A normative power is the authority to effect a normative change through a declaration of will. This paper uncovers a fundamental asymmetry between potestative concepts (related to normative powers) and deontic concepts (related to duties). The deontic conceptual network consists of three mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive positions: obligatory, forbidden, and optional. Similarly, the modal network encompasses: necessary, impossible, and contingent. While the potestative network appears to follow a similar pattern – an impression reinforced by the (...) Hohfeldian scheme – it lacks this triangular structure. Overlooking this asymmetry has led several philosophers to adopt unintelligible positions such as the notion of a necessary normative power, where an agent can effect a normative change by exercising their normative power but lacks the power not to do so. I show that this is conceptually flawed. Unlike the deontic may and the possibility can, the normative power can lacks a dual (A and B are duals of each other iff ¬A(¬x) = B(x)). This asymmetry exists because deontic and modal terms are bipartite – relating to action or omission – whereas normative power pertains solely to changing a normative situation, not to refraining from doing so. The extended Hohfeldian framework I propose makes this structural difference explicit. (shrink)

Agents have powers to bring about change. Do agents have normative powers to bring about normative change directly? This chapter distinguishes between direct normative change and descriptive and institutional changes, which may indirectly be normatively significant. This article argues that agents do indeed have the powers to bring about normative change directly. It responds to a challenge claiming that all normativity is institutional and another claiming that exercises of normative powers would (...) violate considerations of supervenience. The article also responds to a challenge - generalizing Kent Hurtig’s recent challenge about consent - which states that exercises of normative powers are valid only in cases that do not matter - they never bring about a “normative transformation” of what the agent overall ought to do. It turns out that consent is normatively transformative in some cases, but the main contribution of exercises of normative powers is at the contributory level not that of overall oughts. Invalid exercises of normative powers are void of any normative effects. Rational agents as possessors of normative powers are not merely responsive to pre-existing normative reasons, but they can also create normative reasons. A “responsive” view of rational agency sees us as being able to track existing normative reasons and make descriptive changes (on which normative changes supervene). The “creative” view of rational agency sees us as being able not only to construct institutions but also to create normative reasons directly. The chapter concludes that agents are both responsive and creative. (shrink)

The chapter provides an analysis of normative powers as the ability to change a normative condition, and distinguishes and analyses several kinds of such powers. It distinguishes between wide normative powers possessed by any act that non-causally results in a normative change, and narrow normative powers, which are the main topic of the chapter. The most important theses of the chapter are: First, the distinction between basic normative powers and (...) chained normative powers (the latter being powers created by the exercise of other powers) and second, defending the apparently surprising claim that people have narrow powers when and because there is undefeated value in their existence. The account explores the relations between the normative powers and the values which explain and justify their existence. It ends by showing the connection between the thesis that values depend on human nature and culture, and the dependence of normative powers on justifying reasons. (shrink)

A normative power is a power to alter rights and duties directly. This paper explores what it means to alter rights and duties directly. In the light of that, it examines the kind of argument that might support the existence of normative powers. Both simple and complex instrumentalist accounts of such powers are rejected, as is an approach to normative powers that is based on the existence of normative interests. An alternative is sketched, (...) where normative powers arise based on the appropriateness of a person responding to a decision by limiting their freedom. (shrink)

What exactly do we need to do in order to make a promise, or to exercise some other normative power? On a view relied on by many philosophers writing on promising, consent, and related phenomena, the answer is that we must communicate a suitable kind of intention. On this view, power-conferring principles assert that specific normative consequences, determined in part by the content of the communicated intention, attach to such communicative acts, and these principles need not be socially (...) practised or accepted to be true. The paper offers a defense of this convention-independent view against the forceful challenge developed by Jed Lewinsohn in ‘The “Natural Unintelligibility” of Normative Powers’. Lewinsohn appeals to action-theoretic considerations to show that the relevant type of communicative act could not be performed under conditions of rationality and full information, and that therefore promissory power and other normative powers require the existence of social rules conferring such powers. The defense of the view targeted by Lewinsohn turns partly on the exact content of plausible constraints on the intelligibility of actions done with a particular aim, and partly on the question just how the social acceptance of power-conferring rules should be thought to matter. (shrink)

