Assuming that one believes that individuals and states can morally defend values, beliefs, and institutions with force , one logically wants just combatants to possess the physical, mental, and spiritual capacities that will enable them to win the war. On the other hand, being a just combatant in a just war does not morally entitle that combatant to do anything to win that war. The moral requirement for just combatants to fight justly is codified in international law of war and (...) in state-specific legal documents such as the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. While it is almost unequivocally clear to soldiers and civilians who soldiers cannot harm in the performance of their duties, and why these people are exempt from harm, it is less clear what the state itself can morally do to its own soldiers to enhance their chances of victory: can the state do anything to soldiers to give them an advantage on the field of battle?For United States soldiers and their counterparts in most Western liberal democracies, the answer is obviously no. Deeply embedded social and cultural norms in Western democracies mandate that the state set and enforce rigid lines which drill sergeants and earnest commanders cannot cross, even in the name of combat readiness, grounding these norms in notion of basic rights appealed to in the U.S. Constitution. In this essay, I argue against some types of drug-induced internal biotechnical enhancement of soldiers on the grounds that, in the present state of technology, it is not reasonable to suppose that the military can perform such enhancement operations on soldiers without causing irrevocable psychological damage that would certainly and unjustifiably alienate the soldiers from the very society they serve. (shrink)

I provide an argument against the Aristotelian view of universals, according to which universals depend for their existence on their exemplifiers. The argument consists in a set of five jointly inconsistent assumptions. As such, the argument can be used to argue in favour of other conclusions, such as that exemplification is no relation or that plausible principles concerning ontological dependence or grounding do not hold.

Many metaphysicians accept the view that, necessarily, any collection of things composes some further thing. Necessarily, my arms, legs, head, and torso compose my body; necessarily, my arms, my heart, and the table compose something y; necessarily, my heart and the sun compose something z; and so on. 1 Though there have been a few recent attempts to argue against the necessity of this principle of unrestricted composition the consensus is that if it is true, it is necessarily true. (...) 2In what follows I will join the few dissenters and argue that this principle of unrestricted composition is not necessarily true. If I am right, it follows that either some principle of restricted composition is necessarily true or the existence of composite objects is a contingent matter. I will end by indicating why the latter option seems the most plausible. 3I proceed by reductio. Assume the following: Unrestricted composition is necessarily true.That is, assume that necessarily, any collection of things composes something. Then, necessarily, the collection of everything composes something. That is, necessarily, there exists a universal object U having all things as parts, not itself being a proper part of anything. Hence, by our assumption, we get: There must be a universal object U.It is important to note that this is so whether the world is finite or infinite. Holding that in worlds of finite cardinality there is a universal object U while in worlds of infinite cardinality there is no universal object U amounts to accepting a restricted form of composition. 4Now consider the following scenario. Everything in this world is spatially extended and just one half of something else that is also spatially extended. That is, for any thing in this world, there is something else of which …. (shrink)

This paper develops an argument against causal decision theory. I formulate a principle of preference, which I call the Guaranteed Principle. I argue that the preferences of rational agents satisfy the Guaranteed Principle, that the preferences of agents who embody causal decision theory do not, and hence that causal decision theory is false.

Để xem bóng đá và phát sóng video trực tiếp tốc độ cao, Xoilac là trang web lý tưởng. Đặc biệt, Xoilac không có bất cứ quảng cáo nào, vì vậy người xem vẫn thoải mái thưởng thức trận bóng đá mà không lo bị phân tâm vì bất cứ vấn đề gì. Ngoài ra, Xoilac có đội ngũ dày dặn chuyên môn, luôn đưa ra những nhận định chuẩn xác cho từng trận đấu bóng đá. Với đồ hoạ sinh (...) động, âm thanh lôi cuốn và sống động, Xoilac sẽ lưu lại dấu ấn sâu đậm trong tâm trí người xem bóng đá. (shrink)

