Dieses Kapitel zielt darauf ab, eine aufschlussreiche Untersuchung von standortbasierten Gig-Arbeiten in Entwicklungswirtschaften zu liefern, wobei der Fokus auf den Herausforderungen liegt, denen sich Arbeiter, Plattformanbieter und politische Entscheidungsträger gegenübersehen, sowie auf den potenziellen Chancen, die diese Form der Beschäftigung bietet. Die Forscher führten eine umfangreiche Literaturübersicht durch, die die Überprüfung von 76 begutachteten Fachartikeln und offiziellen Berichten beinhaltete. Die Überprüfungen offenbaren mehrere bedeutende Herausforderungen, denen sich Gig-Arbeiter in Entwicklungswirtschaften gegenübersehen, wie zum Beispiel begrenzter Zugang zu sozialem Schutz, fehlender Zugang (...) zu Technologie, unsichere Einkommensströme, Mangel an Arbeitnehmerrechten, Bedenken hinsichtlich der beruflichen Gesundheit und Sicherheit und potenzielle Ausbeutung. Vorteile wie wirtschaftliche Inklusion, Zugang zu globalen Märkten, Unternehmertumsmöglichkeiten, Einkommenserzeugung, Flexibilität und Arbeitsplatzschaffung werden ebenfalls festgestellt. Angesichts dieser Herausforderungen empfiehlt das Kapitel die Notwendigkeit fairer Arbeitsbedingungen und Mechanismen zur Streitbeilegung durch Gesetzgebung. Durch das Bereitstellen eines klaren Verständnisses der Herausforderungen und Chancen, die mit dieser Form der Beschäftigung verbunden sind, rüstet das Kapitel politische Entscheidungsträger, Plattformanbieter und Arbeiter mit wertvollen Erkenntnissen für informierte Entscheidungsfindung aus und gestaltet die Zukunft der Gig-Arbeit in einer Weise, die Fairness und Nachhaltigkeit auf dem Arbeitsmarkt von Entwicklungswirtschaften fördert. (shrink)

This chapter aims to provide an insightful examination of location-based gig work in developing economies, focusing on the challenges faced by workers, platform providers, and policymakers and the potential opportunities that this form of employment presents. The researchers conducted an extensive literature review, which involved reviewing 76 refereed journal articles and official reports. The reviews reveal several significant challenges faced by gig workers in developing economies, such as limited access to social protection, lack of access to technology, uncertain income streams, (...) lack of labour rights, concerns regarding occupational health and safety, and potential exploitation. Benefits such as economic inclusion, access to global markets, entrepreneurship opportunities, income generation, flexibility, and job creation are also noted. In light of these challenges, the chapter recommends the need for fair working conditions and mechanisms for dispute resolution through legislation. By providing a clear understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with this form of employment, the chapter equips policymakers, platform providers, and workers with valuable insights for informed decision-making and shapes the future of gig work in a way that promotes fairness and sustainability in the labour market of developing economies. (shrink)

This literature-based study explores the potential of reimagining public service delivery in Africa, specifically focusing on Zimbabwe. It posits that embracing human-centric leadership is key to revitalising public institutions and fostering improved service delivery outcomes across the continent. Drawing upon established scholarly works and relevant case studies, the study dissects the limitations of the current bureaucratic and fragmented approaches to public service prevalent in many African countries. It then proposes a theoretical framework for human-centric leadership within the Zimbabwean context, emphasising (...) core principles like empathy, responsiveness, accountability, and active citizen engagement. This framework champions servant leadership, collaborative problem-solving with citizens, and the strategic utilisation of technology to bolster transparency and efficiency. By synthesising existing academic knowledge, best practices from other countries, and insights gleaned from Zimbabwe’s public sector stakeholders, the study culminates in a roadmap for implementing the proposed framework. It advocates for fostering a culture of human-centric leadership within Zimbabwe’s public service, with the goal of enhancing service delivery and fostering better outcomes for its citizens. This study proposes a novel human-centric leadership framework for Zimbabwe’s public service, aiming to revitalise institutions and improve service delivery through empathy, responsiveness, and citizen engagement. (shrink)

