Presents a portrait of Alamaba rivers, from their origins in the Appalachian highlands to their confluence with the Gulf of Mexico, and promotes the stewardship and preservation of these natural regions.

To the person unfamiliar with the wide variety of street art, the term “street artist” conjures a young man furtively sneaking around a decaying city block at night, spray paint in hand, defacing concrete structures, ears pricked for police sirens. The possibility of the ethical criticism of street art on such a conception seems hardly worth the time. This has to be an easy question. Street art is vandalism; vandalism is causing the intentional damage or destruction of someone else’s (...) property; causing destruction or damage is wrong. The only remaining question is which of two coarse-grained models of ethical criticism we choose. The ethicist model holds that a work of art that exhibits ethically bad properties is a work that is thereby aesthetically flawed. That is, the work is flawed as a work of art just because of its ethical flaws. Bad ethics make art worse than it otherwise would have been, although it may be aesthetically successful otherwise. The autonomist model, by contrast, holds that the ethical properties of a work of art have no bearing at all on its aesthetic success. One might suppose, therefore, that on either model, a criticism of street art would be relatively easy to undertake. In defacing public property, some street art exhibits and endorses ethically bad attitudes. On the ethicist model, such a work is thereby pro tanto aesthetically flawed because in the process of creating such works, they violate ethical norms concerning the use of public spaces; on the autonomous model, any ethical criticism of the aesthetics of street art would need to be set aside entirely in favor of criticism that focused purely on the aesthetic properties of street art. I will argue in this paper that neither the ethicist nor the autonomist model adequately captures the moral landscape of street art. Street art may indeed be criticized productively on aesthetic grounds for the destruction it does to public spaces, but the existing models of ethical criticism overlook the complex ethical landscape of street art that results from its use of public spaces. In the interplay of various forms of street art we can see the emergence of an ethical criticism of art that is accomplished by the material properties of related artwork, and consists in the creation of a dialogue over the proper use of contested public spaces. (shrink)

In 2022, students at North American universities with third-dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates risk disenrolment if unvaccinated. To assess the appropriateness of booster mandates in this age group, we combine empirical risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis. To prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month period, we estimate that 31 207–42 836 young adults aged 18–29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine. Booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate (...) at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5–4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalisation). We also anticipate 1430–4626 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity interfering with daily activities (although typically not requiring hospitalisation). University booster mandates are unethical because they: (1) are not based on an updated (Omicron era) stratified risk-benefit assessment for this age group; (2) may result in a net harm to healthy young adults; (3) are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; (4) violate the reciprocity principle because serious vaccine-related harms are not reliably compensated due to gaps in vaccine injury schemes; and (5) may result in wider social harms. We consider counterarguments including efforts to increase safety on campus but find these are fraught with limitations and little scientific support. Finally, we discuss the policy relevance of our analysis for primary series COVID-19 vaccine mandates. (shrink)

We thank Leo Lam and Taylor Nichols for their response1 to our paper ‘COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk–benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities’.2 In our paper, we demonstrate that the risk–benefit calculus to mandate boosters for young adults aged 18–29 is a net risk intervention. The authors assert that we have made three inappropriate comparisons of benefits versus risks of the mRNA vaccine booster dose in this age group. We provide our (...) response to each below. We erred on the side of overestimating benefits of the booster dose against severe COVID-19 in this age group and still found net harms to outweigh net benefits. The conclusion of our paper holds, and university booster mandates for young people were—and remain—unethical. For the first comparison, we weighed predicted hospitalisations prevented by one booster dose of BNT162b2 with vaccine-associated SAEs from the manufacturer’s randomised trial (3/5055).3 We found that the rate of expected SAEs would outweigh the benefits of the booster against hospitalisation by at least 18-fold. Lam and Nichols suggest that this was an inappropriate comparison, as not all SAEs result in hospitalisation. However, the definition of SAE as used in the trial included death, hospitalisation, disability, permanent damage, life-threatening event or condition, which required medical or surgical intervention to prevent a serious outcome.4 While all comparisons include some degree of incommensurability, comparing these SAEs with hospitalisations prevented by the booster is more reasonable than Lam and Nichols’ suggestion of comparing SAEs to infections prevented. The COVID-19 infection hospitalisation risk in this age group was <0.5% (or <1/200)5 even prior to widespread immunity, thus comparing SAEs to infection risk is entirely inappropriate. Furthermore, a booster dose will only offer transient (if any) protection against infection6 and cumulative infection rates …. (shrink)

