Search

The paper presents an analysis and interpretation of axiology and ethics as seen by the writer and philosopher Ayn Rand. The author follows the assumption that, in a situation where indifference is observed with regard to values (cf. Simmel, Sloterdijk), a return of philosophical reasoning to the idea of objectivity of values could be worthwhile. Therefore, he examines a specific type of axiological objectivism that can be found in Rand's work. In the present paper, the suggested comparison with Baden neo-Kantism as well as phenomenological axiology serves to capture the specifics of Rand's axiological approach. These lie in placing emphasis on such a relationship between facts and values in which values result from the facts of reality, as well as in the very understanding of the objectivity of values that Rand identifies with long-term life goals and identifies them as an objective necessity for an individual's life. Following the analysis of Rand's axiology, the author focuses on her understanding of ethics, which he places in contrast to Kant's deontology, as well as morality, which he views through the prism of a business relationship based on the exchange of values. The aim of the paper is to, by means of an analysis and interpretation of Rand's ideas, show that objective values can be understood as a necessary prerequisite for consequential ethics and an individual living a happy life without being anchored in transcendence or social consensus. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I ask you to X. You now have a reason to X. My request gave you a reason. How? One unpopular theory is the epistemic account, according to which requests do not create any new reasons but instead simply reveal information. For instance, my request that you X reveals that I desire that you X, and my desire gives you a reason to X. Peter Schaber has recently attacked both the epistemic account and other theories of the reason-giving force of requests. Schaber defends a new theory of the reason-giving force of requests according to which request give reasons because it is valuable for requesters and requestees that requests have this power. In this paper I argue that Schaber's attack on the epistemic account fails, and that his own theory ought to be rejected because it faces compelling objections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is widely accepted that Counselling Psychology is underpinned by both Humanist and Post-Modern epistemologies, and that it holds the practitioner's 'use of self' in the service of the therapeutic relationship to be paramount in the therapeutic encounter. Although Humanism and Post-Modernism can both provide theoretical pretexts for the use of self, these stances to knowledge can be experienced as in conflict with each other, and so generate ambiguity and conflict for trainees. The academic (University) contexts of training courses can feed into aspects of these epistemological conflicts in that they uphold individualist-objectivist stances to knowledge/evidence and styles of communication. In this paper psychological literature is drawn upon to explore how trainees are positioned by the discourses of 'self and 'development' that are available to them, with particular reference to the discourse of 'reflective-practice'. The concept of a plural and dialogical self is used to suggest augmenting the manner in which personal and professional development is conducted and assessed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper argues that participants in the subjectivism/objectivism/hybridism debate, a central issue in recent meaning in life research, conflate two different distinctions marked by the terms objective and subjective, one having to do with the question of whether life's meaningfulness depends on factors internal or external to the agent, the other having to do with the question of whether there is any 'absolute' as opposed to 'relative' truth about the first question. The paper then argues that a distinctive type of hybridism with respect to the first sense is true. To vindicate this type of hybridism, the paper identifies, by using examples and counterexamples, internal and external necessary conditions for having meaningful lives. In this type of hybridism, internal states that are not directed at external factors, such as autonomy, serenity and contentment, are also taken account of, and, more generally, internal and external factors need not relate to each other at all. Further, although the more a combination of internal and external factors is valuable the more meaningful a life is, not any increase in the value of any relevant internal or external factor enhances meaning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this paper is to understand the difference between Expressionist Theory and Objectivist Theory of Art and critically evaluate the importance of both of them. There have been many theories in Art. The Expressionist Theory can be considered as the most popular one. Croce and Collingwood are two major representatives of this theory. According to this theory, Art is basically the self-expression of the artist shared by others. In 20th Century Karl R. Popper raised some serious objections against the Expressionist Theory and presented his own theory of Art called the Objectivist Theory. The study is fundamentally theoretical and qualitative in nature and the original writings of Collingwood, Kant and Popper are used. Finally, it has been concluded that this theory is outstanding from the point of view of an artist but has certain limitations, if we analyze it from the point of view of a philosopher and a metaphysician. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arguments from perceptual variation challenge the view that colors are objective properties of objects, properties that objects have independent of how they are perceived. This paper attempts, first, to diagnose one central reason why arguments from perceptual variation seem especially challenging for objectivists about color. Second, we offer a response to this challenge, claiming that once we focus on determinate colors rather than the determinables they determine, a response to arguments from perceptual variation becomes apparent. Third, our nominal opponents are relationalist (like Cohen in The red and the real: an essay on color ontology, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009) and we will argue that the main argument for rejecting objectivism commits the relationalist to a position that is more radical than the one he would wish to endorse. Fourth, we suggest that insight into which properties could be relational may be found by looking to our best scientific theories. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper explores the views of leading Czech physicists regarding a physics curriculum for upper secondary schools. This paper presents the first part of an effort to define starting points for a new physics curriculum in Czechia (subsequent phases would analyze the opinions of other scientists, education experts, and physics teachers regarding the physicists' ideas) and create a new physics textbook for upper secondary schools. The methodology was inspired especially by the objectivist grounded theory. We conducted in‐depth interviews about the upper secondary physics curriculum with 29 leading Czech physicists and identified 56 ideas (categories) that they agreed on (according to the interview analysis). Subsequently, a questionnaire was created based on these 56 ideas. Two years later, the same group of physicists were asked to express their opinions on the ideas on a 7‐point Likert scale. The new survey sought to clarify the relevance and permanence of the ideas, and the physicists' willingness to collaborate on constructing a physics curriculum for upper secondary schools. Four core categories—students, physics, context, and math—were identified through a comparison of the relevance of the ideas. Additionally, we compared the questionnaire answers of a physicist with their opinions during the interview and identified 43 ideas as permanent (in the 2‐year interval). Surprisingly, 26 of the 29 researchers in the initial study completed the subsequent questionnaire survey and 13 among these expressed their willingness to contribute to the development of a physics textbook for upper secondary schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What grounds the truth of modal statements? And how do we get to know about what is possible or necessary? One of the most prominent anti-realist perspectives on the nature of modality, due to Peter Menzies, is the response-dependent account of modal concepts. Typically, offering a response-dependent account of a concept means defining it in terms of dispositions to elicit certain mental states from suitable agents under suitable circumstances. Menzies grounded possibility and necessity in the conceivability-response of ideal conceivers: P is possible iff an ideal conceiver could conceive that P. I will draw attention to three major objections that can be identified in the modal metaphysics and epistemology literature: Chalmers' Incoherency Objection, Sherratt's Transparency Objection and Geirsson's Irrelevancy Objection. Each of these objections raises a different worry regarding Menzies' account: that the notion of an ideal conceiver is incoherent, that the account implies a controversial thesis, and that it fails to offer an explanation of our knowledge of modality. The aim of this paper is to defend the response-dependent account of modality against these three objections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conventionalism about mathematics has much in common with two other views: fictionalism and the multiverse view (aka plenitudinous platonism). The three views may differ over the existence of mathematical objects, but they agree in rejecting a certain kind of objectivity claim about mathematics, advocating instead an extreme pluralism. The early parts of the paper will try to elucidate this anti‐objectivist position, and question whether conventionalism really offers a third form of it distinct from fictionalism and the multiverse view. The paper then turns to anti‐objectivism about logic, and suggests that here too conventionalism offers no distinct alternative, and that there are limits on the extent of pluralism/anti‐objectivism. It also argues that these limits can't be used to argue for more extensive objectivity within mathematics, and also that they do allow for more limited pluralism within logic, e.g. as regards resolution of semantic and property‐theoretic paradoxes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Filozofija i Drustvo is the property of University of Belgrade, Institute for Philosophy & Social Theory and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper examines the ontological and epistemological assumptions about leisure to critically assess the state of leisure scholarship. It argues that there are no intrinsic characteristics or essences inherent to leisure, and that researchers ought to make an important distinction between leisure as socially constructed social facts, and the erroneous view of leisure as an ontologically objective and universal entity. It is purported that from an epistemological standpoint the crisis of leisure sciences has never been resolved; however, the absence of a stable theory is an opportunity for new forms of research and knowledge to emerge. The article introduces postleisure as a departure from leisure-objectivism and a shift