With the recent advancements in scientific comprehension of genetics and the decipherment of complex techniques for editing human genomes, liberal eugenics—eugenic ideal premised on the liberal values of autonomy and pluralism that leaves reproductive choices to parents rather than anachronistic statist authoritarian interventions—has inevitably become a polarising conundrum in contemporary liberal societies as to its utility and destructiveness. Focusing on one species of liberal eugenics—namely, genome editing interventions—I contend that liberal eugenics could be harmful—harm herein construed as that which undermines (...) the salient liberal values of equality, autonomy, and pluralism—since it is itself antithetical to the bases of the liberal society. This contention is based upon three premises: first, that individuals are rather seldom rational decision-makers such that leaving all reproductive choices to the whims of individual parents would be immensely counterproductive to future offspring’s right to open future; second, that liberal eugenics—much like its authoritarian antecedent—could intersect with myriad identities, including race, class, sex, disability, and sexual orientation in ways that might exacerbate social divisions, marginalise different groups, and engender homogeneity; and third, that it undermines individual autonomy of the future person as a member of the liberal community, particularly if their capacities and abilities are tailored to fit parents’ specific life projects and putatively reasonable conceptions of the good. The underscored potential malaises of liberal eugenics should, I argue, be discursively negotiated between parents and the state via the development of robust general laws that regulate heritable genome editing interventions to ensure that the welfare of the future persons is prioritised and that the liberal commitment to autonomy is immune to antiliberal perversions. (shrink)

Source: Author: Uzoamaka S. Chigbu, Chijindu Promise Ubah, Ezeji E. Chigbu The level of bank development has a determinant effect on the growth potentials of a developing economy. In response, this study examined the impact of banking sector development on foreign investment inflows in the West African countries of Nigeria and Ghana. The study relied on secondary data for analysis and made use of multiple regression technique. However, to ensure the authenticity of our result, Augmented Dickey-Fuller unit root test and (...) Johansen Cointegration techniques were respectively employed to test for the presence unit root and long-run equilibrium relationship in the exogenous variables. Additionally, causal relationships were tested with Granger Causality. It was revealed that banking sector development has a significant influence on foreign investment inflows in the two West African countries. Specifically, domestic credit to private sector and bank deposit rate has significant influence on foreign investment inflows in both countries. Whereas domestic credit to private sector is directly related to the dependent variable in Ghana, it is related inversely in Nigeria. It was also discovered that bank lending rate is significantly and positively related to foreign investment in Ghana. Intermediation efficiency and profitability of banks should be improved by enhancing the capital structure and adopting the appropriate lending rate especially in Nigeria as measures to attract more inflows of foreign investment in both countries. ]]>. (shrink)

The informed consent process is a mandatory requirement for surgical procedures that enables patients to exercise autonomy and make informed decisions concerning their medical care, fully aware of the consequences. However, emerging evidence suggests inconsistent adherence to this requirement. This study investigated patients’ and next-of-kins perspectives and experiences of the informed consent process following the completion of a surgical procedure. Using a qualitative approach, patients and next-of-kins who had consented or offered proxy consent on behalf of a patient to undergo (...) surgical procedures at a teaching hospital’s surgical departments in Ghana were purposively recruited. We audio-recorded and transcribed 30 semi-structured interviews with 15 patients and 15 next-of-kins. Two members of the team conducted an independent thematic analysis of the data, guided by Braun and Clarke’s six-step approach. The data analysis generated four key themes related to the context, key elements, influencing factors, perceptions, and experiences of the informed consent process. The informed consent process took place in varied hospital settings, largely in the presence of next-of-kins and typically facilitated by a team of medical professionals, under private conditions where possible. Family opinion, doctors’ paternalism and trust in the doctor’s expertise seemed to be major factors that influenced the decision-making process. However, when conflicts emerged, the patient’s choice and best interest remained paramount in the final decision. The consent process often involved discussions regarding the medical condition, treatment options, and potential risks; participant experiences of these deliberations showed variability. Issues of time constraints, poor doctor-client communication, and language barriers often complicated the informed consent experience. Patient experiences of the informed consent process varied, which points to the importance of standardized guidelines and a more patient-centered approach. This approach should encourage continued collaboration and effective communication between medical professionals and patients/next-of-kins, while upholding the patient’s right to make an informed surgical decision. (shrink)

Chapter Promising in Law and Morals Promissory and contractual obligations raise many issues of common interest to philosophers and lawyers....