The ethical concerns regarding the successful development of an Artificial Intelligence have received a lot of attention lately. The idea is that even if we have good reason to believe that it is very unlikely, the mere possibility of an AI causing extreme human suffering is important enough to warrant serious consideration. Others look at this problem from the opposite perspective, namely that of the AI itself. Here the idea is that even if we have good reason to believe that (...) it is very unlikely, the mere possibility of humanity causing extreme suffering to an AI is important enough to warrant serious consideration. This paper starts from the observation that both concerns rely on problematic philosophical assumptions. Rather than tackling these assumptions directly, it proceeds to present an argument that if one takes these assumptions seriously, then one has a moral obligation to advocate for a ban on the development of a conscious AI. (shrink)

In this paper we present a two-stage argument against Peter Carruthers' theory of phenomenal consciousness. The first stage shows that Carruthers' main argument against first-order representational theories of phenomenal consciousness applies with equal force against his own theory. The second stage shows that if Carruthers can escape his own argument against first-order theories, it will come at the cost of wedding his theory to certain unwelcome implausibilities. discusses Carruthers' argument against first-order (...) representationalism. presents Carruthers' theory of consciousness. presents our argument against Carruthers' theory. sums up. (shrink)

This paper argues that a prominent—and oft-thought to be persuasive—argument against general validity as the best account of validity for languages containing the actuality operator is flawed, the flaw arising out of inadequate attention to the formalisation of mood distinctions.

Nominalism in formal ontology is still the thesis that the only acceptable domain of quantification is the first-order domain of particulars. Nominalists may assert that second-order well-formed formulas can be fully and completely interpreted within the first-order domain, thereby avoiding any ontological commitment to second-order entities, by means of an appropriate semantics called “substitutional”. In this paper I argue that the success of this strategy depends on the ability of Nominalists to maintain that identity, and equivalence relations more in general, (...) is first-order and invariant. Firstly, I explain why Nominalists are formally bound to this first-order concept of identity. Secondly, I show that the resources needed to justify identity, a certain conception of identity invariance, are out of the Nominalist’s reach. (shrink)

There is an obvious, perhaps even trite, argument against getting married which deserves our attention. Reduced to a crude sketch, the argument is simply that, most of us view the prospect of being married in the absence of mutual love with something like horror or at least great antipathy; the mutual love between us and our spouse existing at the inception of our marriage may very well fail to persist; and hence when we marry we are putting (...) ourselves in the position of quite possibly ending up in a loveless marriage of the sort we acknowledge to be undesirable, and this is a mistake. (shrink)

A novel (and surprising) argument against justification internalism. Analysis 72: 239–43, Sanford Goldberg uses the New Evil Demon thought experiment in an attempt to argue as in the foregoing title. I respond by maintaining that his argument fails when aimed at a prominent version of internalism, viz. evidentialism.

Howson famously argues that the no-miracles argument, stating that the success of science indicates the approximate truth of scientific theories, is a base rate fallacy: it neglects the possibility of an overall low rate of true scientific theories. Recently a number of authors has suggested that the corresponding probabilistic reconstruction is unjust, as it concerns only the success of one isolated theory. Dawid and Hartmann, in particular, suggest to use the frequency of success in some field of research \ (...) to infer a probability of truth for a new theory from \. I here shed doubts on the justification of this and similar moves and suggest a way to directly bound the probability of truth. As I will demonstrate, my bound can become incompatible with the assumption specific testing and Dawid and Hartmann’s estimate for success. (shrink)

James Higginbotham presents a theory of semantic interpretation which violates the principle of semantic compositionality. He gives an argument by means of an example construction in favor of his contention. I show that compositioinal theories have more resources than some researchers give it credit for, and that these can be used in two different ways to account for the phenomenon Higginbotham describes.

I argue that motivational internalism should not be driving metaethics. I first show that many arguments for motivational internalism beg the question by resting on an illicit appeal to internalist assumptions about the nature of reasons. Then I make a distinction between weak internalism and the weakest form of internalism. Weak internalism allows that agents fail to act according to their normative judgments when they are practically irrational. I show that when we clarify the notion of practical irrationality it does (...) not support motivational internalism. Weakest internalism only claims that agents are irrational if they entirely lack motivation to do what they judge they ought to. I do not argue against weakest internalism, but I argue that it is not an important view. (shrink)

(No abstract is available for this citation).