Normative powers like promising allow agents to effect changes to their reasons, permissions and rights by the means of communicative actions whose function is to effect just those changes. An attractive view of the normativity of such powers combines a non-reductive account of their bindingness with a value-based grounding story of why we have them. This value-based view of normative powers however invites a charge of wishful thinking: Is it not bad reasoning to think that (...) we have a given power because it would be good? In this article, I offer a defence of the value-based view of normative powers against this surprisingly under-discussed objection. First, I clarify the challenge by distinguishing between two components of normative powers, which I call the material and normative components, respectively. Secondly, I defend the form of normative explanation involved, showing that it is needed to give convincing value-based explanations for other important normative phenomena, especially rights of autonomy. (shrink)

This article argues that resolutions are reason-giving: when an agent resolves to φ, she incurs an additional normative reason to φ. I argue that the reasons we incur from making resolutions are importantly similar to the reasons we incur from making promises. My account explains why it can be rational for an agent to act on a past resolution even if temptation causes preference and even judgment shifts at the time of action, and offers a response to a common (...) objection to the normativity of resolutions known as the bootstrapping problem, on which if resolutions were reason-giving they would problematically allow us to bootstrap any action into rationality simply by resolving to perform it. (shrink)

In this paper, I respond to the critiques of my book, The Politics of Our Selves: Power, Autonomy, and Gender in Contemporary Critical Theory, made by Nikolas Kompridis, Paul Patton, Allison Weir and Moira Gatens. My response is organized around three overlapping themes that are raised in these four astute papers: a defence of my account of normativity, of my reading of Foucault’s conception of power, and of my analysis of gender subordination/identity.

‘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 (...) class='Hi'>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)

Much of the literature on practical authority concerns the authority of the state over its subjects—authority to which we are, as G. E. M. Anscombe says, subject “willy nilly”. Yet many of our “willy” (or voluntary) relationships also seem to involve the exercise of practical authority, and this species of authority is in some ways even more puzzling than authority willy nilly. In this paper I argue that voluntary authority relies on a form of voluntary obligation that is akin (in (...) some respects) to the kind of obligation one undertakes in making a promise. Voluntary authority depends, that is, on the possibility of taking on certain obligations more or less at will. It is generated through an interpersonal transaction that involves a directed act of deference, on one side, paired with appropriate uptake of that deference, on the other. Deference, in the relevant sense, should be understood as a normative power that is exercised when agents transfer deliberative discretion to others, undertaking directed obligations to treat others’ directives as content-independent and peremptory reasons. Voluntary authority, thus understood, is both grounded in and constrained by the equal moral authority or autonomy of the participants, since only autonomous agents have the standing to defer in a normatively significant way. (shrink)

Most requests don’t raise any moral concerns even if granting them would be somewhat burdensome. It’s perfectly ordinary amongst friends to ask for help moving house. But things seem different in other cases. If a boss asks his employee for a backrub in the workplace, it’s plausible that he’s wronged her and that she has a complaint that he asked. But that’s puzzling, given the common thoughts that there’s no harm in asking and that it’s okay to decline a request. (...) In this paper, I argue that a request can wrong a person simply in virtue of the fact that it was made, even if it causes no ordinary harm. Making such a request involves abusing the normative power to request, and such an abuse communicates, or expresses, a distinctive kind of disregard for the requestee and their interests, ones which themselves ground and limit the power. We have a variety of interests in not being objects of this kind of expressive disregard, and so we have legitimate complaints about such requests. (shrink)

This introduction to the Global Media Journal – German Edition’s Special Section on content moderation critically examines the governance challenges of regulating online content in the digital age. It argues that the removal of content deemed illicit, detrimental or otherwise unacceptable by established standards is often framed as neutral gatekeeping even though it operates within contested power dynamics that lack rigorous and sound frameworks to assess its real-world impacts on freedom of expression, safety, and social justice. The authors highlight historical (...) parallels to pre-modern censorship struggles following the invention of the printing press, emphasising that digital public spheres require forms of robust civility, not mere technical fixes. Current practices of content moderation reveal deep tensions: platforms increasingly employ automated systems for this endeavour, yet this risks amplifying harmful content and creating ethical dilemmas, while low-wage, high-stress labour conditions for human moderators (“clickworkers”) expose systemic exploitation. The Special Section addresses these gaps through four case studies. (shrink)