“I promise to mow your lawn, but I don’t know whether I will.” Call promises of this form “Moorean,” based on their resemblance to Moore’s paradox. Moorean promises sound absurd. But why? In the literature on assertion, many have used Moore’s paradox to motivate a knowledge norm of assertion. I put forward an analogous norm on promising, according to which one should only make a promise if one knows that one will fulfill it. A knowledge norm explains why (...) Moorean promises are absurd, accounts for a variety of linguistic data, and sheds light on how promises generate obligations. (shrink)

This paper argues that promises are proposals in joint practical deliberation, the activity of deciding together what to do. More precisely: to promise to ϕ is to propose (in a particular way) to decide together with your addressee(s) that you will ϕ. I defend this deliberative theory by showing that the activity of joint practical deliberation naturally gives rise to a speech act with exactly the same properties as promises. A certain kind of proposal to make a joint (...) decision regarding one's own actions turns out to have the very same normative effects, under the very same conditions, as a promise. I submit that this cannot be a coincidence: we should conclude that promises and the relevant kind of proposals in joint practical deliberation are one and the same. (shrink)

Promises of a customary, interpersonal kind have received no small amount of philosophical attention. Of particular interest has been their capac- ity to generate moral obligations. This capacity is arguably what distinguishes promises from other, similar phenomena, like communicating a firm intention. But this capacity is common to still other nearby phenomena, such as oaths and vows. These latter phenomena belong to the same family of concepts as promises, but they are structurally and functionally distinct. Taken in (...) their turn, they fill out what I call the ‘breadth criterion’: Theories of promising should cover not only customary, interpersonal promises but also sibling phe- nomena, including oaths and vows. Accommodating the breadth criterion is not something all theories of promising are positioned to accomplish. I focus on the challenge that the breadth criterion poses for Scanlon’s influential ex- pectation view of promising and suggest a normative powers account will fare better. (shrink)

Breaking a promise is generally taken to involve committing a certain kind of moral wrong, but what (if anything) explains this wrong? According to one influential theory that has been championed most recently by T.M. Scanlon, the wrong involved in breaking a promise is a matter of violating an obligation that one incurs to a promisee in virtue of giving her assurance that one will perform or refrain from performing certain acts. In this paper, we argue that the “Assurance View”, (...) as we call it, is susceptible to two kinds of counterexamples. The first show that giving assurance is not sufficient for incurring the kind of obligation of fulfillment that one violates in breaking a promise. The second show that giving assurance is not necessary. Having shown that the Assurance View fails in these ways, we then very briefly sketch the outline of what we take to be a better view—a view that we claim is not only attractive in its own right and that avoids the earlier counterexamples, but that also affords us a deeper explanation of why the Assurance View seems initially plausible, yet nonetheless turns out to be ultimately inadequate. (shrink)

_The Promise of Happiness_ is a provocative cultural critique of the imperative to be happy. It asks what follows when we make our desires and even our own happiness conditional on the happiness of others: “I just want you to be happy”; “I’m happy if you’re happy.” Combining philosophy and feminist cultural studies, Sara Ahmed reveals the affective and moral work performed by the “happiness duty,” the expectation that we will be made happy by taking part in that which is (...) deemed good, and that by being happy ourselves, we will make others happy. Ahmed maintains that happiness is a promise that directs us toward certain life choices and away from others. Happiness is promised to those willing to live their lives in the right way. Ahmed draws on the intellectual history of happiness, from classical accounts of ethics as the good life, through seventeenth-century writings on affect and the passions, eighteenth-century debates on virtue and education, and nineteenth-century utilitarianism. She engages with feminist, antiracist, and queer critics who have shown how happiness is used to justify social oppression, and how challenging oppression causes unhappiness. Reading novels and films including_ Mrs. Dalloway_, _The Well of Loneliness_, _Bend It Like Beckham_, and _Children of Men_, Ahmed considers the plight of the figures who challenge and are challenged by the attribution of happiness to particular objects or social ideals: the feminist killjoy, the unhappy queer, the angry black woman, and the melancholic migrant. Through her readings she raises critical questions about the moral order imposed by the injunction to be happy. (shrink)

Promising ourselves is familiar, yet some find it philosophically troubling. Though most of us take the promises we make ourselves seriously, it can seem mysterious how a promise made only to oneself could genuinely bind. Moreover, the desire to be bound by a promise to oneself may seem to expose an unflattering lack of trust in oneself. In this paper I aim to vindicate self-promising from these broadly skeptical concerns. Borrowing Nietzsche’s idea of a memory of the will, I (...) suggest that self-promising involves an activity of the will, aimed at the preservation and protection of one’s values. I explain how, understood in this way, these promises can indeed bind, and show that the motivation for making them need not involve mistrust or other alienated attitudes. I then turn to interpersonal promising, arguing that this same activity of the will is required for sincerely promising others: in effect, making a sincere promise to another requires making a promise to oneself. Attention to this under-appreciated aspect of interpersonal promising enriches our understanding of all promises, and helps to correct a narrow and distorted picture of what it means to be bound. (shrink)

This paper develops a new theory of the morality of promissory obligations. T. M. Scanlon notoriously argued that promising consists in assuring the promisee that we will do something. I disagree. I argue that it is true that promising consists in assuring the promisee, but what the promisor gives to the promisee is not an assurance that they will do something, but that the normative situation is in a certain way.