Some mental states are about themselves. Nothing is a cause of itself. So some mental states are not about their causes; they are about things distinct from their causes. If this argument is sound, it spells trouble for causal theories of mental content—the precise sort of trouble depending on the precise sort of causal theory. This paper shows that the argument is sound (§§1-3), and then spells out the trouble (§4).

Abstract I first suggest some ways in which the externalist account of psychological content can be reconciled with the aspectual character of intentionality. I then give an argument against the externalist account which includes as premises the claims that a system capable of having intentional states must understand a language, and that a system that understands a language must be capable of consciousness. I defend the latter claim by arguing that a correct understanding of observation sentences requires conscious, (...) sensory experience, and by appealing to the fact that language has meaning in a holistic manner. (shrink)

Testable predictions of quantum mechanics are invariant under time reversal. But the evolution of the quantum state in time is not so, neither in the collapse nor in the no-collapse interpretations of the theory. This is a fact that challenges any realistic interpretation of the quantum state. On the other hand, this fact raises no difficulty if we interpret the quantum state as a mere calculation device, bookkeeping past real quantum events.

In this paper, I consider Peter Geach (Rew Metaphys 21:2–12, 1967) infamous argument against the existence of an “absolute” identity relation. One objection to Geach’s argument which has been raised is that Geach claims that no characterization of “absolute” identity is possible, while ignoring the model-theoretic characterization ( : x D). I reconstruct Geach’s likely attitude towards the model-theoretic characterization of identity from Geach’s views on reference and the nature of domains of discourse. I argue that, while (...) Geach does not have the resources to sustain his case for the conclusion that the relation of “absolute” identity does not exist, nevertheless, if his views about reference are correct, specifically, the view that terms can be simultaneously both singular and shared, this would still show something very interesting. It would show that, for some replacements for D, the relation ( : x D) is not a relation of identity. I then consider whether there is any support available for his account of reference. I finish by arguing that well-known examples of sentences involving copredication do provide prima facie support for Geach’s view. (shrink)

The paper presents a simple but novel argument against the idea of abortion on demand – i.e. the situation where a woman does not need to justify an abortion. Rather than arguing from a theory of the Right to Life of the foetus, which many would regard as controversial, the paper argues from the point of view that the foetus has a certain (intrinsic) value – simply because it is human. Since the destruction of something of value must (...) be justified, it follows that the destruction of a foetus must be justified. This rules out abortion on demand. I believe that shifting emphasis from rights to values could make a major difference to the abortion debate and will make many people rethink their position on the subject. (shrink)

Programs of drug testing welfare recipients are increasingly common in US states and have been considered elsewhere. Though often intensely debated, such programs are complicated to evaluate because their aims are ambiguous – aims like saving money may be in tension with aims like referring people to treatment. We assess such programs using a proportionality approach, which requires that for ethical acceptability a practice must be: reasonably likely to meet its aims, sufficiently important in purpose as to outweigh harms incurred, (...) and lower in costs than feasible alternatives. In the light of empirical findings, we argue that the programs fail the three requirements. Pursuing recreational drug users is not important in the light of costs incurred, while dependent users who may require referral are usually identifiable without testing and typically need a broader approach than one focussing on drugs. Drug testing of welfare recipients is therefore not ethically acceptable policy. (shrink)

It is technically possible to clone a human being. The result of the procedure would be a human being in its own right. Given the current level of cloning technology concerning other animals there is every reason to believe that early human clones will have shorter-than-average life-spans, and will be unusually prone to disease. In addition, they would be unusually at risk of genetic defects, though they would still, probably, have lives worth living. But with experimentation and experience, seriously unequal (...) prospects between cloned and noncloned people should erode. We shall ignore arguments about cloning that focus on the potential for harm to the fetus or resultant human being, where harm is understood solely in terms of physical and mental health. Unless the resultant people would generally have lives worth living there is no positive case for cloning, or any other form of reproduction, for that matter. If the resultant beings will generally have lives worth living there is a prima facie case for allowing cloning. We imagine the case in which the resultant beings will have lives well worth living. (shrink)

Analytic Philosophy, Volume 62, Issue 4, Page 427-438, December 2021.