Moral indeterminacy can be problematic: prospectively it can give rise to deliberative anguish, and retrospectively, it can leave us in a limbo as to what attitudes it is appropriate to form with respect to past actions with indeterminate moral status. These problems give us reason to resolve ethical indeterminacy. One mechanism for doing so involves the use of our normative powers to place obligations on ourselves and to waive our claims against others. This mechanism could operate through an (...) explicit agreement, but could also operate through implicit endorsement of a social convention. However, there are important limits on when the mechanism can eliminate moral indeterminacy. (shrink)

Ever since Aristotle proposed the definition of truth, people have not stopped discerning the concept of truth. Different from the traditional correspondence theory of truth, the modern understanding of the concept of truth emphasizes the role of justification. In the context of pragmatism, Bernstein agrees with the role of justification in understanding truth and appreciates Rorty’s cautionary usage of truth to advance the work of understanding truth, but at the same time, proposes that the concept of truth contains the dimension (...) of normative power, and it is this dimension that allows truth to avoid both metaphysical accusations and relativist reproaches while retaining the positive meaning of justification. From the correspondence theory of truth to the regulative ideal, to the cautionary usage, and finally, to the normative power, people continue to deepen their understanding of the concept of truth by means of criticism of criticism. (shrink)

In many jurisdictions, adolescents acquire the right to consent to treatment; but in some cases their refusals – e.g. of life-saving treatment – may not be respected. This asymmetry of adolescent consent and refusal seems puzzling, even incoherent. The aim here is to offer an original explanation, and a justification, of this asymmetry. Rather than trying to explain the asymmetry in terms of a variable standard of competence – where the adolescent is competent to consent to, but not refuse, certain (...) interventions – the account offered here focuses more closely on the normative power to render actions permissible. Where normative powers are shared they can readily give rise to an asymmetry between consent and refusal. We then turn to why it is justifiable that normative powers be shared in adolescence. Transitional paternalism holds that the acquisition of normative powers by competent adolescents should not be an instant one, achieved in a single step, but that there should be a transitional period where paternalistic protection is rolled back, but not entirely withdrawn until a later date. Transitional paternalism could be implemented without generating the asymmetry between consent and refusal but, it is argued, the asymmetric version of transitional paternalism is to be preferred insofar as it offers a greater respect for the adolescent's decisions than the symmetrical alternative. (shrink)

According to the previous chapter, the lawmaking competence of international institutions remains with the political bodies that represent the interests of the Member States. The stronger the science-base of the structure of these institutions is, the stronger the elements of a common will of the States could develop. In the previous chapters the book explored both traditional and progressive lawmaking techniques by various political bodies of international institutions with environmental expertise. The present chapter explores whether expert bodies of international institutions (...) may develop legislative competences, and if yes, to what extent. The scope of the chapter is not exhaustively covers all of the expert bodies. The chapter rather provides an overview of the competences of some of the representative international institutions and aims to discover any outstanding example of an expert body with lawmaking competences. The present chapter explores the roles of the expert bodies in all of the steps of the lawmaking process, ranging from agenda-setting to review of implementation. It commences by presenting a classification of the expert bodies, depending on the type of the lawmaking-related competencies, and concludes with the evaluation of the lawmaking competences of expert bodies, if any. The main question of the chapter is whether expert bodies hold any direct lawmaking competences, it namely explores the promulgation of binding legislation, while the assumption behind the question States that if scientific bodies were given a stronger role at the regulatory stages at large, including the post-regulatory/review stages of the IEL enterprise, IEL would integrate more advanced, detailed, science-based, salient environmental provisions. It would, thus, more effectively promote the protection of our global environment. (shrink)

Research regulations around the world do not impose any limits on the risks to which consenting adults may be exposed. Nonetheless, most review committees regard some risks as too high, even for consenting adults. To justify this practice, commentators have appealed to a range of considerations which are external to informed consent and the risks themselves. Most prominently, some argue that exposing consenting adults to very high risks has the potential to undermine public trust in research. This justification assumes that (...) it is not the magnitude of the risks themselves which raises concern, but the way in which the public might respond to them. This justification thus depends on the possibility that the public will find out about the risks and respond to them in the specified way. Like the other proposed external justifications, it thereby fails to offer a reason to think that exposing consenting adults to very high risks is problematic in itself. In the present paper, we describe and endorse a different justification. Rather than appealing to external factors, we argue that limits on risks for consenting adults trace to internal limits on informed consent, to limits on the things consent can and cannot make ethically permissible. In doing so, we aim to provide a firmer conceptual basis for the view that some research risks are unacceptably high, no matter how the research is conducted. (shrink)