In this article we develop and defend what we call the “Trust View” of promissory obligation, according to which making a promise involves inviting another individual to trust one to do something. In inviting her trust, and having the invitation accepted (or at least not rejected), one incurs an obligation to her not to betray the trust that one has invited. The distinctive wrong involved in breaking a promise is a matter of violating this obligation. We begin by explicating the (...) core notion of “inviting someone to trust one to do something”, suggesting that it involves signaling to the other individual one's recognition of the importance the relevant action has for her, and one’s willingness to license her to have faith or optimism in one's character with regard to the performance of that action. We then turn to a defense of the Trust View, arguing that it has considerable appeal in its own right, that it is distinct from and superior to three similar accounts (T.M. Scanlon's Assurance View, Judith Jarvis Thomson's Reliance View and David Owens' Authority View), and that several objections to it can be answered. (shrink)

To promise someone to do something is to commit oneself to that person to do that thing, but what does that commitment consist of? Some think a promissory commitment is an obligation to do what’s promised, and that while promising practices facilitate the creation of promissory obligations, they are not essential to them. I favor the broadly Humean view in which, when it comes to promises (and so promissory obligations), practices are of the essence. I propose the Practice Reason (...) Account of promises, according to which a promise is basically to give oneself a self-interested practice reason to do what’s promised. One achieves this feat by invoking self-enforcing independent practice rules thanks to which one’s doing what’s promised preserves one’s promissory trust(worthiness) and promising power. However, nothing in this account supports the Hume-Rawls claim that promise-keeping or promise-breaking is right just when and because it conforms to practice rules that are justified by their good- or right-making properties. (shrink)

The traditional problem of promising is to explain how it is possible to place oneself under obligation by expressing one's will to do so. A second problem is how it is possible to become obligated _to another person_ by so expressing one's will. The major attempts to explain promissory obligations consequentialist, Rawls's, and Scanlon's all fail to account for this “directed” or “bipolar” obligation, whether or not they can explain promissory obligations _simpliciter_. By appreciating bipolar obligations' second-personal character and promising (...) as a second-personal phenomenon, however, it is possible to account for promising is a species of a genus, _transactions_, in which parties acquire new obligations to and rights against one another through interactions that presupposes their mutual accountability and their sharing a common basic second-personal authority. Other examples are consent, agreement, accepting an invitation, and acceding to a request. (shrink)

Promising is clearly a social practice or convention. By uttering the formula, “I hereby promise to do X,” we can raise in others the expectation that we will in fact do X. But this succeeds only because there is a social practice that consists (inter alia) in a disposition on the part of promisers to do what they promise, and an expectation on the part of promisees that promisers will so behave. It is equally clear that, barring special circumstances of (...) some kind, it is morally wrong for promisers to fail to do what they have promised to do. What is perhaps less clear is how the moral wrongness that is involved when promises are broken is related to the social practice that makes promising possible in the first place. (shrink)

I outline four conditions on permissible promise-making: the promise must be for a morally permissible end, must not be deceptive, must be in good faith, and must involve a realistic assessment of oneself. I then address whether promises that you are uncertain you can keep can meet these four criteria, with a focus on campaign promises as an illustrative example. I argue that uncertain promises can meet the first two criteria, but that whether they can meet the (...) second two depends on the source of the promisor's uncertainty. External uncertainty stemming from outside factors is unproblematic, but internal uncertainty stemming from the promisor's doubts about her own strength leads to promises that are in bad faith or unrealistic. I conclude that campaign promises are often subject to internal uncertainty and are therefore morally impermissible to make, all else being equal. (shrink)

A paradox involving promises to perform supererogatory actions is developed. Several attempts to resolve the problem, focusing in particular on changing our understanding of supererogatory actions, are explored. It is concluded that none of the proposed solutions are viable; the problem lies in promises with certain contents, not in our understanding of supererogation.

