Pub Date : 2022-07-01DOI: 10.1017/S0031819122000237
Jeffrey Seidman
Abstract I elucidate a frame of mind that David Wiggins calls respect for nature, which he understands as a special attitude toward a sui generis object, Nature as such. A person with this frame of mind takes nature to impose defeasible limits on her action, so that there are some courses of action that she will refuse even to entertain, except in circumstances of dire exigency. I defend the reasonableness of respect for nature, drawing upon considerations in Wiggins's work. But I argue that the natural systems that comprise the proper object of respect for nature are not sui generis; they are kindred, for practical reason, to complex social, political, and economic systems that we inhabit. I argue that it is reasonable to treat all such valuable systems with a similar respect, and that this respect is continuous with the respect we owe to persons and to valuable objects more generally. In all of these cases, respect consists, in part, in a disposition to defeasible constraints on practical deliberation.
{"title":"Respect for Nature, Respect for Persons, Respect for Value","authors":"Jeffrey Seidman","doi":"10.1017/S0031819122000237","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819122000237","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I elucidate a frame of mind that David Wiggins calls respect for nature, which he understands as a special attitude toward a sui generis object, Nature as such. A person with this frame of mind takes nature to impose defeasible limits on her action, so that there are some courses of action that she will refuse even to entertain, except in circumstances of dire exigency. I defend the reasonableness of respect for nature, drawing upon considerations in Wiggins's work. But I argue that the natural systems that comprise the proper object of respect for nature are not sui generis; they are kindred, for practical reason, to complex social, political, and economic systems that we inhabit. I argue that it is reasonable to treat all such valuable systems with a similar respect, and that this respect is continuous with the respect we owe to persons and to valuable objects more generally. In all of these cases, respect consists, in part, in a disposition to defeasible constraints on practical deliberation.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"97 1","pages":"361 - 385"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47199795","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-24DOI: 10.1017/S0031819122000134
Diane Jeske
Luke Russell’s Being Evil is an extraordinarily clear and succinct presentation of the leading accounts of the nature of evil action. Russell surveys these theories, offering concise criticisms of each, thereby paving the way for a defense of his own view according to which evil actions are just extreme cases of certain types of wrongdoing. The clarity and range of Russell’s discussion, in conjunction with the brevity of the book – the text itself is only 127 short pages –make it an excellent choice for someone wanting a quick overview of the field with some critical content, an accompaniment to an undergraduate course on the topic, or as a unit in amorewide-ranging ethics course. Russell notes that there are some who think that we should get rid of the concept of evil because it is a ‘myth’ requiring supernatural commitments to some sort of demonic entities. Thus, he says, ‘those...whowant to defend this concept are required to give a plausible and informative definition of evil, and to show that this definition accurately describes some things in the real world’ (p. 45). Beginning in Chapter 2 he surveys accounts of evil which see it as qualitatively different from ‘ordinary wrong-doing,’ accounts which attempt to locate that qualitative difference in either (i) our reactions to the action, (ii) the psychology of the agent, or (iii) the nature of the harm caused by the action (p. 45). In responding to each of these appeals to some special feature that marks off evil actions from non-evil wrongdoing, Russell progresses through several versions, refining them until he reaches a final version. I will discuss his general objections to appeals to each of the three features that have been suggested as possible candidates for what makes a qualitative difference between evil and ordinary wrong-doing. Chapter 2 discusses ‘response-dependent’ accounts of evil action, i.e. accounts which hold ‘that the qualitative difference that marks out evil actions is a distinctive response from victims or third-party observers’ (p. 43). Such a response might be emotive (horror or
{"title":"Being Evil by Luke Russell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).","authors":"Diane Jeske","doi":"10.1017/S0031819122000134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819122000134","url":null,"abstract":"Luke Russell’s Being Evil is an extraordinarily clear and succinct presentation of the leading accounts of the nature of evil action. Russell surveys these theories, offering concise criticisms of each, thereby paving the way for a defense of his own view according to which evil actions are just extreme cases of certain types of wrongdoing. The clarity and range of Russell’s discussion, in conjunction with the brevity of the book – the text itself is only 127 short pages –make it an excellent choice for someone wanting a quick overview of the field with some critical content, an accompaniment to an undergraduate course on the topic, or as a unit in amorewide-ranging ethics course. Russell notes that there are some who think that we should get rid of the concept of evil because it is a ‘myth’ requiring supernatural commitments to some sort of demonic entities. Thus, he says, ‘those...whowant to defend this concept are required to give a plausible and informative definition of evil, and to show that this definition accurately describes some things in the real world’ (p. 45). Beginning in Chapter 2 he surveys accounts of evil which see it as qualitatively different from ‘ordinary wrong-doing,’ accounts which attempt to locate that qualitative difference in either (i) our reactions to the action, (ii) the psychology of the agent, or (iii) the nature of the harm caused by the action (p. 45). In responding to each of these appeals to some special feature that marks off evil actions from non-evil wrongdoing, Russell progresses through several versions, refining them until he reaches a final version. I will discuss his general objections to appeals to each of the three features that have been suggested as possible candidates for what makes a qualitative difference between evil and ordinary wrong-doing. Chapter 2 discusses ‘response-dependent’ accounts of evil action, i.e. accounts which hold ‘that the qualitative difference that marks out evil actions is a distinctive response from victims or third-party observers’ (p. 43). Such a response might be emotive (horror or","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"97 1","pages":"545 - 548"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45678074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-16DOI: 10.1017/s0031819122000122
