There is increasing global pressure to ensure that pregnant women are responsibly and safely included in clinical research in order to improve the evidence base that underpins healthcare delivery during pregnancy. One supposed barrier to inclusion is the assumption that pregnant women will be reluctant to participate in research. There is however very little empirical research investigating the views of pregnant women. Their perspective on the benefits, burdens and risks of research is a crucial component to ensuring effective recruitment. The (...) Research In Pregnancy Ethics study set out to ascertain the views of pregnant women about research participation using an inductive thematic analysis. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 women who had participated in a double-blind randomised placebo controlled trial in Wellington while pregnant. Our results show that at least some pregnant women recognise the value and importance of research during pregnancy. The women we interviewed were deeply invested in the research process and outcomes. Key motivations for participating were altruism, playing a valuable civic role and the importance of research. The main perceived burdens related to inconvenience and time commitment. For some women, possible randomization to the placebo arm was regarded as a burden or disadvantage. (shrink)

From popular introductions to biographies and television programmes, philosophy is everywhere. Many people even want to _be_ philosophers, usually in the café or the pub. But what do real philosophers do? What are the big philosophical issues of today? Why do they matter? How did some our best philosophers get into philosophy in the first place? Read _New British Philosophy_ and find out for the first time. Clear, engaging and designed for a general audience, sixteen fascinating interviews with some of (...) the top philosophers from the new generation of the subject's leaders range from music to the mind and feminism to the future of philosophy. Each interview is introduced and conducted by Julian Baggini and Jeremy Stangroom of _The Philosophers Magazine_. This is a unique snapshot of philosophy in Great Britain today and includes interviews with: Ray Monk - Biography; Nigel Warburton - the Public; Aaron Ridley - Music; Jonathan Wolff - Politics; Roger Crisp - Ethics; Rae Langton - Pornography; Miranda Fricker - Knowledge; M.G.F.Martin - Perception; Timothy Williamson - Vagueness; Tim Crane - Mind; Robin Le Poidevin - Metaphysics; Christina Howells - Sartre; Simon Critchley - Phenomenology; Simon Glendinning - Continental; Stephen Mulhall - the Future; Keith Ansell Pearson - the Human. (shrink)

Partnerships between businesses and nonprofit organisations are an increasingly prominent element of corporate social responsibility implementation. The paper is based on two in-depth partnership case studies (Earthwatch-Rio Tinto and Prince's Trust-Royal Bank of Scotland) that move beyond a simple stage model to reveal the deeper-level micro-processes in the selection, design and institutionalisation of business-NGO partnerships. The suggested practice-tested model is followed by a discussion that highlights management issues within partnership implementation and a practical Partnership Test to assist managers in testing (...) both the accountability and level of institutionalisation of the relationship to address any possible skill gaps. Understanding how CSR partnerships are implemented in practice contributes to the broader CSR and partnership literatures a contextspecific level of detail in a systematic way that allows for transferable learning in both theory and practice. (shrink)

The literature on cross-sector partnerships has increasingly focused attention on broader systemic or system-level change. However, research to date has been partial and fragmented, and the very idea of systemic change remains conceptually underdeveloped. In this article, we seek to better understand what is meant by systemic change in the context of cross-sector partnerships and use this as a basis to discuss the contributions to the Thematic Symposium. We present evidence from a broad, multidisciplinary systematized review of the extant literature, (...) develop an original definition of systemic change, and offer a framework for understanding the interactions between actors, partnerships, systemic change, and issues. We conclude with some suggestions for future research that we believe will enhance the literature in its next phase of development. (shrink)