Jay Asher’s novel Thirteen Reasons Why and its Netflix adaptation have enjoyed widespread popularity. While they draw needed attention to issues like bullying and teen estrangement, they may have an unintended effect: they mislead about the etiology of suicide and even glamorize it to a degree. The medical literature has shown that suicide is almost always the result of psychiatric disorder, not provocative stress, in much the same way an asthmatic crisis is primarily the result of an underlying medical condition, (...) not an allergic stimulus. Both the novel and Netflix series ignore this premise and even belittle the idea. Thus, while the story has artistic merits, it also has the potential to be destructive if accessed by young readers and viewers seeking guidance. Approximately ten percent of teens suffer from depression, and suicide recently surpassed homicide as the second-leading cause of death among persons ages ten to twenty-four in the United States. A more balanced view addressing these misconceptions is provided for teens, parents, and mental health professionals. (shrink)

RESUMO O objetivo deste artigo é analisar e avaliar um conjunto de textos aqui denominados textos-moldura presentes nas obras de Bakhtin e do Círculo traduzidas no Brasil desde 1979, com vistas a traçar um panorama nacional crítico do contexto de recepção da obra bakhtiniana e evidenciar algumas de suas especificidades, indiciadas nos diálogos que empreendem com os aspectos sociais, históricos e culturais. Pretende-se, ainda, contribuir para o aprofundamento dos estudos dialógicos e sua incontestável dimensão interdisciplinar. Além da perspectiva dialógica, as (...) reflexões apoiam-se, também, em teorias da tradução, caso específico da que discute a “relação entre um texto de partida e um contexto de chegada”, ou ainda “um modo de ler um texto em dado contexto”. Parte de uma pesquisa maior, os resultados aqui apresentados dizem respeito unicamente a uma das obras do Círculo: Marxismo e filosofia da linguagem. Problemas fundamentais do método sociológico na Ciência da linguagem e suas duas traduções brasileiras. ABSTRACT This article aims to analyze and evaluate a number of texts called frame-texts found in the works of Bakhtin and the Circle, which have been translated in Brazil since 1979. Our objective is to offer a critical overview of the context of the reception of their work nationwide and highlight some of its specific features, apprehended in the dialogues established with social, historical and cultural aspects. We also intend to contribute to deepening the dialogical studies and its undeniable interdisciplinary dimension. In addition to the dialogic perspective, these reflections rely on theories of translation, especially those that discuss the “relationship between a text and its context of reception” or “a certain way of reading a text in a given context.” This discussion is part of a larger research study, and the results presented herein are related to one of the works of the Circle, namely, Marxism and the Philosophy of Language and its two translations into Brazilian Portuguese. (shrink)

Many business ethicists assume that if a type of conduct is illegal, then it is also unethical. This article scrutinizes that assumption, using the rideshare company Uber’s illegal operation in the city of Philadelphia as a case study. I argue that Uber’s unlawful conduct was permissible. I also argue that this position is not an extreme one: it is consistent with a variety of theoretical commitments in the analytic philosophical tradition regarding political obligation. I conclude by showing why business ethicists (...) would have a better rejoinder to the “dominant view” of business ethics associated with Milton Friedman if they dispensed with the assumption that illegal implies unethical. (shrink)

This paper raises three objections to the argument presented by Ostritsch in The amoralist challenge to gaming and the gamer’s moral obligation, in which the amoralist’s mantra “it’s just a game” is viewed as an illegitimate rebuttal of all moral objections to video games. The first objection focuses on Ostritsch’s ‘strong sense’ of player enjoyment, which I argue is too crude, given the moral work it is meant to be doing. Next, I question the legitimacy of Ostritsch’s claim that certain (...) video games are immoral. I examine what is involved in making this claim and what would be required for a normative position to be established: none of which is addressed by Ostritsch. Finally, I challenge the legitimacy of his claim that players are obliged not to play certain video games in certain ways. I distinguish between immoral and suberogatory actions, arguing that the latter is in fact more applicable to cases Ostritsch has in mind, and that one is not obliged not to engage in these actions. (shrink)