In this article, I examine Hohfeld’s concept of legal power, and what I take to be the main contributions made over the past century to refine that concept, in an effort to develop a broader notion: the concept of normative power. In Section 1, I introduce the topic and present an initial definition based on Hohfeld’s work. In Sections 2 through 5, I offer successive refinements of that initial definition, incorporating at each stage what I consider to be the (...) valid insights raised by the four major questions that have shaped the discussion of Hohfeld’s concept of legal power over the last hundred years, namely: (1) How can we distinguish legal (and normative) powers from other types of power (Section 2)?; (2) In what ways do legal (and normative) powers resemble or differ from privileges (Section 3)?; (3) What kind of volitional control is implied in the exercise of a legal (and normative) power (Section 4)?; And (4) should we be concerned that the definition includes unjust exercises of power, and if so, how might we revise it to exclude them (Section 5)? (shrink)

Normative powers are often assumed or defined to be abilities to change requirements by one's say so. Promise and command generate duties (and so requirement), consent waives them. I argue that alongside such deontic powers, we enjoy a suite of non-deontic powers: abilities to shape non-requiring interpersonal norms by our say so. I call consent's non-deontic analogue “allowance.” Suppose that we are meeting and we explicitly agreed to talk for an hour; but I see that the (...) day is really getting away from you; it would be helpful to you to end early. That situation can be such that carrying on the meeting is permissible but still interpersonally defective—it's rude, imposing, graceless, etc. You can change that by your say so; you could, for instance, tell me “don't worry about it! we have the full hour.” Your say so is not deontic consent as it did not change what was permissible; but it did make a normative difference, rendering my carrying on no longer graceless or rude. I defend a set of four atomic non-deontic powers that I call “allowance,” “assurance” (like promise), “pressure” (like command), and “withdrawal” (like revocation). I also defend the existence of more complex molecular powers, most importantly the power exercised in telling another “I love you.” In addition to an argument from cases, I make a bigger picture, theoretical argument: we can shape non-deontic norms by (re)shaping our relationships with others; if we can shape non-deontic norms indirectly in that way, then we can do so directly by our say so. The upshot is a theory of ubiquitous, understudied normative phenomena and a picture on which the deontic and non-deontic dimensions of interpersonal life are continuous. (shrink)

This article is concerned with the normative power of cultural values within Chinese-European relations. It proposes that dialogue between European and Chinese stakeholders within educational, cultural, sociological, and philosophical institutions is of the utmost importance in paving a possible way for overcoming the current political crisis. European engagement with Chinese thought in early modernity and the recent reception of early Western liberalism in China both show that there is potential for a non-exclusionary assessment of the “other” in both political (...) cultures. European policy should be aware of its historic potential for critical engagement with Chinese political history. (shrink)

One of the most disturbing problems of social decision making and indeed quite difficult to resolve is the need to reconcile individual rationality with that of society. While individual rationalizing rules indicateways to maximize benefits without any restriction, the collective point of view tilts toward the limitation of individual maximization. This is the very core of the so-called Prisoner’s Dilemma which is but a formalway of saying that there is good reason for every individual to defect on a bargain; the (...) ‘good reason’, that generally takes the gentler form of a self-exception, is that if a player defects and his opponent does not, then the former profits. The purpose of this study is to show the highly erosive character of this self-exceptions and also to make evident its perverse normative power. (shrink)

This book analyzes the main problems of Friedrich Nietzsche's critical philosophy, such as the theory of being, the theory of knowledge and the theory of values. It also addresses his positive program which is based on a number of fundamental conceptions, namely the will to power, the Übermensch, bestowing virtue and the notion of the eternal recurrence. The «death of God» must, in Nietzsche's opinion, lead to a revolution in human consciousness which requires the creation of a new frame of (...) reference for values. To realize this aim, Nietzsche invokes the will which has the normative power to create values and even to overcome time. The author sets his focus on the «tragic gay science» that has never been fully elucidated and still affords new perspectives for interpretation. (shrink)

