Emphasis on cross-cultural testing, multiple currencies, multivariate analyses, and levels of explanation makes this an important paper. However, it does not distinguish current function from evolutionary origin; it lacks history. Rather than distinct alternatives, tolerated scrounging (TS), costly signaling (CS), and reciprocal altruism (RA) are likely to be sequentially evolved components of a single integrated system (and kin selection (KS) important only among very close relatives).

Human morality is composed of three elements: prosocial behaviour, a normative imperative, and the tendency to adjust the boundaries of the social network to which these apply in a flexible, self-interested fashion. A credible case for human uniqueness can be made for the last element only. Because defining social boundaries can be done rationally , the intersection of this tactical approach with the psychological bases underlying the first two elements can help resolve the conflict between emotion and Kant cited by (...) Flack and de Waal. They make a solid case for prosociality, though their discussion of reciprocal sharing has some problems. The perspectives of Boehm and of Sober and Wilson are needed to understand our boundary-adjusting . A satisfying theory of morality's evolution should integrate, not distinguish amongst, the three elements. (shrink)

An interview with The philosopher James Moore on the occasion of his ACM Making a Difference Award, in 2003.

Contextualists offer "high-low standards" practical cases to show that a variety of knowledge standards are in play in different ordinary contexts. These cases show nothing of the sort, I maintain. However Keith DeRose gives an ingenious argument that standards for knowledge do go up in high-stakes cases. According to the knowledge account of assertion (Kn), only knowledge warrants assertion. Kn combined with the context sensitivity of assertability yields contextualism about knowledge. But is Kn correct? I offer a rival account of (...) warranted assertion and argue that it beats Kn as a response to the "knowledge" version of Moore's Paradox. (shrink)

According to Jim Pryor’s dogmatism, if you have an experience as if P, you acquire immediate prima facie justification for believing P. Pryor contends that dogmatism validates Moore’s infamous proof of a material world. Against Pryor, I argue that if dogmatism is true, Moore’s proof turns out to be non-transmissive of justification according to one of the senses of non-transmissivity defined by Crispin Wright. This type of non-transmissivity doesn’t deprive dogmatism of its apparent antisceptical bite.

In the last few years there has been a resurgence of interest in Moore’s Proof of the existence of an external world, which is now often rendered as follows:1 (I) Here’s a hand (II) If there is a hand here, there is an external world Therefore (III) There is an external world The contemporary debate has been mostly triggered by Crispin Wright’s influential—conservative —“Facts and certainty” and further fostered by Jim Pryor’s recent—liberal—“What’s wrong with Moore’s argument?”.2 This debate is worth (...) surveying with care because—so I shall contend—it will help us see that, in fact, it allows for an important view that, so far, hasn’t been explicitly considered. The critical survey will be the task of the next two sections, while, in the remaining.. (shrink)

In the last few years there has been a resurgence of interest in Moore’s Proof of the existence of an external world, which is now often rendered as follows:1 (I) Here’s a hand (II) If there is a hand here, there is an external world Therefore (III) There is an external world The contemporary debate has been mostly triggered by Crispin Wright’s influential—conservative —“Facts and certainty” and further fostered by Jim Pryor’s recent—liberal—“What’s wrong with Moore’s argument?”.2 This debate is worth (...) surveying with care because—so I shall contend—it will help us see that, in fact, it allows for an important view that, so far, hasn’t been explicitly considered. The critical survey will be the task of the next two sections, while, in the remaining.. (shrink)

1. Transmission Jim’s teacher has just given him his marked maths exam. Jim knows that his mark is 7.25 out of 22. He also knows that the pass mark is 35%. Does Jim know he has failed? No, he doesn’t. Not yet. As you would expect from his mark, Jim is not very good with numbers. He’ll need a few minutes with pencil and paper to work out that 7.25 is less than 35% of 22. Only then will he know (...) that he has failed. This case exemplifies a common and important phenomenon: someone recognises the validity of an inference from a set of premises that he knows, and in so doing he acquires knowledge of the conclusion. Jim knows that his mark is 7.25 out of 22 and that the passmark is 35%. Then, by virtue of his calculation, he comes to recognise the validity of the inference from these premises to the conclusion that he has failed, thereby coming to know the sad truth. It is undeniable that there are many cases, like Jim’s, in which recognising the validity of an inference from known premises brings about knowledge of the conclusion, as this is the most natural characterisation of what goes on when we acquire knowledge by deductive inference. But can knowledge always be acquired in this way? Does recognition of the validity of an inference from known premises always bring about knowledge of the conclusion? (shrink)