The Republiccontains: an implicit argument that slavery is unjust, a bar against Greeks having Greek slaves that allows barbarian slaves. The scholarship has failed to notice the first, that the second is a performative addressed to Greeks, and mistakes the third as explicit. Four passages are examined: a catalogue of a Greek city’s social classes ; a bar against Greek slaves, asserting the continuation of barbarian slavery ; an assertion that the Best City can exist at any (...) time and any place ; and a passage asserting the injustice of enslavement.La Républiquecomporte les trois éléments suivants : un argument implicite à l’effet que l’esclavage est injuste, une interdiction pour les Grecs de posséder des esclaves grecs, qui admet cependant la possession d’esclaves barbares. Les commentateurs n’ont pas décelé le premier, ni remarqué que le second est un performatif adressé aux Grecs; ils ont tenu, à tort, le troisième pour explicite. J’examine ici quatre passages : un catalogue des classes sociales dans la cité grecque ; l’interdit pesant sur l’esclavage des Grecs accompagné du maintien de l’esclavage des barbares ; l’affirmation que la cité idéale est possible partout et en tout temps ; et l’affirmation que l’esclavage est injuste. (shrink)

One strategy for arguing that it should be legally permissible to create human embryos, or to use of spare human embryos, for scientific research purposes involves the claim that such embryos cannot be persons because they are not human individuals while twinning may yet take place. Being a human individual is considered to be by most people a necessary condition for being a human person. I argue first that such an argument against the personhood of embryos must be (...) rationally conclusive if their destruction in public places such as laboratories is to be countenanced. I base this argument on a popular understanding of the role that the notion of privacy plays in abortion law. I then argue that such arguments against personhood are not rationally conclusive. The claim that the early embryos is not a human individual is not nearly as obvious as some assert. (shrink)

EXISTENTIALISM IN PHILOSOPHICAL LOGIC IS THE DOCTRINE THAT STATES OF AFFAIRS, PROPOSITIONS AND PROPERTIES INVOLVING OBJECTS INCLUDE THESE OBJECTS AS DIRECT CONSTITUENTS IN AT LEAST THE SENSE THAT THE NONEXISTENCE IN A WORLD w OF SOCRATES, SAY, IMPLIES THE NONEXISTENCE IN w OF SOCRATES' BEING SNUB-NOSED. JOHN POLLOCK HAS RECENTLY ARGUED (IN "THE FOUNDATIONS OF PHILOSOPHICAL SEMANTICS") THAT SUCH AN EXISTENTIALISM HARBOURS AN INCONSISTENCY. THE PRESENT PAPER REBUTS POLLOCK'S ARGUMENT BY ARGUING THAT IT DEPENDS ON A CHARACTERIZATION OF EXISTENTIALISM (...) THAT EXISTENTIALISTS HAVE NO REASON TO ACCEPT, AND, INDEED, GOOD REASON TO REJECT. (shrink)

Catholic ethicists faithful to the magisterium of the Church are currently divided on the permissibility of using methotrexate to treat ectopic pregnancies. This paper examines the defenses of Rev. Albert Moraczewski, OP, and Christopher Kaczor, who argue that its use is morally permissible, in an attempt to demonstrate that methotrexate constitutes a direct abortion by virtue of its object. Specifically, the paper challenges the claims that methotrexate is aimed at inhibiting pathological tissues, that the trophoblast is not an organ of (...) the embryo, and that direct removal of a nonviable fetus is not a direct abortion. National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly 14.4 : 625–635. (shrink)

I formulate an argument against epiphenomenalism; the argument shows that epiphenomenalism is extremely improbable. Moreover the argument suggests that qualia not only have causal powers, but have their causal powers necessarily. I address possible objections and then conclude by considering some implications the argument has for dualism.

In this article I first clarify and then defend Bernard Williams' claim that all practical reasons are internal. I argue that since external reasons are incompatible with a plausible version of the ought-implies-can principle, they are all false. Although some defend internalism by asserting that external reasons fail to explain rational action, a better defense appeals to the fact that only internal reasons are consistent with the ought-implies-can principle.

