Brandon Warmke and Nicolas Cornell among others, is that forgiveness is a normative power. Christopher Bennett concurs, going a step further by suggesting that apology is also a normative power. We reject these claims, arguing that, rather than effecting normative changes directly, apology and forgiveness convey or instantiate independent facts that themselves create normative change. Instead, we explain the normativity of redressive practices on the grounds that they satisfy our normative interests. Although we lack the kind of control over our normative situation post-wrongdoing that normative powers would confer, this is not a form of control we have reason to value. (shrink)

This paper considers normative naturalism, understood as the view that (i) normative sentences are descriptive of the way things are, and (ii) their truth/falsity does not require ontology beyond the ontology of the natural world. Assuming (i) for the sake of argument, I here show that (ii) is false not only as applied to ethics, but more generally as applied to practical and epistemic normativity across the board. The argument is a descendant of Moore's Open Question Argument (...) and Hume's Is-Ought Gap. It goes roughly as follows: to ensure that natural ontology suffices for normative truth, there must be semantically grounded entailments from the natural truths to the normative truths. There are none. So natural ontology does not suffice for normative truth. (shrink)

The what next question for moral error theorists asks: if moral discourse is systematically error-ridden, then how, if at all, should moral error theorists continue to employ moral discourse? Recent years have seen growing numbers of moral error theorists come to endorse a wider normative error theory according to which all normative judgements are untrue. But despite this shift, the what next question for normative error theorists has received far less attention. This paper presents a (...) novel solution to this question: revolutionary normative subjectivism. Along the way, two primary contributions are advanced. First, a non-normative methodology for answering the normative error theoretic what next question is developed. Second, revolutionary normative subjectivism is presented and defended in accordance with the proposed methodology. (shrink)