Globalizations from Below uses a Constructivist International Relations approach that emphasizes the centrality of normative power to analyze and compare the four globalizations 'from below'. These are: (1) the counter-hegemonic globalization represented by the 'movement of movements' of alter-globalization transnational social activists, who try to put an end to the Neoliberal nature of the Western-centered globalization 'from above;' (2) the non-hegemonic globalization enacted by 'ant traders' that are part of the transnational informal economy; (3) the partially similar Chinese-centered globalization, (...) whose entrepreneurial migrants are strongly influenced and instrumentalized by the Chinese state; and (4) the first wave globalization 'from below' that paralleled (and outlived) the 1870-1914 globalization 'from above.' This book identifies their common features and uses them to define the concept of globalization 'from below' as a set of socio-economic or socio-political processes that involve large transnational flows of people, goods, and/or ideas characterized at least in part by informality. They are enacted by entrepreneurial or activistic individuals who either take advantage of the normative power of the hegemon at the origin of an international order and an associated globalization 'from above,' or - explicitly or implicitly - transgress, contest, and try to redefine dominant economic, legal, political, and socio-cultural norms, thus challenging the existing international order and globalization 'from above.' By constructing a unified theoretical framework, this book attempts to open a new field of interdisciplinary research that should take globalizations 'from below' out of their current scholarly marginality. This is one of the first scholarly works to collectively present more than one globalization 'from below,' and will be of great interest to students, scholars, and researchers of International Relations, International Political Economy, Development Studies, Economic History, Anthropology, Diaspora Studies, and Chinese Studies. (shrink)

This paper offers an original argument for a Humean thesis about promising that generalises to the domain of normative powers. The Humean ‘natural unintelligibility’ thesis – prominently endorsed by Rawls, Hart, and Anscombe, and roundly rejected or forgotten by contemporary writers (conventionalists and non – conventionalists alike) – holds that a rational, suitably informed agent cannot so much as make a promise (much less a morally-binding promise) without exploiting conventional norms that confer promissory significance on act types (e.g., (...) signing on the dotted line) that would not otherwise have such significance. The argument (like Hume’s) is action-theoretic in character; its central premise is the Contribution Condition on acting with an aim: roughly, that doing X in order to (bring about) Y requires that the agent believe that their having X-ed on the occasion might come to fully or partly account for Y’s coming to pass. The argument generalises to the broader domain of exercises of normative powers, i.e., to acts that modify normative properties by ‘fiat’ or ‘stipulation’. This stipulative act has been characterised in three different ways, each of which is given due consideration. Finally, two different ways of accommodating the ‘natural unintelligibility’ thesis are considered, as is the thesis’s normative significance. (shrink)

This is a paper about model-building and overfitting in normative ethics. Overfitting is recognized as a methodological error in modeling in the philosophy of science and scientific practice, but this concern has not been brought to bear on the practice of normative ethics. I first argue that moral inquiry shares similarities with scientific inquiry in that both may productively rely on model-building, and, as such, overfitting worries should apply to both fields. I then offer a diagnosis of the (...) problems of overfitting in moral inquiry and explain how our current practice seems worryingly susceptible to such problems. I conclude by giving suggestions for how we might avoid overfitting when doing normative ethics. (shrink)

In this paper, we focus attention on the role of computer system complexity in ascribing responsibility. We begin by introducing the notion of technological moral action (TMA). TMA is carried out by the combination of a computer system user, a system designer (developers, programmers, and testers), and a computer system (hardware and software). We discuss three sometimes overlapping types of responsibility: causal responsibility, moral responsibility, and role responsibility. Our analysis is informed by the well-known accounts provided by Hart and Hart (...) and Honoré. While these accounts are helpful, they have misled philosophers and others by presupposing that responsibility can be ascribed in all cases of action simply by paying attention to the free and intended actions of human beings. Such accounts neglect the part played by technology in ascriptions of responsibility in cases of moral action with technology. For both moral and role responsibility, we argue that ascriptions of both causal and role responsibility depend on seeing action as complex in the sense described by TMA. We conclude by showing how our analysis enriches moral discourse about responsibility for TMA. (shrink)