According to disjunctivism the object of perception is a part of the perceptual experience. This however raises the question of what the other constituents of the perceptual experience might be. In this paper I suggest that there may be no answer to this question that does not violate another core claim of disjunctivism, viz. that veridical perceptual experiences are experiences of different kinds than hallucinatory experiences.

The ethical concerns regarding the successful development of an Artificial Intelligence have received a lot of attention lately. The idea is that even if we have good reason to believe that it is very unlikely, the mere possibility of an AI causing extreme human suffering is important enough to warrant serious consideration. Others look at this problem from the opposite perspective, namely that of the AI itself. Here the idea is that even if we have good reason to believe that (...) it is very unlikely, the mere possibility of humanity causing extreme suffering to an AI is important enough to warrant serious consideration. This paper starts from the observation that both concerns rely on problematic philosophical assumptions. Rather than tackling these assumptions directly, it proceeds to present an argument that if one takes these assumptions seriously, then one has a moral obligation to advocate for a ban on the development of a conscious AI. (shrink)

결정론자는 행위자의 선택이 인과적으로 결정되어 있다고 믿는 반면 자유주의자는 그렇지 않다고 믿는다. 이 글은 자유주의에 대한 한 가지 비판을 다룬다. 세스 샤보(S. Shabo)는 「자유의지와 미스터리: 『마인드』주장을 넘어서」에서 반 인와겐(P. van Inwagen)의 역행 논증을 정교화하면서 자유주의에 대한 반론을 펼친다. 샤보는 어떻게 행위자가 인과적으로 비결정적인 두 가지 가능한 미래상황을 하나의 실제적 미래상황이 되도록 이끄는 결정력(the power to settle)을 가질 수 있는지에 대해 자유주의자가 설명해야 한다고 주장한다. 필자는 이 결정력에 대한 샤보의 비판을 반박하며 어떤 차원에서 행위자가 그것을 소유할 수 있는지에 대한 해명을 시도한다.BR (...) 필자는 2장과 3장에서 역행 논증과 더불어 결정력에 대한 샤보의 논증을 제시한다. 4장에서는 자유주의자에게 결정력을 설명하도록 요구하는 샤보의 주장이 왜 부당한지를 해명한다. 5장에서는 행위자의 선택이 어떤 점에서 행위자 자신에게 달려 있는 사안일 수 있는지에 대한 해명을 시도한다. 6장에서 필자는 역행 논증의 핵심을 재정립하고 그러한 재정립 후에도 여전히 그것이 자유주의를 무력화하기에는 역부족임을 논증한다. (shrink)

Indeed, to a layperson reading the relevant case law, it almost seems that the courts sometimes try to make this principle seem as shocking as possible. In one decision that is often cited, a unanimous state supreme court held that, not only did an eight year old boy have no right to be rescued by the defendant from having his hand caught in a machine in the defendant's factory, but he (the boy, as a trespasser) would even have been liable (...) for damages to the defendant in this case had his hand, in being ground up by the defendant's machine, damaged the machine. (shrink)

In this paper a recent argument by jan narveson against pacifism is evaluated. It is shown that narveson fails to refute pacifism as he has defined it; it is also shown that even if narveson's argument is sound, It fails to refute what might be called "antiwar pacifism," the view that war is morally wrong.

Presentism, the thesis that only present events and objects exist and that past and future ones do not, maintains a following largely based on the argument that it is intuitively compatible with an everyday perception of time. This intuition is based on the present being the only time that feels it exists, and so is concluded that it is the only time that does. However this paper demonstrates that human time perception does not at all match a presentist account. (...) Variability in the experience of both flow rate and the specious present within subjects‟ conflicts with the view that time has a constant rate of flow and that the present has a constant „size‟. Variability between subjects; such as differences relating to age or circumstance contradict the idea of time as having any metaphysically universal size or rate of flow; constant or variable. It is thus concluded that one‟s perceptions and intuitive responses are not sufficient to support any metaphysical picture of the nature of time. (shrink)