towards plural readings of leisure, which may find sufficient backbone in Rorty's notion of epistemological solidarity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper examines the Chicago sociologist William F. Ogburn's (1886–1959) views about technological unemployment, which were intimately connected to his analysis of the social impacts of technological developments and resulting social problems due to cultural lag. We trace the development of his views as seen through his well‐known 1922 book, Social Change with Respect to Culture and Original Nature, his important contributions to the President's Research Committee on Social Trends (1933), and his lesser‐known pamphlets designed for a broader audience—Living with Machines (1933), You and Machines (1934), and Machines and Tomorrow's World (1938). He used these pamphlets to educate the public about the dangers of new machines and technological unemployment. In doing so, he drew upon sociological analysis in his professional scholarly writings and his long‐standing personal interests in social betterment and social reform. Our analysis also calls into question the adequacy of existing scholarship on Ogburn that has emphasized his commitment to a statistical, dispassionate, and "objectivist" approach to social science research. We call for a revised, richer, and more complex view of Ogburn's work and legacy as one of the nation's leading social scientists during the first half of the 20th century. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Bajo Palabra: Journal of Philosophy is the property of Bajo Palabra: Journal of Philosophy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Some philosophers hold that objective consequentialism is false because it is incompatible with the principle that 'ought' implies 'can'. Roughly speaking, objective consequentialism is the doctrine that you always ought to do what will in fact have the best consequences. According to the principle that 'ought' implies 'can', you have a moral obligation to do something only if you can do that thing. Frances Howard-Snyder has used an innovative thought experiment to argue that sometimes you cannot do what will in fact have the best consequences because you do not know what will in fact have the best consequences. Erik Carlson has raised two objections against Howard-Snyder's argument. This paper examines Howard-Snyder's argument as well as Carlson's objections, arguing that Carlson's objections do not go through but Howard-Snyder's argument fails nonetheless. Moreover, this paper attempts to show that objective consequentialism and other objectivist moral theories are compatible with the principle that 'ought' implies 'can'. Finally, this paper analyses a special kind of inability: ignorance-induced inability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

By following the arguments developed by Vygotsky and employing the cultural-historical activity theory (CHAT) in addition to dialectical logic, this paper attempts to investigate the interaction between psychology and artificial intelligence (AI) to confront the epistemological and methodological challenges encountered in AI research. The paper proposes that AI is facing an epistemological and methodological crisis inherited from psychology based on dualist ontology. The roots of this crisis lie in the duality between rationalism and objectivism or in the mind-body rupture that has governed the production of scientific thought and the proliferation of approaches. In addition, by highlighting the sociohistorical conditions of AI, this paper investigates the historical characteristics of the shift of the crisis from psychology to AI. Additionally, we examine the epistemological and methodological roots of the main challenges encountered in AI research by noting that empiricism is the dominant tendency in the field. Empiricism gives rise to methodological and practical challenges, including challenges related to the emergence of meaning, abstraction, generalization, the emergence of symbols, concept formation, functional reflection of reality, and the emergence of higher psychological functions. Furthermore, through discussing attempts to formalize dialectical logic, the paper, based on contradiction formation, proposes a qualitative epistemological, methodological, and formal alternative by using a preliminary algorithmic model that grasps the formation of meaning as an essential ability for the qualitative reflection of reality and the emergence of other mental functions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this paper is to defend moral relativism from the accusation that it would make it irrational to classify past changes in public opinion as instances of moral progress, for they would constitute an improvement only from our current point of view. The argument is this. For our assessment of a change in public opinion as an instance of moral progress to be rational, we need to take the moral claims made before the change to be false simpliciter while being open to the possibility that we ourselves change our minds at some point. These two things can be made compatible if we construe moral relativism as taking the truth of moral claims to be relative to the context of assessment. Thus understood, moral relativism is in fact the only view that makes room for talk of moral progress, as the rest of candidate positions make it irrational. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism sparked a lot of interest and inclination among her readers, and even inspired them to form the Atlas Society in the United States. Her bestselling books The Fountainhead, We the Living, and Atlas Shrugged made history under the banner of American literature and enjoyed tremendous economic success as well. This study analyzes her autobiography We the Living, where she describes the hardships that aristocrats and business people endured and the brutality of communists. She implied that those in positions of leadership ought to have compassion while using their authority. Otherwise, no law can bring equal rights or peace to the people. Ayn Rand claimed that the narrative edifices the dramatic characters and the conflict between the individual and the state. This article recounts the tale of We the Living and the author's own impressions [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Filosofija, Sociologija is the property of Lithuanian Academy of Sciences Publishers and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This paper provides, in the first part, a critical examination of the standard framing of the subjectivism vs objectivism dualism in the concept and practice of 'landscape character' (LC) and, in the second part, some philosophical suggestions for its improvement. After a brief overview of the emergence of the LC notion, partly in response to the modernist-aestheticist view of landscape, and of the mentioned dualism that this notion harbours, I will discuss some main problems associated with the currently dominant 'objectivist strain' in the framing of the dualism. Such problems have a common root, namely a narrow unexamined view of experience and the aesthetic dimension. In the constructive part, I will propose to reframe the relationship between subjectivity and objectivity on a pragmatist-aesthetic basis, drawing on Simmel's notion of landscape 'mood'. Finally, I will outline some implications and advantages of the suggested alternative over both the objectivist strain in the current discourse and the modernist-aestheticist paradigm. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Discusiones Filosóficas is the property of Universidad de Caldas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Imagination plays a rich epistemic role in our cognitive lives. For example, if I want to learn whether my luggage will fit into the overhead compartment on a plane, I might imagine trying to fit it into the overhead compartment and form a belief which is justified on the basis of this imagining. But what explains the fact that imagination has the power to justify beliefs, and what is the structure of imaginative justification? In this paper, I answer these questions by arguing that imaginings manifest an epistemic status: they are epistemically evaluable as justified or unjustified. This epistemic status grounds their ability to justify beliefs, and they accrue this status in virtue of being based on evidence. Thus, imaginings are best understood as justified justifiers. I argue for this view by way of showing how it offers a satisfying explanation of certain key features of imaginative justification that would otherwise be puzzling. I also argue that imaginings exhibit a number of markers of the basing relation, which further motivates the view that imaginings can be based on evidence. The arguments in this paper have theoretically fruitful implications not only for the epistemology of imagination, but for accounts of reasoning and epistemic normativity more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Wright claims that "the epistemology of good abstraction principles should be assimilated to that of basic principles of logical inference". In this paper I follow Wright's recommendation, but I consider a different epistemology of logic, namely anti-exceptionalism. Anti-exceptionalism's main contention is that logic is not a priori, and that the choice between rival logics should be based on abductive criteria such as simplicity, adequacy to the data, strength, fruitfulness, and consistency. This paper's goal is to lay down the foundations for an application of the anti-exceptionalist methodology to abstraction principles. In Sect. 1 I outline my strategy. I show that anti-exceptionalism has a bearing on the so-called Bad Company problem (Sect. 2), and explore some versions of anti-exceptionalism about abstraction (Sect. 3). I then consider new criteria for choosing between rival abstraction principles, and, in particular, between consistent revisions of Frege's Basic Law V (Sect. 4). I finally consider how the abstractionist can compare between competing criteria (Sect. 5), and argue that anti-exceptionalists should be pluralists about abstraction (Sect. 6). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper articulates and defends a novel hybrid account of well-being. We will call our view a Robust Hybrid. We call it robust because it grants a broad and not subservient role to both objective and subjective values. In this paper we assume, we think plausibly but without argument, that there is a significant objective component to well-being. Here we clarify what it takes for an account of well-being to have a subjective component. Roughly, we argue, it must allow that favoring attitudes that are not warranted by the lights of objective values can ground benefits. Given this understanding, we show that there is an important and unrecognized expansion in the resources available to fully objectivist views: namely that such views can help themselves to the value of warranted love of objective goods. Such a move by the objectivist can help them respond to concerns that, on their view, a person's well-being can be too alien to them. We next argue that, nonetheless, such objectivist views are still unconvincing due to their lack of a subjective component. This motivates a move from fully objective accounts to hybrid accounts. We show that many prominent hybrid theories in the literature are inadequate because they implausibly minimize the subjective component. This motivates a move to a robust hybrid view that has an