Cathy Mason
{"title":"The Women Are up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics by Benjamin Lipscomb (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021).","authors":"Cathy Mason","doi":"10.1017/s0031819122000122","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819122000122","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47116176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1017/S0031819122000171
B. Lord
{"title":"Spinoza's Religion: A New Reading of the Ethics by Clare Carlisle (Princeton University Press, 2021).","authors":"B. Lord","doi":"10.1017/S0031819122000171","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819122000171","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"98 1","pages":"103 - 106"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44274904","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-05-06DOI: 10.1017/S0031819122000092
Roberto Fumagalli
Abstract This paper provides a philosophical assessment of leading theory-based, evidence-based and coherentist approaches to the definition and the measurement of well-being. It then builds on this assessment to articulate a reformed division of labor for the science of well-being and argues that this reformed division of labor can improve on the proffered approaches by combining the most plausible tenets of theory-based approaches with the most plausible tenets of coherentist approaches. This result does not per se exclude the possibility that theory-based and coherentist approaches may be independently improved or amended in the years to come. Still, together with the challenges that affect these approaches, it strengthens the case for combining the most plausible tenets of those approaches.
{"title":"A Reformed Division of Labor for the Science of Well-Being","authors":"Roberto Fumagalli","doi":"10.1017/S0031819122000092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819122000092","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper provides a philosophical assessment of leading theory-based, evidence-based and coherentist approaches to the definition and the measurement of well-being. It then builds on this assessment to articulate a reformed division of labor for the science of well-being and argues that this reformed division of labor can improve on the proffered approaches by combining the most plausible tenets of theory-based approaches with the most plausible tenets of coherentist approaches. This result does not per se exclude the possibility that theory-based and coherentist approaches may be independently improved or amended in the years to come. Still, together with the challenges that affect these approaches, it strengthens the case for combining the most plausible tenets of those approaches.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"97 1","pages":"509 - 543"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42691567","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-26DOI: 10.1017/s0031819122000109
James Alexander
{"title":"Confronting Leviathan: A History of Ideas by David Runciman (London: Profile Books).","authors":"James Alexander","doi":"10.1017/s0031819122000109","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0031819122000109","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138528491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-18DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0045
R. Hackenberg, K. Welle
coronary syndromes (VIP trial) and high-risk PTCA (COURT trial), the latter not quoted by the authors. Both studies showed that there was no difference in terms of major cardiac events (VIP trial) or even a 45% reduction with a non-ionic contrast medium (iodixanol) when compared to an ionic medium (ioxaglate) in the COURT trial. These discrepancies could result from some methodological flaws noted in the study of Scheller et al. Actually, in the Scheller study, the randomization process was not really adequately performed. It mentioned that one angio-lab was working with one contrast medium when the other lab used the alternative agent. Even if both angio-labs have the same equipment, we cannot be sure that one is not older than the other, that the more seriously ill patients were treated in the new, better laboratory, or that the most skilled, experienced operators were working in only one of the two angiolabs. Thus, we cannot trust this ‘pseudo-randomization’. As a result, there was an important heterogeneity in the two arms of the study population, and more seriously ill patients (ACS+CCS Class IV patients) were in the non-ionic arm. In addition, it is stated that diagnostic coronary angiography was performed with non-ionic contrast media. However, in the interventional procedure, the patients received either non-ionic or ioxaglate, depending on the daily availability in the allocated room. Thus, taking into account the current practice of ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention, this means that half the patients initially received ionic contrast medium followed by non-ionic contrast medium . . . How can we seriously compare the results in those conditions? Furthermore, the ionic contrast medium was compared to six different non-ionic agents: the respective administration of these agents ranged from 5 to 39% respectively. Finally, the authors mentioned that in contrast to the VIP study, iodixanol had the highest rate of subacute stent occlusion (5%), but only 5% (i.e. 90 patients) received this agent. This means that only four of them had subacute occlusion and, again, is it possible to draw any conclusions from these limited data? There are, as listed, several flaws in the concept and design of Scheller et al.’s paper. This study cannot challenge properly conducted, randomized studies, such as the VIP and COURT trials.