To the sceptic's contention that I don't know that I have hands because I don't know that there is an external world, the Moorean replies that I know that there is an external world because I know that I have hands. Crispin Wright has argued that the Moorean move is illegitimate, and has tried to block it by limiting the applicability of the principle of the transmission of knowledge by inference—the principle that recognising the validity of an inference from known (...) premises generates knowledge of the conclusion. I argue that, in the presence of some plausible assumptions, blocking the Moorean move does not require limiting the applicability of the transmission principle. Then I argue against Jim Pryor's contention that the Moorean argument transmits evidential support from its premises to its conclusion. (shrink)

To the sceptic's contention that I don't know that I have hands because I don't know that there is an external world, the Moorean replies that I know that there is an external world because I know that I have hands. Crispin Wright has argued that the Moorean move is illegitimate, and has tried to block it by limiting the applicability of the principle of the transmission of knowledge by inference—the principle that recognising the validity of an inference from known (...) premises generates knowledge of the conclusion. I argue that, in the presence of some plausible assumptions, blocking the Moorean move does not require limiting the applicability of the transmission principle. Then I argue against Jim Pryor's contention that the Moorean argument transmits evidential support from its premises to its conclusion. (shrink)

In the contemporary expanding literature on transmission failure and its connections with issues such as the Closure principle, the nature of perceptual warrant, Moore’s proof of an external world and the effectiveness of Humean scepticism, it has often been assumed that there is just one kind of it: the one made familiar by the writings of Crispin Wright and Martin Davies. Although it might be thought that one kind of failure is more than enough, Davies has recently challenged this view: (...) apparently, there are more ways in heaven and earth that warrant can fail to transmit across valid inference from one (set of) belief(s) to another, than have been dreamt of in philosophy so far. More specifically, Davies thinks that a second kind of transmission failure has to be countenanced. He connects each kind of failure of transmission of warrant with two different kinds of epistemic project, respectively, and with the exploration of whether the current dispute between conservatives such as Wright, and liberals such as Jim Pryor, on the nature of perceptual warrant, would have a bearing on them. I point out why Davies’s second kind of transmission failure is indeed no such thing. I then move on to canvass another kind of transmission failure, different from the one studied by both Wright and Davies, and dependent on an alternative conception of the structure of empirical warrants, which I dub “moderatism”. I then consider how this alternative notion of transmission failure fares with respect to Moore’s proof, its relationship with Wright’s kind of transmission failure and with the Closure principle. In closing, I defend it from criticisms that can be elicited from Pryor’s recent work. (shrink)

Transmission of justification across inference is a valuable and indeed ubiquitous epistemic phenomenon in everyday life and science. It is thanks to the phenomenon of epistemic transmission that inferential reasoning is a means for substantiating predictions of future events and, more generally, for expanding the sphere of our justified beliefs or reinforcing the justification of beliefs that we already entertain. However, transmission of justification is not without exceptions. As a few epistemologists have come to realise, more or less trivial forms (...) of circularity can prevent justification from transmitting from p to q even if one has justification for p and one is aware of the inferential link from p to q. In interesting cases this happens because one can acquire justification for p only if one has independent justification for q. In this case the justification for q cannot depend on the justification for p and the inferential link from p to q, as genuine transmission would require. The phenomenon of transmission failure seems to shed light on philosophical puzzles, such as Moore's proof of a material world and McKinsey's paradox, and it plays a central role in various philosophical debates. For this reason it is being granted continued and increasing attention. (shrink)

Technological revolutions are dissected into three stages: the introduction stage, the permeation stage, and the power stage. The information revolution is a primary example of this tripartite model. A hypothesis about ethics is proposed, namely, ethical problems increase as technological revolutions progress toward and into the power stage. Genetic technology, nanotechnology, and neurotechnology are good candidates for impending technological revolutions. Two reasons favoring their candidacy as revolutionary are their high degree of malleability and their convergence. Assuming the emerging technologies develop (...) into mutually enabling revolutionary technologies, we will need better ethical responses to cope with them. Some suggestions are offered about how our approach to ethics might be improved. (shrink)

