When is it right to go to war? The most persuasive answer to this question has always been 'in self-defense'. In a penetrating new analysis, bringing together moral philosophy, political science, and law, David Rodin shows what's wrong with this answer. He proposes a comprehensive new theory of the right of self-defense which resolves many of the perplexing questions that have dogged both jurists and moral philosophers. By applying the theory of self-defense to international relations, Rodin produces a far-reaching critique (...) of the canonical Just War theory. The simple analogy between self-defense and national defense - between the individual and the state - needs to be fundamentally rethought, and with it many of the basic elements of international law and the ethics of international relations. (shrink)

When is it right to go to war? The most persuasive answer to this question has always been 'in self-defense'. In a penetrating new analysis, bringing together moral philosophy, political science, and law, David Rodin shows what's wrong with this answer. He proposes a comprehensive new theory of the right of self-defense which resolves many of the perplexing questions that have dogged both jurists and moral philosophers. By applying the theory of self-defense to international relations, Rodin produces a far-reaching critique (...) of the canonical Just War theory. The simple analogy between self-defense and national defense - between the individual and the state - needs to be fundamentally rethought, and with it many of the basic elements of international law and the ethics of international relations. (shrink)

In this article, I develop a general explanatory model of the liability and lesser evil justifications of harm. Despite their respective provenance in consequentialist and deontological ethics, both justifications are, at root, rich forms of the proportionality relationship between a shared set of underlying normative variables. The nature of the proportionality relationship, and the conditions under which it operates, differ between the two forms of justification. The article explores these differences in detail and the implications they have for the justification (...) of self-defense and war. (shrink)

Can a soldier be held responsible for fighting in a war that is illegal or unjust? The chapters in the book both challenge and defend many deeply held assumptions: about the liability of soldiers for crimes of aggression, about the nature and justifiability of terrorism, about the relationship between law and morality.

This article provides an explanatory account of a central class of moral rights; their normative grounding, the conditions for their possession and forfeiture, and their moral stringency. It argues that interpersonal rights against harm and rights to assistance are best understood as arising from reciprocity relations between moral agents. The account has significant advantages compared with rivals such as the interest theory of rights. By explaining the differential enforceability of rights against harm and rights to assistance, the reciprocity theory helps (...) to refute an argument made by Cecile Fabre that the poor may have a justification for engaging in war against the affluent to compel them to fulfil their duties of assistance to the poor. (shrink)

Important moral dilemmas arise in the context of what I have called jus terminatio and Darrel Moellendorf has called jus ex bello—the norms governing the termination of war. I discuss three dilemmas, showing how they also illuminate proportionality and jus ad bellum: morally accounting for new costs that arise during the course of a war; two variants of the “sunk-cost dilemma” in which an agent is permitted to contribute to a project that is all things considered morally unjust, when that (...) project is morally justified on a forward-looking basis; and the problem of moral hazard in peace negotiations. (shrink)

This essay attempts to develop a new theoretical model for business ethics distinct from the two canonical business‐ethics theories, the stakeholder theory and the shareholder value theory. Milton Friedman argued that because managers are agents of the company's owners, their sole moral responsibility is to maximize owner returns. Thomas Pogge has recently suggested that such a view involves a kind of moral incoherence and that we should reject the efficacy of social arrangements like the principal‐agent relationship in altering moral obligations. (...) Both views fail to give proper account of the dispersal of moral responsibilities in business contexts. We must distinguish “minimal moral obligations” (stemming from justice and rights) from “maximal moral obligations” (stemming from all other moral considerations, including duties of aid, beneficence, and the virtues). Minimal obligations apply to all persons, but maximal obligations can be effected by social arrangements like the owner‐manager relationship. There may be moral obligations incumbent on owners that do not apply to managers. Understanding this distribution of responsibilities enables us to develop a new and attractive model of business ethics––“the ownership model”––which places greater emphasis on the rights and responsibilities of the owners of business than has been traditional in business ethics. (shrink)

Dans cet article je présente une analyse critique de l’approche habituelle de l’identité mathématique qui a son origine dans les travaux de Frege et Russell, en faisant un contraste avec les approches alternatives de Platon et Geach. Je pose ensuite ce problème dans un cadre de la théorie des catégories et montre que la notion d’identité ne peut pas être « internalisée » par les moyens catégoriques standards. Enfin, je présente deux approches de l’identité mathématique plus spécifiques: une avec la (...) fibration catégorielle et l’autre avec des catégories supérieures faibles. (shrink)

The popular view according to which category theory provides a support for mathematical structuralism is erroneous. Category-theoretic foundations of mathematics require a different philosophy of mathematics. While structural mathematics studies ‘invariant form’ (Awodey) categorical mathematics studies covariant and contravariant transformations which, generally, have no invariants. In this paper I develop a non-structuralist interpretation of categorical mathematics.