expanded subjectivist component. We conclude with some remarks about the interrelation between the subjective and objective components in the hybrid account that we favor and a role for resonance in a theory of well-being other than serving as a hard constraint on any benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper introduces a persistence puzzle involving two sports clubs with a somewhat intertwined history. As one might assume, the implications of the puzzle go far beyond a mere plea for a precise metaphysical analysis of certain perplexing quandaries regarding sports clubs and represents a challenge for our everyday understanding of social groups. To overcome the supposed impediment to the puzzle, as a starting point, I will accept the assumption that these entities are both social groups and abstract artifacts and will further argue that they are temporal abstract objects. Since temporal objects are in time, it will be determined that the cause of the conundrum is the seeming inability to correctly account for the I-relation between the temporal parts, and I will elaborate on why such an explanation is required. Ultimately, I'll introduce the notion of I-shifting, which will explain how temporal abstract objects persist through time and consequently solve the puzzle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The argument from appearance for the content view or intentionalism attracts a lot of attention recently. In my paper, I follow Charles Travis to argue against the key premise that representational content can be 'read off' from a certain way that a thing looks to a subject. My arguments are built upon Travis's original objection and a reinterpretation of Rodrick Chisholm's comparative and noncomparative uses of appearance words. Byrne, Schellenberg and others interpret Travis' 'visual looks' as Chisholm's comparative use, and appeal to the noncomparative use as an alternative to avoid Travis's objection. I demonstrate that they misunderstand both Chisholm and Travis. Both the comparative use and the noncomparative use are semantic notions, while 'visual looks' is a metaphysical one. Although Chisholm's appearance objectivism –– that appearance expressions attribute appearances to ordinary objects –– is close to 'visual looks', appearance objectivism is not exceptional to the noncomparative use as Byrne interprets. In the end, I also show that Byrnean's conception of distinctive visual gestalt cannot exclude contrary representational contents, because a distinctive visual gestalt can be shared by different kinds of things. Besides, Byrne and others do not explain why a distinctive visual gestalt should be presented as 'being instantiated'. Therefore, I conclude that representational content cannot be read off from a certain way that a thing looks to a subject; the argument from appearance thus fails. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the received view, philosophy of action took a justified turn towards causalism because anti‐causalists failed the causalist challenge about efficacious reasons. This paper contests that view by examining the ways in which Georg Henrik von Wright responded to causalism in his later philosophy. First, von Wright attacked the subjectivism of causalism by arguing for an objectivist view that construes reasons not as subjective mental states but as external facts of the agent's situation. Second, von Wright fundamentally disagreed with the view of philosophical inquiry that underpinned causalism. For von Wright, the task of philosophy was conceptual: to explicate what one is looking for when one is looking for the real reasons for action. In contrast, for causalists the task was ontological: to determine what kind of item in the world the real reason for action is. Examining von Wright's account contributes to contemporary assessments of the metaphilosophical dimension of the reasons/causes debate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Taiwan Law Review is the property of Angle Publishing Co., Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Cuestiones de Filosofia is the property of Universidad Pedagogica y Tecnologica de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Electrónica de Estudios Penales y de la Seguridad is the property of Revista Electronica de Estudios Penales y de la Seguridad and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Educational Thought / Revue de la Pensée Educative is the property of University of Calgary, Faculty of Education and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In "Practical Reason's Foundations" John Finnis expands and refines his view on the relationship between objective goods and practical reason. In this paper Finnis rejects the Humean conception which denies the possibility of practical reason, or at least presents an emaciated version of it. For Hume, desires just happen to us and there is no interaction between desires and beliefs. The Humean and neo-Humean positions, Finnis rightly tells us, have a powerful influence on how we understand practical reason, including our interpretation of Aristotle's conception of practical reason. I will call this the "bifurcation" thesis. Following Finnis's conception of practical reason and his rejection of a bifurcation between reasons and desires, and between intellectual virtues and virtues of character, I advance an Aristotelian-inspired model of deliberation and practical reason that is narrow and immersed. It recognizes the difficulty of understanding the Aristotelian analogies of practical reason as if it were both a craft and theoretical reasoning to illuminate and demonstrate the existence of practical reason. However, I also argue that this narrow or immersed model is in continuity with a deliberative-aspirational perspective