{"title":"In reply.","authors":"R. Hackenberg, K. Welle","doi":"10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0045","url":null,"abstract":"coronary syndromes (VIP trial) and high-risk PTCA (COURT trial), the latter not quoted by the authors. Both studies showed that there was no difference in terms of major cardiac events (VIP trial) or even a 45% reduction with a non-ionic contrast medium (iodixanol) when compared to an ionic medium (ioxaglate) in the COURT trial. These discrepancies could result from some methodological flaws noted in the study of Scheller et al. Actually, in the Scheller study, the randomization process was not really adequately performed. It mentioned that one angio-lab was working with one contrast medium when the other lab used the alternative agent. Even if both angio-labs have the same equipment, we cannot be sure that one is not older than the other, that the more seriously ill patients were treated in the new, better laboratory, or that the most skilled, experienced operators were working in only one of the two angiolabs. Thus, we cannot trust this ‘pseudo-randomization’. As a result, there was an important heterogeneity in the two arms of the study population, and more seriously ill patients (ACS+CCS Class IV patients) were in the non-ionic arm. In addition, it is stated that diagnostic coronary angiography was performed with non-ionic contrast media. However, in the interventional procedure, the patients received either non-ionic or ioxaglate, depending on the daily availability in the allocated room. Thus, taking into account the current practice of ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention, this means that half the patients initially received ionic contrast medium followed by non-ionic contrast medium . . . How can we seriously compare the results in those conditions? Furthermore, the ionic contrast medium was compared to six different non-ionic agents: the respective administration of these agents ranged from 5 to 39% respectively. Finally, the authors mentioned that in contrast to the VIP study, iodixanol had the highest rate of subacute stent occlusion (5%), but only 5% (i.e. 90 patients) received this agent. This means that only four of them had subacute occlusion and, again, is it possible to draw any conclusions from these limited data? There are, as listed, several flaws in the concept and design of Scheller et al.’s paper. This study cannot challenge properly conducted, randomized studies, such as the VIP and COURT trials.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"119 11 1","pages":"199-200"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69554020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-18DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0046
J. D. Süss, M. Gawenda
The assertion by Takayama et al. (1) that their study ‘‘strongly supports’’ saccharin’s lack of carcinogenicity in nonhuman primates is incorrect. The study actually presents results from four small groups of rhesus, cynomolgus, African green, and rhesuscynomolgus hybrid monkeys (total, n 4 20 animals), the latter two groups having no controls. Study insensitivity from small numbers of animals (at a minimum, six of the 20 animals would have had to have been positive for the results to be significant) is compounded by the low dose of saccharin that was employed—17.9 mg/kg body weight per day, averaged over 1 week. That level of saccharin approximates what many Americans consumed. For instance, the 1977–78 90th-percentiles of saccharin consumption in adults and 3to 5-yearold children were 10.5 mg/kg body weight per day and 19.7 mg/kg body weight per day, respectively(2). Per capita consumption has increased slightly since then(3). Thus, the study’s results provide no assurance of safety. While Takayama et al. assert their study indicates that saccharin is not carcinogenic, we note that three of the treated monkeys, but none of the controls, had tumors. Only better-designed studies could determine if saccharin can cause tumors in primates. Takayama et al., and the accompanying editorial by Zurlo and Squire(4), present as established fact a theory as to how saccharin might cause bladder tumors in male rats, but not in humans. The theory proposes a concatenation of events triggered by high doses of sodium saccharin that lead to amorphous precipitates that irritate epithelial cells and cause tumors. That mechanism is far from proven. Furthermore, saccharin causes bladder tumors not only in male rats but also in females, albeit less frequently, but the