Norm Phelps has long been one of the leading theoreticians, historians, and strategists of the animal advocacy movement. His new book collects his recent writings on this subject, as well as offers in print for the first time a fully revised and updated version of the e-book he published with Lantern in 2013 (978-1-59056-379-3). Phelps argues that faced with the overwhelming wealth and power of the animal exploitation industries, animal activists are like David trying to stand up to Goliath. But (...) rather than following the unsuccessful strategies of the past, Phelps proposes that we change the game by adopting David's strategy of refusing to play by Goliath's rules. Additional essays explore class and race in animal advocacy, the place of public policy vs. private morality in creating social change, and the unyielding barrier of human exceptionalism. Trenchant, wise, and deeply committed to the reduction of suffering and the liberation of animals, Changing the Game is sure to offer animal advocates much food for thought as the movement charts a way forward for all sentient beings. (shrink)

Resumo Temos o poder de criar ou modificar obrigações e proibições, bem como de liberar agentes delas por meio da geração de permissões? À primeira vista, esse poder pode parecer enigmático, quase mágico, já que implica que agentes morais podem remodelar o domínio normativo apenas por meio de atos comunicativos. Este artigo investiga que tipo de princípio moral pode sustentar uma noção tão robusta de poderes normativos. O esclarecimento desses princípios mostra que os poderes normativos não são estranhos à nossa (...) experiência moral ordinária, mas, na verdade, estão intimamente ligados a práticas como prometer, consentir ou autorizar. Ainda assim, sua inteligibilidade permanece longe de estar assegurada, pois a própria possibilidade de princípios desse tipo é filosoficamente controversa. Assim, a discussão explora as principais estratégias disponíveis para fundamentar a força normativa de princípios capazes de conferir poderes normativos robustos. Uma questão central é se tais princípios podem ser fundamentados em interesses e valores humanos não deônticos ou se pressupõem a existência de valores deônticos fundamentais. A análise apoia esta última posição, concluindo que poderes normativos robustos exigem o reconhecimento de valores ou interesses deônticos que não podem ser derivados de outras considerações. Essa conclusão, por sua vez, conduz a uma hipótese metodológica mais ampla sobre os limites da filosofia moral. A disputa entre defensores dos poderes normativos robustos e seus rivais não pode ser resolvida simplesmente pela vitória de um lado contra o outro. Antes, ela funciona como uma fonte de autoconhecimento filosófico, trazendo à luz os pressupostos de cada posição e as razões mais profundas para a persistência do desacordo. (shrink)

This book features papers from CEPE-IACAP 2015, a joint international conference focused on the philosophy of computing. Inside, readers will discover essays that explore current issues in epistemology, philosophy of mind, logic, and philosophy of science from the lens of computation. Coverage also examines applied issues related to ethical, social, and political interest. -/- The contributors first explore how computation has changed philosophical inquiry. Computers are now capable of joining humans in exploring foundational issues. Thus, we can ponder machine-generated explanation, (...) thought, agency, and other quite fascinating concepts. The papers are also concerned with normative aspects of the computer and information technology revolution. They examine technology-specific analyses of key challenges, from Big Data to autonomous robots to expert systems for infrastructure control and financial services. -/- The virtue of a collection that ranges over philosophical questions, such as this one does, lies in the prospects for a more integrated understanding of issues. These are early days in the partnership between philosophy and information technology. Philosophers and researchers are still sorting out many foundational issues. They will need to deploy all of the tools of philosophy to establish this foundation. This volume admirably showcases those tools in the hands of some excellent scholars. -/- . (shrink)

That scientists should countenance non-epistemic values in their scientific practices has become widely accepted, in part on the basis of arguments from inductive risk. But traditional arguments from inductive risk have focused narrowly on the risk of making mistakes about the truth of hypotheses. This chapter argues that there are inductive risks associated with characterizational choices in science even when there are no mistakes about the truth of hypotheses. Using research into the endocrine-disrupting properties of the herbicide, atrazine, as a (...) case study, this chapter shows how choosing to characterize the effects of atrazine using gendered language poses the risk of reinforcing problematic societal gender norms, while choosing to eschew the use of that gendered language poses risks with respect to environmental protection. The argument that such risks are inductive risks is supported by an analysis of the concept of induction found in traditional arguments from inductive risk. (shrink)