When you offer your promise you expect to be taken at your word. In this paper I shift focus away from more familiar questions about the ground of promissory obligation, concentrating instead on the familiar way that making a promise involves claiming another’s trust. Borrowing an idea from Nietzsche, I suggest that we understand this in terms of a “right to make promises” – that is, a right to “stand security for ourselves,” held and exercised by those who possess (...) the foresight and self-control to make only promises they can keep, and the strength of will required to keep the promises they make. Others recognize a person's right to promise precisely by taking her at her word i.e. by treating her promise itself as a sound and sufficient basis for the belief that she will do as promised. The main aim of the paper is to explicate and defend these ideas. At the end of the paper, I suggest how focusing on this aspect of promising brings to the fore some neglected problems of social justice, concerning the actual distribution of the right to give one’s word in our society. (shrink)

We maintain that in many contexts promising to try is expressive of responsibility as a promiser. This morally significant application of promising to try speaks in favor of the view that responsible promisers favor evidentialism about promises. Contra Marušić, we contend that responsible promisers typically withdraw from promising to act, and instead promise to try, in circumstances where they recognize that there is a significant chance that they will not succeed.

The power to promise is morally fundamental and does not, at its foundation, derive from moral principles that govern our use of conventions. Of course, many features of promising have conventional components—including which words, gestures, or conditions of silence create commitments. What is really at issue between conventionalists and nonconventionalists is whether the basic moral relation of promissory commitment derives from the moral principles that govern our use of social conventions. Other nonconventionalist accounts make problematic concessions to the conventionalist's core (...) instincts, including embracing: the view that binding promises must involve the promisee's belief that performance will occur; the view that through the promise, the promisee and promisor create a shared end; and the tendency to take promises between strangers, rather than intimates, as the prototypes to which a satisfactory account must answer. I argue against these positions and then pursue an account that finds its motivation in their rejection. My main claim is: the power to make promises, and other related forms of commitment, is an integral part of the ability to engage in special relationships in a morally good way. The argument proceeds by examining what would be missing, morally, from intimate relationships if we lacked this power. (shrink)

The dominant conventionalist view explains the wrong of breaking a promise as failing to do our fair share in supporting the practice of promise-keeping. Yet, this account fails to explain any unique moral standing that a promisee has to demand that the promisor keep the promise. In this paper, I provide a conventionalist response to this problem. In any cooperative practice, participants stand as both beneficiary and contributor. As a beneficiary, they are morally required to follow the rules of the (...) practice. As a contributor, they have claims on other participants to follow the rules. According to the rules of promise-keeping, a promisee has a unique claim on the promisor, and the personal wrong of breaking a promise should be understood as the violation of this unique and practice-dependent claim. (shrink)

While the energy transition is needed more than ever, for some agents it brings significant losses. This article investigates whether fossil fuel owners could refer to promises to avoid having their assets stranded. It explains how authors, in the context of just transitions, have argued for the normative relevance of Rawlsian legitimate expectations, which refer to promissory entitlements. However, it argues that the normative relevance of promises towards fossil fuel owners is limited, because there are only few (...) class='Hi'>promises about what will be permissible in the future and because these promises should be just before they can lead to entitlements. (shrink)

We often promise to ϕ despite having evidence that there is a significant chance that we won’t ϕ. This gives rise to a pressing philosophical problem: Are we irresponsible in making such promises since, it seems, we are insincere or irrational in making them? I argue that we needn’t be. When it’s up to us to ϕ, our practical reasons for ϕ-ing partly determine whether it is rational for us to believe that we will ϕ. That is why we (...) can sometimes rationally believe that we will ϕ even if our belief goes against the evidence. (shrink)

It is now popular to think that promissory obligation is grounded in an invitation to trust. I object that there are important differences between invitations and promises; appealing to trust faces one of the main problems alleged to face appealing to expectations; and whatever puzzles afflict promissory obligation afflict the obligation not to renege on one’s invitations.

I first distinguish promises with positive sexual content (e.g., promises to perform sexual acts) and promises with negative sexual content (e.g., promises to refrain from sexual acts—as one does when making monogamy promises). I argue that sexual content—even positive sexual content—does not cause a promise to misfire. However, the content of some successful promises is such that a promisee ought not to accept the promise, and, if she does accept, she ought then to release (...) her promisor from the promise. I argue that both positive and negative sexual promises have content of this kind. (shrink)

This paper argues that we ought to conceive of the Dark Energy problem—the question of how to account for observational data, naturally interpreted as accelerated expansion of the universe—as a crisis of underdetermined pursuit-worthiness. Not only are the various approaches to the Dark Energy problem evidentially underdetermined; at present, no compelling reasons single out any of them as more likely to be true than the other. More vexingly for working scientists, none of the approaches stands out as uncontroversially preferable over (...) its rivals in terms of its rationally warranted promise, i.e. the reasons to further work on, explore, and develop it. We demonstrate this claim by applying a Peircean economic model of pursuit-worthiness in terms of a cognitive cost/benefit estimate—with the instantiation of theory virtues as key indicators of cognitive gains—to the four main Dark Energy proposals (the cosmological constant approach, modified gravity, quintessence, and inhomogeneous cosmologies). According to our analysis, these approaches do not admit of an unambiguous, or uncontroversial, ranking with respect to which ansatz deserves distinguished attention and research efforts. The overall methodological counsel that our analysis underwrites recommends a pragmatic double research strategy forward: to encourage and foster theory pluralism and the search for tests—with the goal of enhancing the testability of the \(\Lambda \) CDM model and “testing it to destruction". (shrink)