The hundred-year history of interpretations of Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus we examine in the article through a gradual approach (through the refusal of researchers from obviously erroneous interpretations) to an ethical (or metaphilosophical) reading of the work. The latter explains Wittgenstein’s unambiguous indication of ethical meaning as the main meaning of the Tractatus and consistently reconciles various parts of the work (ontology, figurative theory of meaning, rejection of the theory of types and logical constants, etc.) with the latest so-called ethical and (...) mystical statements of the Tractatus and with demanding silence. An ethical (metaphilosophical) reading explains the continuing influence and relevance of the Tractatus and is presented in the article as a necessary condition for understanding the continuity between the works of early and late Wittgenstein. (shrink)

The article presents an attempt to evaluate the influence of the late Wittgenstein philosophy (by the example of the rule-following problem) on sociology and some empirical programs of sociological research. At first we give a brief overview of the rule-following problem and consider, on the one hand, a skeptical reading and a skeptical solution to the problem by S. Kripke and, on the other hand, criticism towards Kripke by some Wittgensteinians). Then we reveal the role of skeptic reading in the (...) sociological works of D. Bloor and the role of anti-sceptic reading in ethnomethodological projects. At the end we show the paramount importance of Peter Winch – we prove the following thesis: the ideas of Peter Winch anticipated many of the points and arguments in the dispute between D. Bloor and ethnomethodology. (shrink)

Is a nation ever justified in attacking before it has been attacked? If so, under precisely what conditions? This volume of new, specially commissioned chapters provides the most definitive assessment to date of the justifiability of preemptive or preventive military action.

This chapter presents a rights-based explanation of self-defence. A right of defence exists when a subject is at liberty to defend a certain good by performing an action that would otherwise be impermissible. The moral justification for this liberty invokes three considerations: an appropriate normative relation exists between the subject and the end of the right, consisting of either of a right to, or a duty of care towards the good protected; the defensive act is a proportionate, necessary response to (...) an imminent threat of harm; and the object of defensive force has an appropriate degree of normative responsibility for, and the subject is innocent of, the harm threatened. (shrink)

In "The Ethics of America's Afghan War," Richard W. Miller argues that reflecting on whether and how to end the war in Afghanistan exposes serious deficiencies in just war theory. I agree, though for different reasons than those canvassed by Professor Miller.

When the traditional distinction between a mathematical concept and a mathematical intuition is tested against examples taken from the real history of mathematics one can observe the following interesting phenomena. First, there are multiple examples where concepts and intuitions do not well fit together; some of these examples can be described as “poorly conceptualised intuitions” while some others can be described as “poorly intuited concepts”. Second, the historical development of mathematics involves two kinds of corresponding processes: poorly conceptualised intuitions are (...) further conceptualised while poorly intuited concepts are further intuited. In this paper I study this latter process in mathematics during the twentieth century and, more specifically, show the role of set theory and category theory in this process. I use this material for defending the following claims: (1) mathematical intuitions are subject to historical development just like mathematical concepts; (2) mathematical intuitions continue to play their traditional role in today's mathematics and will plausibly do so in the foreseeable future. This second claim implies that the popular view, according to which modern mathematical concepts, unlike their more traditional predecessors, cannot be directly intuited, is not justified. (shrink)

This article asks whether a country that suffers from serious environmental problems caused by another country could have a just cause for a defensive war? Danish philosopher Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen has argued that under certain conditions extreme poverty may give a just cause for a country to defensive war, if that poverty is caused by other countries. This raises the question whether the victims of environmental damages could also have a similar right to self-defense. Although the article concerns justice of war, (...) we will concentrate only on the issue of what can be just causes of war, instead of evaluating the entire justification of war. This is to say that we will limit our discussion to the question concerning just cause and leave aside more general questions concerning justness and moral permissibility of war. Our aim is to list the questions that must be made and settled if defensive war in the case of serious environmental problems is said to have (or not to have) a just cause. We will argue that there are three questions that are most important in this context. They are the question concerning liability, the question of collective responsibility, and the question whether environmental harms may create a “sufficient reason” for raising a war. (shrink)

The first aim of simulation in virtual environment is to help biologists to have a better understanding of the simulated system. The cost of such simulation is significantly reduced compared to that of in vivo simulation. However, the inherent complexity of biological system makes it hard to simulate these systems on non-parallel architectures: models might be made of sub-models and take several scales into account; the number of simulated entities may be quite large. Today, graphics cards are used for general (...) purpose computing which has been made easier thanks to frameworks like CUDA or OpenCL. Parallelization of models may however not be easy: parallel computer programing skills are often required; several hardware architectures may be used to execute models. In this paper, we present the software architecture we built in order to implement various models able to simulate multi-cellular system. This architecture is modular and it implements data structures adapted for graphics processing units architectures. It allows efficient simulation of biological mechanisms. (shrink)