that we are able to inhabit. We explain how reflection without losing immersion is possible and explain how we can move in the direction of practical reason that guides actions and makes possible the realization of objective goods in our lives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Several authors have recently argued that intelligibility, rather than value, constitutes life's meaning. In this paper I criticize the intelligibility view by offering examples of cases in which intelligibility and meaningfulness rates do not coincide. I show this for both meaning in life and meaning of life; under both naturalist and supernaturalist assumptions; and in ways relevant to subjectivists, objectivists, and hybridists. I show why the value view is not, in fact, vulnerable to several putative counterexamples to it, and I explain why, if value rather than intelligibility constitutes meaningfulness, there are so many cases in which intelligibility and meaningfulness rates do coincide. Finally, I explain why various arguments for the intelligibility view fail to show that it is advantageous to the value view. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper shows that conflicts of interest in science undermine its ethos. Some examples of this phenomenon have been analysed from the point of view of its destructive consequences. The need to counter them has also been identified in our country and some legal regulations and self-regulation are gradually being introduced. However, they are not always respected in practice. In the last part of the paper, a model of management of risk of bias in scientific research has been outlined. The main thesis says that an awareness of conflict of interest embracing both knowledge of the general issues and relevant assessment of the personal risk of lack of objectivism should be an ethical minimum of every scientific worker [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Acta Bioéthica is the property of Universidad de Chile, Centro Interdisciplinario de Estudios en Bioetica and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

My forthcoming book Bourdieu in the City: Challenging Urban Theory (Cambridge, Polity Press, 2023) is not intended as an eclectic combination of the structuralist and the phenomenological takes on the city rehearsing Pierre Bourdieu's influential critique of the deadly antinomy of objectivism and subjectivism. Nor does it aim just to make room for the author of Distinction in the pantheon of theorists before which students of the city are expected to genuflect. I intend the book, not as an addition, but a challenge to the urban canon and a springboard for a possible reconstruction of urban theory and inquiry around what I christen the Bourdieusian trialectic of symbolic space, social space, andphysical space. In this paper, I provide a compact characterization of the trialectic and then draw out its implications for the theory and comparative study of the city. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I offer an original account of meaning in life, which I call the passionate yearning theory. Within the framework of the passionate yearning theory, meaning is understood as the intrinsically derived yearning, and passionate striving, for something (an ideal, or a state of affairs) that possesses some plausible objective claim to truth or facticity, which makes it worth pursuing for its own sake. To properly delineate the view, I present the various criteria that serve as the foundation for the passionate yearning view. These include the truth/facticity criterion, the lack of immorality, intrinsic subjectivity, passion, yearning and striving. I then show how these criteria coalesce into the passionate yearning theory and how exactly the theory works. Finally, I motivate the passionate yearning theory by addressing some possible criticisms and objections that can be raised against the view and also differentiate it from similar competing views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, I argue that a modified version of well-being subjectivism can avoid the standard, yet unintuitive, conclusion that morally horrible acts may contribute to an agent's well-being. To make my case, I argue that "Modified Subjectivists" need not accept such conclusions about well-being so long as they accept the following three theoretical addenda: 1) there are a plurality of values pertaining to well-being, 2) there are some objective goods, even if they do not directly contribute to well-being, and 3) some of these values and goods (from 1 and 2) are bound-up with one another. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems are becoming increasingly autonomous and will soon be able to make decisions on their own about what to do, AI researchers have started to talk about the need to align AI with human values. The AI 'value alignment problem' faces two kinds of challenges--a technical and a normative one--which are interrelated. The technical challenge deals with the question of how to encode human values in artificial intelligence. The normative challenge is associated with two questions: "Which values or whose values should artificial intelligence align with?" My concern is that AI developers underestimate the difficulty of answering the normative question. They hope that we can easily identify the purposes we really desire and that they can focus on the design of those objectives. But how are we to decide which objectives or values to induce in AI, given that there is a plurality of values and moral principles and that our everyday life is full of moral disagreements?. In my paper I will show that although it is not realistic to reach an agreement on what we, humans, really want as people value different things and seek different ends, it