In this paper I examine the relationship between promise and gesture, in order to understand how they co-participate in the configuration of our life-histories. I start by noticing the role played by promise in establishing a dialogical pact of trust, through which an experiential cohesion is maintained through time. Reflecting on the variable conditions of mutual trust, I focus on crisis-situations when we cannot keep the promises we make to others and to ourselves. Relying on the thesis of an (...) “original forgiveness”, I argue that our promises operate beyond the initial intention that animates them and even beyond their failure. I then show that failed promises reveal a broader state of self-fragmentation, engaging the other as a mediator between segments of experience that remain otherwise difficult to bring together and to reconcile by oneself. I close by highlighting the role played by gestures in cultivating this mediation. (shrink)

Promising is a norm-guided affair. The question is wherein rests the authority of promissory standards? The chapter argues that it entirely rests in promissory practices, a position The chapter calls _the exhaustive practice position_ (EPP). EPP claims that promising is a practice and nothing more, normatively speaking, and denies that the relevant standards embodied by promissory practices have any practice-external authority. The chapter discusses what implications EPP would have for our promissory commitments. The chapter addresses the worry that accepting EPP (...) would make it harder for us to remain loyal to those commitments—that if we cannot safely consider promissory standards to be sanctioned by a practice-external authority, we shall be unable to sustain those commitments. The chapter argues in opposition that acceptance of EPP need not prompt practically engaged agents to think any lower of their own promissory commitments. We can first-personally and self-reflectively stand by our promissory commitments even if, normatively speaking, we came to see them as part of practices and nothing more. The chapter also contrasts EPP with two competitors. First, with regards to the view that promissory norms are grounded in morality, the chapter argues that (1) this view encounters difficulties in accounting for the significance of promising in the right way, and that (2) often promissory and moral demands diverge. The chapter raises structurally similar worries with regards to a second view that promissory norms are grounded in self-interested reasons. In the final part, The chapter acknowledges that EPP offers a revisionary interpretation of promissory practices, but argues that this presents no problem. (shrink)

And, as The Promise of Salvation makes clear through abundant empirical evidence, religion will not disappear as long as these promises continue to help people ...

In my “Promising and Supererogation” I argue that one cannot fulfill promises to perform supererogatory actions (such as “I hereby promise to perform one supererogatory action every month”). In a response to my paper, David Heyd argues that there is an alternative solution to the problem I raise. While I agree with much that Heyd says about the examples he discusses, his proposed solution involves a crucial alteration of the problem; his proposed solution does not solve the problem I (...) present. (shrink)

Deeply rooted structures of racism, ableism, misogyny, ageism, and transphobia hurt great numbers of people, exposing them to intolerance, economic exclusion, and physical harm around the globe. Billions of land animals suffer and die annually in concentrated feeding operations and slaughterhouses. Our planet and all who live here are in perilous straights as the climate changes. In the face of such grievous problems, people who want to find positive ways to respond often grapple with difficult questions about how to make (...) a difference. Effective Altruism has arisen as an attempt to help answer these questions, encouraging people to give as much money as they can in the most effective ways to address human and animal suffering. But the Effective Altruists’ answers support some of the very social structures that cause suffering, undermining its efforts to “do the most good.” The Good It Promises, The Harm It Does is the first book-length critique of Effective Altruism. It brings together a diverse group of activists and scholars to explore Effective Altruism’s failure to meaningfully address forms of human and animal suffering. (shrink)

Promises are routinely treated as a useful philosophical laboratory for testing moral, volitional, and social phenomena. Recently, they have also come to be treated as a philosophical topic in its own right. Promises are individual _acts_ as well as social _practices_. To understand promises, then, is to understand individual acts of promising, practices of promising, and the relation between them. Philosophical accounts of promises are best regarded as packages of answers to several different questions (this chapter (...) will mention twelve). Closely—indeed, conceptually—related to promises are _agreements_, so a philosophical account of promises should explain the relation between promises and agreements. Also closely—and conceptually—related to promises are _contracts_ (and treaties). Arguably, contracts just _are_ legally binding agreements or promises. If this is right, then understanding promises and agreements is a precondition on understanding contracts (and treaties). This chapter broaches some of the more interesting issues in the growing philosophical literature on promises. It closes with an overview of the collection. (shrink)