: The focus of questions of justice in health policy has shifted during the last 20 years, beginning with questions about rights to health care, and then, by the late 1980s, turning to issues of rationing. More recently, attention has focused on alternatives to cost-effectiveness analysis. In addition, health inequalities, and not just inequalities in access to health care, have become the subject of moral analysis. This article examines how such trends have transformed the philosophical landscape and encouraged some in (...) bioethics to seek guidance on normative questions from outside of the contours of traditional philosophical arguments about justice. (shrink)

Asserting human freedom to be innate, Étienne de la Boétie's argument that, in order for tyranny to persist, it must be that people choose servitude is the most famous aspect of his Discourse on Voluntary Servitude. However, alongside our freedom, La Boétie identifies another equally constitutive aspect of the human condition: sociability ( amitié ). Nature sees us yearn equally for both liberty and belonging. Our sociability drives us toward the pro-social pursuits of fairness (if not justice in the fullest (...) political sense) as well as the personal connection that sees us adapting to the customs and norms of our families and communities of birth and upbringing. The “paradox” of voluntary servitude has been cited both by later republicans as inspiration for calls for popular self-rule and by anarchist thinkers who read La Boétie's natural freedom as a radical indictment of all political subjugation. Yet, the careful policing and homogenization of social, linguistic, cultural, and religious life necessary to prevent the fragmentation and individuation that lead to the descent of society into collective servitude is likely the more profound paradox at the heart of La Boétie's thought. (shrink)

Power is now measured by economic strength. The world is becoming more integrated. Europe and the Pacific are challenging US dominance. The debt crisis is a crisis in capital and job creation. In the future, key economic issues will be job creation, increased production, grassroots development and safeguarding the poor from the debt crisis. The most viable form of employment will be in small scale enterprises. These meet the real needs of the poorest, are locally owned and controlled, produce products (...) for a local market and use locally available resources. They contribute to economic stability, are not subject to international currency fluctuations and use an environmentally sustainable technology. (shrink)

Sociotechnical explanations can contribute to individual failure investigations and even normative critiques of an entire system, in the event that clear descriptions of causes and conditions of failure can be specified. But in many failed systems, what has happened is complicated. At present, sociotechnical systems approaches in organizational studies, engineering, and philosophy do not meet standards of clarity that are required of explanation. Further, sociotechnical system approaches so far have not been used to predict instances of failure, though it (...) would be highly desirable if we could develop such predictions. Complications with explanation and the dim prospects for prediction lead us in the direction of new computational technologies, but these are not without risks. Progress in understanding sociotechnical systems means, in effect, that explanations and predictions would become useful for “unenhanced” human understanding, not just for computational models of sociotechnical behavior. One byproduct of this better understanding could be guidance on when to hold certain parts of AI sociotechnical systems accountable—namely, when the algorithms by which they operate could be held accountable for damages that they cause. (shrink)

An idea that is central to different versions of the transfer thesis is that contract formation effects, and indeed manifests itself in, a transfer of some entitlement between the prospective contracting parties or between the promisor and the promisee, which entitlement is compared to, although not necessarily analogized with, a property right. Focusing on two different versions of the transfer thesis, both of which are elaborated within two rich and intellectually stimulating theoretical approaches, the chapter explores whether the normative (...) power to transfer (a right) is key to explaining contract formation. The argument that it is not provides a novel critique of transfer theories of contract and reveals previously overlooked avenues for challenging other reductionist conceptions of the power to contract, advanced, in particular, by promissory theories of contract; it also opens a path to a more ‘positive’ argument substantiating a non-reductionist account of the power to contract. (shrink)

This volume consists of selected papers from the 2015 joint international conference—the first-ever meeting of the Computer Ethics-Philosophical Enquiry conference series of the International Society for Ethics and Information Technology, and the International Association for Computing and Philosophy—held at the University of Delaware from June 22–25 of 2015. The organizing themes of the conference are well represented in the volume. They include theoretical topics at the intersection of computing and philosophy, including essays that explore current issues in epistemology, philosophy of (...) mind, logic, and philosophy of science, and also normative topics on matters of ethical, social, economic, and political import. All of the essays provide views of their subject matter through the lens of computation. (shrink)