IntroductionThe Managing Cancer and Living Meaningfully therapy for patients with advanced cancer was tested against a supportive psycho-oncological counseling intervention in a randomized controlled trial. We investigated whether CALM was delivered as intended ; whether CALM therapists with less experience in psycho-oncological care show higher adherence scores; and whether potential overlapping treatment elements between CALM and SPI can be identified.MethodsTwo trained and blinded raters assessed on 19 items four subscales of the Treatment Integrity Scale covering treatment domains of CALM. A (...) random sample of 150 audio recordings were rated on a three-point Likert scale with 1 = “adherent to some extent,” 2 = “adherent to a sufficient extent,” 3 = “very adherent.”ResultsAll 19 treatment elements were applied, but in various frequencies. CALM therapists most frequently explored symptoms and/or relationship to health care providers and allowed expression of sadness and anxiety about the progression of disease. The exploration of CALM treatment element SC_1 was most frequently implemented in a satisfactory or excellent manner, whereas the treatment element SMP_4: Therapist promotes acknowledgment that some life goals may no longer be achievable was not implemented in a satisfactory manner. In terms of treatment differentiation, no treatment elements could be identified which were applied significantly more often by CALM therapists than by SPI therapists.ConclusionResults verify the application of CALM treatment domains. However, CALM therapists’ adherence scores indicated manual deviations. Furthermore, raters were not able to significantly distinguish CALM from SPI, implying that overlapping treatment elements were delivered to patients. (shrink)

In 1900 David Hilbert announced his famous list of then-opened mathematical problems; the problem number 6 in this list is axiomatization of physical theories. Since then a lot of systematic efforts have been invested into solving this problem. However the results of these efforts turned to be less successful than the early enthusiasts of axiomatic method expected. The existing axiomatizations of physical and biological theories provide a valuable logical analysis of these theories but they do not constitute anything like their (...) standard presentation,which can be used for transmission, evaluation, and justification of physical and biological knowledge. This state of theart in the axiomatization of physics is strong evidence that the standard notion of axiomatic theory stemming from Hilbert and Tarski is not appropriate for thet ask. However in the recent years in mathematics there emerged a new axiomatic approach best represented by the Homotopy Type theory (HoTT). We argue that the constructive axiomatic architecture used in HoTT has better chances to be successfully applied in physics as well as in computer science and engineering. (shrink)

Hohfeld treats liberties as a normative relation between three elements: subject, content, and object. This chapter develops a working explanatory model of defensive rights by adding to these three elements a so-called end of a defensive right, defined as the good or value which a defensive action is intended to preserve or protect. Two of three legs that constitute the justification of self-defence are explored: those that revolve around the relationship between subject and the end of the right, and those (...) that concern the relationship between the content and the end of the right. (shrink)

This chapter presents the third and final leg of a model of defensive rights discussed in the preceding chapter. It explores the ‘moral asymmetry’ problem between defender and aggressor — why the defender is justified in killing an aggressor but not vice versa. It presents specific objections to the initially promising account of self-defence as a forced choice. It argues that an explanation of self-defence cannot be found in the realm of reduced responsibility and necessity. When one kills in self-defence, (...) one is responsible for one’s killing; if the act escapes condemnation, then it must be because killing is, in the circumstances, rightful. (shrink)

This chapter presents a synthesis of discussions in the preceding chapters. It argues that a detailed analysis of the concepts of self-defence and national-defence can help identify and prevent the abuse of these concepts by politicians. By locating the conditions which can justify military action, we can identify the forms of military action which are, if not perfectly justified, close to being just compared to others. The need to rethink for traditional conceptions of international law and international ethics is also (...) raised. (shrink)

Category theory doesn't support Mathematical Structuralism but suggests a new philosophical view on mathematics, which differs both from Structuralism and from traditional Substantialism about mathematical objects. While Structuralism implies thinking of mathematical objects up to isomorphism the new categorical view implies thinking up to general morphism.

I doubt that geostrategic considerations can play the role in moral assessment that Richard Miller believes they do. But the phenomena he is pointing to do illuminate important defects in traditional just war theory.

Risk and crisis communication (RCC) is a complex constellation of multiple actors, platforms, and voices. It involves institutional actors but also laypeople. Participation by social media users can both facilitate and obstruct effective RCC. The present study draws on in-depth interviews with Swedish Facebook users, and explores motivational factors for lay participation in RCC in the context of vaccination utilizing Peter Dahlgren’s (2011) model. The contributions of this study are threefold. First, it identifies three dominant clusters of participation motivations: personal (...) interest, information brokerage, and persuasion. Second, the results show that Facebook sociality is characterized by asynchronous communication, loops, and widespread hostility. Third, degrees of content visibility set up “zones of peace” (backstage, safe communication spaces) and “zones of fight” (frontstage, open sub-arenas where various views on vaccination are debated). Moreover, the study finds that these forms of sociality and levels of visibility can both strengthen and undermine user motivations. (shrink)

This introductory chapter discusses the rationale behind the arguments on self-defence presented this volume, specifically, self-defence as a moral response to war and aggression. It is argued that a coherent explanation of self-defence can be constructed around the idea of personal rights. However, the attempt to build a justification for war on the conception of self-defence faces significant obstacles and ultimately fails.

This chapter explores the concept of the right of national self-defence. National self-defence is conceived in international law as a right — a consideration capable of asserting normative force against the consequentialist requirements such as those of peace and security. By locating the notion of national-defence within a framework of ideas generated in the context of personal defensive rights, the Just War Theorist can show how a state’s military action in defending its own sovereign power can be morally justified.