The standard interpretation of the imitation game is defended over the rival gender interpretation though it is noted that Turing himself proposed several variations of his imitation game. The Turing test is then justified as an inductive test not as an operational definition as commonly suggested. Turing's famous prediction about his test being passed at the 70% level is disconfirmed by the results of the Loebner 2000 contest and the absence of any serious Turing test competitors from AI on the (...) horizon. But, reports of the death of the Turing test and AI are premature. AI continues to flourish and the test continues to play an important philosophical role in AI. Intelligence attribution, methodological, and visionary arguments are given in defense of a continuing role for the Turing test. With regard to Turing's predictions one is disconfirmed, one is confirmed, but another is still outstanding. (shrink)

Computer and information ethics, as well as other fields of applied ethics, need ethical theories which coherently unify deontological and consequentialist aspects of ethical analysis. The proposed theory of just consequentialism emphasizes consequences of policies within the constraints of justice. This makes just consequentialism a practical and theoretically sound approach to ethical problems of computer and information ethics.

The precautionary principle (PP) is thought by many to be a useful strategy for action and by many others useless at best and dangerous at worst. We argue that it is a coherent and useful principle. We first clarify the principle and then defend it against a number of common criticisms. Three examples from nanotechnology are used; nanoparticles and possible health and environmental problems, grey goo and the potential for catastrophe, and privacy risks generated by nanoelectronics.

Many have claimed that split-brain patients are actually two persons. I maintain that both the traditional separation argument and the more recent sophistication argument for the two persons interpretation are inadequate on conceptual grounds. An autonomy argument is inadequate on empirical grounds. Overall, theoretical and practical consequences weigh heavily in favor of adopting a one person interpretation.

1. Tout système juridique est production d’une histoire et d’une culture politiques déterminée, qui lui ont donné une organisation spécifique. Parler des limites de telles organisations peut s’entendre en deux sens, qui interagissent: premièrement, elles peuvent servir à différencier ces systèmes par rapport à d’autres ordres normatifs. Secondement, elles désignent ce que, par sa texture, le droit est hors d’état de réussir. 2. On comprend le concept de système comme une organisation aux structures différenciées de textes, de normes, d’acteurs. Ce (...) qui caractérise un système est son autoréférentialité et ses modes de clôture et ses modes d’ouverture. 3. Concernant la limite dans le second sens, on observera que la normativité comme mode d’action propre au droit le met souvent dans l’incapacité d’assumer pleinement les tâches de régulation qui lui sont confiées. Il s’agit d’une part d’une limite factuelle: celle de la technicité et du volume de ces tâches. D’autre part, la nécessité de plus en plus fréquente de prendre en compte les circonstances individuelles concrètes de l’application entraîne une légistique de diminution de la densité normative et, par conséquent, de déplacer une épistémologie fondée sur la répétition en direction de l’innovation. 4. Ces deux facteurs notamment font du droit un univers qui ne peut plus prétendre à une complétude cohérente: c’est un univers en constante évolution, qui exige pour sa mise en œuvre, de manière continue, l’apport d’informations provenant de son environnement. Ces apports circulent dans les modes d’ouverture du droit—la diminution de la densité normative et le recours à des expertises, des savoirs, des déontologies extérieures. Cependant, en vertu de l’autoréférentialité du droit, ces apports doivent être sélectionnés et juridicisés pour être intégrés dans le système juridique et préserver ainsi sa clôture. Il y a là une double programmation à respecter: la sélection doit d’une part respecter le cadre normatif du droit et de l’autre porter sur un choix correspondant aux attentes sociales qu’il s’agit de convaincre de son bien-fondé. Les limites du droit par rapport à d’autres ordres normatifs est ainsi définie par l’ordre juridique lui-même, dans le respect de cette double programmation. 5. Ce système a des présupposés politiques, culturels et historiques qui empêchent d’élaborer sans autre une essence du droit, valable urbi et orbi: notamment séparation des pouvoirs et liberté d’expression. Il n’est même pas certain qu’il puisse perdurer. En particulier, l’internalisation croissante du droit n’est guère conciliable avec son organisation telle que l’Occident l’a conçue. En outre, de plus en plus le droit devient l’objet d’une normativité supérieure, au nom de laquelle il est lui-même jugé: c’est le phénomène de l’économisation du droit. (shrink)