If I promise to pick you up at the airport, I thereby become obligated to do so. But this is not the only way I could undertake this obligation. If I offer to pick you up, and you accept my offer, I become obligated to pick you up in much the same way. I would also undertake similar obligations if you asked me to pick you up and I accepted your request, or if we made an agreement that I will (...) pick you up at the airport and in exchange you’ll buy me dinner. Why are the normative effects of accepted offers, accepted requests, and agreements so similar to those of promises? I argue that theorists of promising need to answer this question, and so they need to pay attention to offers, requests, and agreements. On the theory I defend, promises, offers, requests, and agreements have such similar normative effects because they all result in joint decisions between the relevant parties. I argue that this ‘joint decision view’ provides an attractive explanation of the similarities and differences between promises, offers, requests, and agreements. (shrink)

Emerging infectious diseases such as Ebola, Hendra, SARS, West Nile, Hepatitis E and avian influenza have led to a renewed recognition of how diseases in human beings, wildlife and livestock are interlinked. The changing prevalence and spread of such infections are largely determined by human activities and changes in environment and climate—where the latter are often also caused by human activities. Since the beginning of the 21st century, these insights have been brought together under the heading of OneHealth—a concept that (...) calls for interdisciplinary collaboration between various sciences as well as professional practices to promote and protect the health of human and non-human animals and the natural environment. Just as insights from public health have led to a broadened focus for health policy and medical care, from treating individual patients to protecting and promoting population health, OneHealth calls for an even broader perspective, including a concern for the environment and animals, and for social-cultural factors that affect human, animal and environmental health. OneHealth not only covers collaborative work to understand and control zoonotic diseases, but also other ways in which interactions between animals, plants and humans may positively or negatively impact on each other’s health. Thus, studies in veterinary medicine and environmental sciences may lead to new insights in human medicine, and vice versa. Acknowledgment of the links between environmental, animal and social health is of course not a novel insight. Hippocrates already pointed to the importance of a clean environment as a requirement for good health; the early public health movements emphasized hygienic living conditions including good-quality housing, sewage systems and clean air and water; and the founders of modern medicine such as William Osler and Rudolf Virchow promoted …. (shrink)

My paper explores the power that forgiveness and the promise, as potentialities of action, have to counter the two difficulties that follow from the possibility of being able to begin something new or what Arendt calls the ‘frailty of human affairs’: irreversibility and unpredictability. Acts of forgiving and promising are expressions of freedom and natality, as they begin human relations anew: forgiveness creates a fresh beginning after wrong-doing, and the promise initiates new political agreements. Arendt argues that forgiveness and the (...) promise depend on plurality. They also create more favorable conditions for people to live together in the public world. Historically, forgiveness has been important in political thought in the form of pardon. In contrast, promises have been conceptualised in political thought primarily in contract theories. (shrink)

I aim to understand how the act of becoming an organ donor impacts whether it is permissible for a family veto to override an individual’s wish to donate. I argue that a Consent Model does not capture the right understanding of donor autonomy. I then assess a Gift Model and a Promise Model, arguing that both fail to capture important data about the ability to revoke one’s donor status. I then propose a Promise Acceptance Model, which construes becoming an organ (...) donor as accepting a promise the state makes to you to use your organs. This model, which implies that family vetoes are impermissible, captures the data other models struggle to accommodate. (shrink)

I Can we make promises to ourselves? This is a question that has not received much consideration in the large body of philosophical work on promising. And in what commentary there is, the answer is uniformly negative. I think this negativity is a mistake, and that the conventional view that we can't make reflexive promises is wrong. I also think that this has some important implications for promissory theory in general. In what follows, I will attempt to argue (...) for the first of these two claims, and to briefly outline my reasons for the second. (shrink)