This collection demonstrates the strong influence that humanism and freethought had in developing the history and ideals of black intellectualism. Most people are quick to note the profound influence that religion has played in African-American history: consoling the downtrodden slave or inspiring the abolitionists, the underground railroad, and the civil rights movement. But few are aware of the role humanism played in shaping the black experience: developing the thought and motivating the actions of powerful African-American intellectuals. Section One of this (...) book offers biographical sketches of such prominent black humanists as Frederick Douglass, Cheikh Anta Diop, W.E.B. DuBois, Hubert H. Harrison, and Richard Wright. Section Two features essays by black humanists: Douglass, DuBois, Charles W. Faulkner, Langston Hughes, Zora Neale Hurston, Ishmael Jaffree, Claude McKay, Melvin B. Tolson, and Bruce Wright. Section Three offers the views of contemporary black African humanists: Freda Amakye Ansah, Emmanuel Kofi Mensah, Nkeonye Otakpor, Franz Vanderpuye, and Kwasi Wiredu. Section Four contains interviews conducted by Allen on the subjects of black humanist activism, the Afroasiatic roots of classical civilization, and the Harlem Renaissance with: Martin G. Bernal, Charles Faulkner, Leonard Harris, Norman Hill, and Alaine Locke. (shrink)

In this collection of essays, the first translation into English of the ground-breaking 'Normativität und Macht' (Suhrkamp 2015), Rainer Forst presents a new approach to critical theory. Each essay reflects on the basic principles that guide our normative thinking. Forst's argument goes beyond 'ideal' and 'realist' theories and shows how closely the concepts of normativity and power are interrelated, and how power rests on the capacity to influence, determine, and possibly restrict the space of justifications for others. By combining (...) insights from the disciplines of philosophy, history, and the social sciences, Forst revaluates theories of justice, as well as of power, and provides the tools for a critical theory of relations of justification. Translated from German. (shrink)

According to Rainer Forst, a critical theory of power must break with the tendency of political theorists to conceive of power in opposition to normativity. Appropriately, Forst proposes a noumenal definition according to which power is normative: It works through recognition of reasons and is thereby open to critical assessment. In this discussion note, I first clarify the normativity of power in Forst’s noumenal theory by means of Donald Davidson’s theory of action and then explain how theory of action (...) leads to a different understanding of force and violence from Forst’s noumenal theory. In doing this, I find reason to endorse a non-normative definition of power on the lines proposed by Robert Dahl and endorsed by most authors in analytical political theory. This definition nevertheless remains faithful to Forst’s methodological guideline that a theory of power must keep in view the relations between power and normativity. (shrink)

According to cultural evolutionary theory in the tradition of Boyd and Richerson, cultural evolution is driven by individuals' learning biases, natural selection, and random forces. Learning biases lead people to preferentially acquire cultural variants with certain contents or in certain contexts. Natural selection favors individuals or groups with fitness-promoting variants. Durham (1991) argued that Boyd and Richerson's approach is based on a "radical individualism" that fails to recognize that cultural variants are often "imposed" on people regardless of their individual decisions. (...) Fracchia and Lewontin (2005) raised a similar challenge, suggesting that the success of a variant is often determined by the degree of power backing it. With power, a ruler can impose beliefs or practices on a whole population by diktat, rendering all of the forces represented in cultural evolutionary models irrelevant. It is argued here, based on work by Boehm (1999, 2012), that, from at least the time of the early Middle Paleolithic, human bands were controlled by powerful coalitions of the majority that deliberately guided the development of moral norms to promote the common good. Cultural evolutionary models of the evolution of morality have been based on false premises. However, Durham (1991) and Fracchia and Lewontin's (2005) challenge does not undermine cultural evolutionary modeling in nonmoral domains. (shrink)

Supporters of political realism and republicanism as well as students of political feasibility and non-ideal theory progressively focus on the dimension of power in the political relation. Yet we lack the theoretical framework to represent these features of power. In this essay, I take a first step towards designing the necessary conceptual tools for such a framework by analyzing the relations between the concepts of power and normativity that define the political relation. Adopting a ‘methodological cynicism’, I analyse the reasons (...) that motivate cynics who are only interested in power to obey a norm against force or violence and to seek legitimacy. This allows us to characterize external or mediate relations between power and normativity (such as the relation underlying political theory’s ambition of offering normative guidance for power) and identify internal and immediate relations between power and normativity. (shrink)