A healthy civil society is essential in order to deal with “wicked” societal problems. Merely involving institutional actors and mass media is not sufficient. Intermedia can play a crucial complementary role in strengthening civil society. However, the potential of these technologies needs to be carefully tailored to the requirements and constraints of the communities grown around them. The GRASS system for group report authoring is one carefully tailored socio-technical system aimed at unlocking this potential. Such systems may help to develop (...) stakeholder communities that are more productive in societal conflict resolution. (shrink)

This paper presents the principal findings from a three-year research project funded by the US National Science Foundation on ethics of human enhancement technologies. To help untangle this ongoing debate, we have organized the discussion as a list of questions and answers, starting with background issues and moving to specific concerns, including: freedom & autonomy, health & safety, fairness & equity, societal disruption, and human dignity. Each question-and-answer pair is largely self-contained, allowing the reader to skip to those issues of (...) interest without affecting continuity. (shrink)

This cutting edge volume provides an overview of the dynamic new field of cyberphilosophy – the intersection of philosophy and computing.

Computing plays an important role in genetics (and vice versa).Theoretically, computing provides a conceptual model for thefunction and malfunction of our genetic machinery. Practically,contemporary computers and robots equipped with advancedalgorithms make the revelation of the complete human genomeimminent – computers are about to reveal our genetic soulsfor the first time. Ethically, computers help protect privacyby restricting access in sophisticated ways to genetic information.But the inexorable fact that computers will increasingly collect,analyze, and disseminate abundant amounts of genetic informationmade available through the (...) genetic revolution, not to mentionthat inexpensive computing devices will make genetic informationgathering easier, underscores the need for strong and immediateprivacy legislation. (shrink)

A ciência fenomenológica procura tratar os fenômenos como puras possibilidades. Tudo o que se doa para a consciência tem a possibilidade de ser descrito tal e qual se mostra por si mesmo numa intuição. O sujeito transcendental é o fundamento receptivo para o que é dado e, é dele, que partem os raios intencionais, dos quais os fenômenos ganham um sentido de ser de algo. Deus para ter sentido de “Deus” precisa ser para um sujeito. Mas, como Deus se doa? (...) Ele não é tal como os objetos que são dados de imediato para a consciência, mas mediado por uma teleologia da própria razão. O presente artigo se propõe pensar no tratamento que Husserl dá a sua fenomenologia como metafisica, partindo da subjetividade transcendental e destacando se “Deus” não excede ou seria outro fundamento ao lado do ego puro. A partir daí, procura-se ressaltar como o “fenômeno Deus” aparece no seu sistema fenomenológico, verificando como isso se dá em seus escritos inéditos apresentados por Jocelyn Benoist e a abertura para uma fenomenologia metafísica com Jean Luc-Marion. (shrink)

Nanoethics seeks to examine the potential risks and rewards of applications of nanotechnology. This up-to-date anthology gives the reader an introduction to and basic foundation in nanotechnology and nanoethics, and then delves into near-, mid-, and far-term issues. Comprehensive and authoritative, it: -/- - Goes beyond the usual environmental, health, and safety (EHS) concerns to explore such topics as privacy, nanomedicine, human enhancement, global regulation, military, humanitarianism, education, artificial intelligence, space exploration, life extension, and more -/- -Features contributions from forty (...) preeminent experts from academia and industry worldwide, reflecting diverse perspectives -/- -Includes seminal works that influence nanoethics today -/- -Encourages an informed, proactive approach to nanoethics and advocates addressing new and emerging controversies before they impede progress or impact our welfare -/- This resource is designed to promote further investigations and a broad and balanced dialogue in nanoethics, dealing with critical issues that will affect the industry as well as society. While this will be a definitive reference for students, scientists in academia and industry, policymakers, and regulators, it's also a valuable resource for anyone who wants to understand the challenges, principles, and potential of nanotechnology. (shrink)