may be possible to agree on what we do not want to happen, considering the possibility that intelligence, equal to our own, or even exceeding it, can be created. I will argue for pluralism (and not for relativism!) which is compatible with objectivism. In spite of the fact that there is no uniquely best solution to every moral problem, it is still possible to identify which answers are wrong. And this is where we should begin the value alignment of AI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The mandate to ensure and protect the health of the public is an inherent moral pursuit of any responsible government whose obligation is to care for the well-being of its citizens. Through well planned prevention of ill health, individuals can spend more of their years in good health and contribute meaningfully to the development of the society. Because of the concern in balancing respect for individual autonomy and liberty, ethical justification for government intervention to promote public health through vaccination deserves renewed scrutiny. A case in point is the suggestion for a mandatory vaccination necessitated by the latest COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccination campaigns aiming to eradicate disease have been deployed in the past to create herd immunity within a given population. Depending on the epidemiological situation, vaccinations may be voluntary in some countries but mandatory in others, with mandatory policies sometimes leading to resistance against the government. Acceptance of vaccination for preventable diseases is often high at various places. However, in Africa, as its often the case with many developing countries, a significant number often refuse vaccination due to various concerns, including cultural and religious perceptions, ideological differences, or stark ignorance or misinformation about vaccines. Proponents of mandatory vaccination argue with justification that under such epidemiological condition the state is right to act in the interest of public health. But the complexity of African society with varying cultural and religious practices also reflects on the people's perception and understanding of their health matters. Many African cultures have different notions and understanding of the causes of diseases and may thus reject vaccination for a disease they believe is spiritual or even non-existent. We are of the opinion that mandatory vaccination for COVID-19 for Africans given its heterogeneous and complex nature and significant uncertainties in both the pathophysiology and management of the virus calls for intentional and robust community engagement and dialogue. This paper will explore any ethical dilemma and present a platform to address concerns around safety, access and dissenting opinions as well as sustainability before any form of implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Analisi e Diritto is the property of Edizioni ETS s.r.l. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Logos: Anales del Seminario de Metafísica (1575-6866) is the property of Universidad Complutense de Madrid and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Meta-ethical realism faces the serious epistemological problem of how to explain our epistemic access to moral reality. In the face of this challenge many are sceptical about non-naturalist realism. Nonetheless, there is good reason to acknowledge moral objectivity: morality shows all the signs of a truth-apt discourse but doesn't exhibit the typical relativity inducing features. This suggests a middle-ground position, a theory that embraces the virtues of realism but does avoid its vices: objectivist antirealism. In this paper, I'll discuss, mainly following Crispin Wright's account of moral truth as superassertibility, a promising version of objectivist antirealism and show how to cope with notorious problems, notably those arising from the thought that moral disagreement might be possible in which nobody is guilty of a cognitive shortcoming, which contradicts the antirealist claim that moral truth is not beyond our epistemic reach. The solution is to deny the possibility of cognitively faultless moral disagreement by arguing that cognitively blameless thinkers either agree or stay agnostic and, therefore, never disagree about any moral proposition. Since assuming an agnostic stance on the part of such thinkers contradicts the antirealist's conception of truth—even within the limits of intuitionistic logic—I'll propose an alternative logical revision for the moral discourse: a three-valued logic with epistemically construed truth-values. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectivism is the view that how an agent ought to act depends on all kinds of facts, regardless of the agent's epistemic position with respect to them. One of the most important challenges to this view is constituted by certain cases involving specific conditions of uncertainty—so-called three-options cases. In these cases it seems overwhelmingly plausible that an agent ought to do what is recommendable given her limited perspective, even though the agent knows that this is not objectively the best course of action. The standard objectivist response to this challenge relies on a distinction between what one ought to do and what would be blameworthy or unreasonable to do. This response is affected by several problems. In this paper I introduce and defend an alternative objectivist response to the challenge. My proposal admits that in the relevant cases the agent ought to do what is recommendable given her perspective, but maintains that this diagnosis of the cases is fully compatible with objectivism. I argue that this proposal has several advantages over alternative accounts of the cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is