mechanism by which saccharin causes tumors in females has been poorly investigated. The mechanism also does not explain saccharin’s promoter activity. Even if that theory were proven for bladder tumors in male rats, saccharin may cause tumors by more than one mechanism. Moreover, it has caused tumors in other organs and in other species [reviewed in(5)]. In rats, saccharin has caused tumors of the ovaries, uterus, forestomach, skin, and at all sites (other than bladder). In mice, saccharin has caused tumors of the vascular system, lung, uterus, and other sites. The authors fail to report that saccharin causes dominant-lethal mutations in mice, strongly suggesting potential carcinogenicity(6). Takayama et al. state that epidemiologic studies ‘‘failed to show any effect’’ on bladder tumor incidences, and Zurlo and Squire note the ‘‘absence of any conclusive epidemiologic data’’ that saccharin is associated with bladder tumors. Those statements ignore findings from the most sensitive studies. By far the largest study(7), conducted by the National Cancer Institute, found associations between consumption of artificial sweetener and bladder cancer in high-risk males, low-risk females, and males and females comb
{"title":"Reasoning is too narrowly focused.","authors":"J. D. Süss, M. Gawenda","doi":"10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0046","url":null,"abstract":"The assertion by Takayama et al. (1) that their study ‘‘strongly supports’’ saccharin’s lack of carcinogenicity in nonhuman primates is incorrect. The study actually presents results from four small groups of rhesus, cynomolgus, African green, and rhesuscynomolgus hybrid monkeys (total, n 4 20 animals), the latter two groups having no controls. Study insensitivity from small numbers of animals (at a minimum, six of the 20 animals would have had to have been positive for the results to be significant) is compounded by the low dose of saccharin that was employed—17.9 mg/kg body weight per day, averaged over 1 week. That level of saccharin approximates what many Americans consumed. For instance, the 1977–78 90th-percentiles of saccharin consumption in adults and 3to 5-yearold children were 10.5 mg/kg body weight per day and 19.7 mg/kg body weight per day, respectively(2). Per capita consumption has increased slightly since then(3). Thus, the study’s results provide no assurance of safety. While Takayama et al. assert their study indicates that saccharin is not carcinogenic, we note that three of the treated monkeys, but none of the controls, had tumors. Only better-designed studies could determine if saccharin can cause tumors in primates. Takayama et al., and the accompanying editorial by Zurlo and Squire(4), present as established fact a theory as to how saccharin might cause bladder tumors in male rats, but not in humans. The theory proposes a concatenation of events triggered by high doses of sodium saccharin that lead to amorphous precipitates that irritate epithelial cells and cause tumors. That mechanism is far from proven. Furthermore, saccharin causes bladder tumors not only in male rats but also in females, albeit less frequently, but the mechanism by which saccharin causes tumors in females has been poorly investigated. The mechanism also does not explain saccharin’s promoter activity. Even if that theory were proven for bladder tumors in male rats, saccharin may cause tumors by more than one mechanism. Moreover, it has caused tumors in other organs and in other species [reviewed in(5)]. In rats, saccharin has caused tumors of the ovaries, uterus, forestomach, skin, and at all sites (other than bladder). In mice, saccharin has caused tumors of the vascular system, lung, uterus, and other sites. The authors fail to report that saccharin causes dominant-lethal mutations in mice, strongly suggesting potential carcinogenicity(6). Takayama et al. state that epidemiologic studies ‘‘failed to show any effect’’ on bladder tumor incidences, and Zurlo and Squire note the ‘‘absence of any conclusive epidemiologic data’’ that saccharin is associated with bladder tumors. Those statements ignore findings from the most sensitive studies. By far the largest study(7), conducted by the National Cancer Institute, found associations between consumption of artificial sweetener and bladder cancer in high-risk males, low-risk females, and males and females comb","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"119 11 1","pages":"197"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69554044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：