RESUMO Em diversas obras do Círculo (Bakhtin, Volóchinov, Medviédev), a referência a Saussure e/ou às especificidades da Linguística, enquanto ciência da língua, pode ser encontrada em diálogo, mais ou menos polêmico, entre pensadores e tendências epistemológicas, teóricas e metodológicas que propõem diferentes abordagens para a complexidade representada pela linguagem humana e, consequentemente, para seu estudo. Neste artigo, o objetivo é circunscrever e discutir a presença da Linguística, enquanto ciência da língua instaurada por Saussure, nos escritos de Mikhail Bakhtin. Após uma (...) introdução, o texto se organiza em três seções, que tratam (1) de uma forte presença de Saussure nos escritos do Círculo; (2) do diálogo de Bakhtin com a ciência na unidade da cultura; (3) do diálogo com a ciência linguística da escola de Genebra em “O problema do conteúdo, do material e da forma”; e, finalmente, de considerações inconclusas, mas necessárias. Destacam-se importantes momentos-chave de reflexão em textos assinados por Bakhtin, em que Saussure (ainda que não nomeado, mas designado pela ciência por ele estabelecida) merece destaque, como contraponto científico-filosófico necessário para a constituição de outra possibilidade de compreensão e estudo da linguagem: a perspectiva dialógica. Como resultado, espera-se demonstrar que, desde os anos 1920, o diálogo Bakhtin/Saussure se estabelece, para distinguir e qualificar duas formas complementares de compreensão da linguagem e do lugar da ciência na unidade da cultura. (shrink)

ABSTRACT In several works by the Circle (Bakhtin, Vološinov, Medvedev), the reference to Saussure and/or the specificities of Linguistics, as a science of language, can be found in a dialogue, more or less controversial, between thinkers and epistemological, theoretical and methodological trends that propose different approaches to the complexity represented by human language and, consequently, to its study. In this article, the objective is to circumscribe and discuss the presence of Linguistics, as a science of language established by Saussure, in (...) the writings of Mikhail Bakhtin. After an introduction, the text is organized into three sections, which deal with (1) Saussure’s strong presence in the Circle’s writings; (2) Bakhtin’s dialogue with science in the unity of culture; (3) the dialogue with the linguistic science of the Geneva school in “PCMF”; and, finally, of inconclusive but necessary considerations. Important key moments of reflection stand out in texts signed by Bakhtin, in which Saussure (although not named, but designated by the science he established) deserves to be highlighted, as a necessary scientific-philosophical counterpoint for the constitution of another possibility of understanding and study of language: the dialogical perspective. As a result, it is expected to demonstrate that, since the 1920s, the Bakhtin/Saussure dialogue has been established to distinguish and qualify two complementary ways of understanding language and the place of science in the unity of culture. (shrink)

During the interwar years psychologists Louis Leon Thurstone and Rensis Likert produced newly standardized forms of questionnaires. Both built on developments in mental testing, including the use of restricted sets of answers and the emergence of statistical techniques, to create questionnaires that employed numerical scaling. This transformation in shape of questionnaires was intimately tied up with both psychologists’ nominal subject of investigation: attitudes. Efforts to render psychology a socially valuable and influential science spurred psychologists to create sophisticated and increasingly precise (...) means of measuring social attitudes. Reducing mental dispositions to mere numbers on a scale, these developments also initiated new relationships between psychology and the public. Rather than engage a wide spectrum of the public directly in the research process, questionnaire research was limited to those within academic circles. Even so, research with questionnaires aimed to comment on attitudes in the public more broadly. The kind of ‘thin description’ afforded by numerical scales, though used to measure individual psychological subjects, afforded psychologists the opportunity to craft their vision of an increasingly attitudinal public, one positioned as best governed with the aid of psychological expertise. (shrink)

Phenomenally, we can distinguish between ownership of thought (introspective awareness) and authorship of thought (an awareness of the activity of thinking), a distinction prompted by the phenomenon of thought insertion. Does this require the independence of ownership and authorship at the structural level? By employing a Kantian approach to the question of ownership of thought, I argue that a thought being my thought is necessarily the outcome of the interdependence of these two component parts (ownership and authorship). In addition, whilst (...) still employing a Kantian approach, I speculate over possible mechanisms underlying the phenomenon of thought insertion. (shrink)

SummaryThe germs of future development, contained in Aristotle's logical works, are indicated, and their influence on the later evolution of logic is explained.The history of symbolic logic since Boole's Mathematical analysis and De Morgan's Formal logic, both of which were published in 1847, is divided into four approximately subsequent phases, viz.:1. algebra of logic; this phase is characterized by Boole's work;2. logical foundation of mathematics; this phase is characterized by Frege's, Peano's and Russell's work, by the discovery of the antonomies (...) of logic and set theory, by the Couturat‐Poincaré debate and by the rise of Brouwer's intuitionism;3. intuitive metamathematics, concentrating in Hilbert's attempts towards a consistency proof for classical analysis; the discovery of Gödel's theorem necessitated a change of policy;4. axiomatic methodology, deriving from Hilbert's metamathematics and culminating so far in Tarski's semantics. — E. W. B. (shrink)