now a significant body of literature on consequentialist ethics that propose satisficing instead of maximizing accounts. Even though epistemology recently witnessed a widespread discussion of teleological and consequentialist theories, a satisficing account is surprisingly not developed yet. The aim of this paper is to do just that. The rough idea is that epistemic rules are justified if and only if they satisfice the epistemic good, i.e., reach some threshold of epistemic value (which varies with practical context), and believing is justified if and only if it follows said rules. I argue that this alternative to the implicitly established way of thinking in maximizing terms has significant advantages. First, maximizing epistemic value can be unreasonably demanding; second, a satisficing theory can make finding reasonable rules for belief formation and sustenance much more accessible; and third, a satisficing approach is a better alternative to both general subjectivist and maximizing objectivist attempts to spell out epistemic blame. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Fabio Ciaramelli's book L'ordine simbolico della legge e il problema del metodo proposes a convincing methodological perspective for legal knowledge in contemporary constitutional democracies. The central claim is that a middle path between strong objectivism and absolute discretion exists. Ciaramelli thinks that the key concept for legal methodology is that of "symbolic order". In this paper I deal with this notion and try to emphasize some features of it from a perspective slightly different from Ciaramelli's one. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There has been considerable debate regarding the relative merits of two theses about moral obligation known as actualism and possibilism. Both theses seek to give expression to the general idea that one ought to do the best one can. According to actualism, one's obligations turn on what would happen if one chose some course of action, whereas, according to possibilism, they turn on what could happen (i.e., what one could make happen) if one chose some course of action. There are two strands to the debate: the substantive verdicts that the two theses render in particular cases, and the accounts that they yield of the conceptual structure of moral obligation. Possibilism is conceptually appealing, whereas actualism is not, but the latter may seem to render superior substantive verdicts. In this paper, it is argued that, by turning from the objectivist's emphasis on what is actually best to the prospectivist's emphasis on what one's evidence indicates is best, possibilists can provide an account of moral obligation that is both conceptually and substantively attractive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Different notions of objectivity support different notions of what is required for a moral value or obligation to be experienced as objective. If the objectivity of a property (moral or otherwise) requires that it can exist even when we fail to notice its existence, then experiencing a property (moral or otherwise) as objective will require that we imagine it appearing in some way that is not presently available to us. Explaining what that imagining involves is the central task of this paper. Defending the epistemic value of such imagining is a secondary aim. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to Franz Brentano, every mental act includes a representation of itself. Hence, Brentano can be described as maintaining that: (T1) reflexivity, when it occurs, is included as a part in mental acts; and (T2) reflexivity always occurs. Brentano's way of understanding the inclusion of reflexivity in mental acts (T1) entails double intentionality in mental acts. The aim of this paper is to show that the conjunction of (T1) and (T2) is not uncommon in the history of philosophy. To that end, the theories of two medieval thinkers, namely, Walter Chatton and Durand of Saint-Pourçain, are presented. The repeated conjunction of (T1) and (T2) paves the way for a more general distinction than that between subjectivist and objectivist theories of reflexivity, namely, one between automatic theories of reflexivity (where noticing is not required for reflexivity) and apperceptive theories of reflexivity (where noticing is required for reflexivity). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Journal of Al-Frahids Arts is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The advent of technologies that drastically reduce the need of human labour calls into question the foundations of the two prevalent theories of value. While this effect is quite apparent for the objectivist theory that equates value to a quantity of labour, these consequences may be true also for the subjectivist, market-based theory. Consequently, in this paper, a different theory of value is proposed, based on social needs, i.e. the human needs as represented in the economic environment of production and exchange of goods and services. This theory is based on Hegel's Philosophy of Right and Otto Neurath's economic works. To clarify the theoretical foundations of this theory, a part of the paper recapitulates them in a perspective that could be relevant in an increasingly post-labour social and economic environment. In this analysis, some of the concepts and methodologies, which could help to answer the challenges of a post-labour social welfare, are outlined. This leads to a definition of the conditions under which a needs-based social welfare could use the potential of a post-labour economic environment in a dual system, providing an efficient satisfaction of social needs while, at the same time, maintaining a viable market economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]