Codes of medical ethics (codes) are part of a longstanding tradition in which physicians publicly state their core values and commitments to patients, peers, and the public. However, codes are not static. Using the historical evolution of the Canadian Medical Association's Code of Ethics as an illustrative case, we argue that codes are living, socio-historically situated documents that comprise a mix of prescriptive and aspirational content. Reflecting their socio-historical situation, we can expect the upheaval of the COVID-19 pandemic to prompt (...) calls to revise codes. Indeed, Alex John London has argued in favour of specific modifications to the World Medical Association's International Code of Medical Ethics (which has since been revised) in light of moral and scientific failures that occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Responding to London, we address the more general question: should codes be modified to reflect lessons drawn from the COVID-19 pandemic or future such upheavals? We caution that codes face limitations as instruments of policy change because they are inherently interpretive and ‘multivocal’, that is, they usually underdetermine or provide more than one answer to the question, ‘What should I do now?’ Nonetheless, as both prescriptive and aspirational documents, codes also serve as tools for reflection and deliberation—collective practices that are necessary to engaging with and addressing the moral and scientific uncertainties inherent to medicine. (shrink)

The Rashomon set of equally-good models promises less discriminatory algorithms, reduced outcome homogenization, and fairer decisions through model ensembles or reconciliation. However, we argue from the perspective of allocation multiplicity that these promises may remain unfulfilled. When there are more qualified candidates than resources available, many different allocations of scarce resources can achieve the same utility. This space of equal-utility allocations may not be faithfully reflected by the Rashomon set, as we show in a case study of healthcare (...) allocations. We attribute these unfulfilled promises to several factors: limitations in empirical methods for sampling from the Rashomon set, the standard practice of deterministically selecting individuals with the lowest risk, and structural biases that cause all equally-good models to view some qualified individuals as inherently risky. (shrink)

Increasing concerns for climate change call for radical changes in food systems. There is a need to pay more attention to the entangled changes in technological development, food production, as well as consumption and consumer demand. Consumer and market interest in alternative meat and milk products—such as plant based milk, plant protein products and cultured meat and milk—is increasing. At the same time, statistics do not show a decrease in meat consumption. Yet alternatives have been suggested to have great transitional (...) potential, appealing to different consumer segments, diets, and identities. We review 123 social scientific journal articles on cell-based and plant-based meat and milk alternatives to understand how the positioning of alternatives as both same and different in relation to animal-based products influences their role within the protein transition. We position the existing literature into three themes: promissory narratives and tensions on markets, consumer preferences, attitudes, and behavioral change policies, and the politics and ethics of the alternatives. Based on our analysis of the literature, we suggest that more research is needed to understand the broader ethical impacts of the re-imagination of the food system inherent in meat and milk alternatives. There is also a need to direct more attention to the impacts of meat and milk alternatives to the practices of agricultural practices and food production at the farm-level. A closer examination of these research gaps can contribute to a better understanding of the transformative potential of alternatives on a systemic level. (shrink)

Supersymmetry (SUSY) has long been considered an exceptionally promising theory. A central role for the promise has been played by naturalness arguments. Yet, given the absence of experimental findings it is questionable whether the promise will ever be fulfilled. Here, I provide an analysis of the promises associated with SUSY, employing a concept of pursuitworthiness. A research program like SUSY is pursuitworthy if (1) it has the plausible potential to provide high epistemic gain and (2) that gain can be (...) achieved with manageable research efforts. Naturalness arguments have been employed to support both conditions (1) and (2). First, SUSY has been motivated by way of analogy: the proposed symmetry between fermions and bosons is supposed to ‘protect’ the small Higgs mass from large quantum corrections just as the electron mass is protected through the chiral symmetry. Thus, SUSY held the promise of solving a major problem of the Standard Model of particle physics. Second, naturalness arguments have been employed to indicate that such gain is achievable at relatively low cost: SUSY discoveries seemed to be well in reach of upcoming high-energy experiments. While the first part of the naturalness argument may have the right form to facilitate considerations of pursuitworthiness, the second part of the argument has been problematically overstated. (shrink)

The normative mechanics of promising seem complex. The strength and content of promissory obligations, and the residual duties they entail upon being violated, have various prima facie surprising features. We give an account to explain these features. Promises have a point. The point of a promise to φ is a promise-independent reason to φ for the promisee’s sake. A promise turns this reason into a duty. This explains the mechanics of promises. And it grounds a nuanced picture of (...) immoral promises, an argument against promissory bare wrongings, and a constraint on theories of why we have promissory obligations at all. (shrink)

According to many scholars, kidney xenotransplantation promises to mitigate the organ supply shortage. This claim has a certain obviousness to it: by flooding the market with a new source of kidneys, xenotransplantation promises to be a panacea. Our goal is to challenge this claim. We argue that xenotransplantation may increase rather than decrease demand for kidneys, may reduce kidney allotransplants, and may be inaccessible or otherwise unused. By offering the challenge, we hope to show deeper reflection is needed (...) on how xenotransplantation will affect the dearth of available organs. (shrink)