Systems change requires complex interventions. Cross-sector partnerships face the daunting task of addressing complex societal problems by aligning different backgrounds, values, ideas and resources. A major challenge for CSPs is how to link the type of partnership to the intervention needed to drive change. Intervention strategies are thereby increasingly based on Theories of Change. Applying ToCs is often a donor requirement, but it also reflects the ambition of a partnership to enhance its transformative potential. The current use of ToCs in (...) partnering efforts varies greatly. There is a tendency for a linear and relatively simple use of ToCs that does limited justice to the complexity of the problems partnerships aim to address. Since partnership dynamics are already complex and challenging themselves, confusion and disagreement over the appropriate application of ToCs is likely to hamper rather than enhance the transformative potential of partnerships. We develop a complexity alignment framework and a diagnostic tool that enables partnerships to better appreciate the complexity of the context in which they operate, allowing them to adjust their learning strategy. This paper applies recent insights into how to deal with complexity from both the evaluation and theory of change fields to studies investigating the transformative capacity of partnerships. This can serve as a check to define the challenges of partnering projects and can help delineate the societal sources and layers of complexity that cross-sector partnerships deal with such as failure, insufficient responsibility taking and collective action problems at four phases of partnering. (shrink)

In recent years, research on morality in organizational life has begun to examine how organizational conduct comes to be socially constructed as having failed to comply with a community’s accepted morals. Researchers in this stream of research, however, have paid little attention to identifying and theorizing the key actors involved in these social construction processes and the types of accounts they construct. In this paper, we explore a set of key structural and cultural dimensions of apparent noncompliance that enable us (...) to distinguish between four categories of actors who engage in constructing the label of moral failure: dominant insiders, watchdog organizations, professional members, and publics. The analysis further clarifies which category of actor is more likely to succeed in constructing the label of moral failure under which circumstances, and what accounts they are likely to use, namely scapegoating, prototyping, shaming, and protesting. (shrink)

Sowohl die wissenschaftliche als auch die lebensweltliche Praxis sind ohne den Austausch von Gründen nicht denkbar, und dennoch ist notorisch unklar, was man unter Gründen eigentlich verstehen sollte: Was ist ihr ontologischer und erkenntnistheoretischer Status? Sind sie objektiv oder subjektiv? In welchem Verhältnis stehen praktische und theoretische Gründe zueinander? Was können Gründe überhaupt leisten? Die in diesem Band versammelten Kongressbeiträge untersuchen das Thema »Gründe« aus den unterschiedlichen Perspektiven der verschiedenen Strömungen der zeitgenössischen Philosophie. Dieser Pluralismus spiegelt sich auch in den (...) Hauptvorträgen wider, für die Seyla Benhabib, Lorraine Daston, Peter Gärdenfors, Jürgen Habermas, Franz von Kutschera, Susan Neiman und Robert Pippin gewonnen werden konnten. (shrink)

Phenomenal transparency was once widely believed to be necessary for cognitive extension. Recently, this claim has come under attack, with a new consensus coalescing around the idea that transparency is neither necessary for internal nor extended cognitive processes. We take these recent critiques as an opportunity to refine the concept of transparency relevant for cognitive extension. In particular, we highlight that transparency concerns an agent’s employment of a resource – and that such employment is compatible with an agent consciously apprehending (...) (or attending to) a resource. This means it is possible for an object to be transparent and opaque to an agent, even at a single moment in time. Once we understand transparency in this way, the detractors’ claims lose their bite, and existing arguments for transparency’s necessity for cognitive extension return to apply with full force. (shrink)

Shmuel Nili’s Philosophizing The Indefensible – Strategic Political Theory represents a sophisticated response to the widespread support of political positions that seem unreasonable from the perspective of liberal political morality. Nili takes seriously extreme right-wing, pro-life, pro-business, and climate change-sceptic positions that other liberal theorists seem to prefer sweeping under the carpet when turning towards yet another puzzle of liberalism. This is a refreshing move, which Nili pursues masterfully through the critical analysis of such seemingly indefensible positions in painstaking detail. (...) That said, readers who are intrigued by the political philosophical methods of Charles Larmore and the late John Rawls, who accept the fact of reasonable moral disagreement and focus primarily on the question of political legitimacy, may sometimes find that Nili’s argumentations are somewhat moralistic. (shrink)

Wellbeing is classically considered a bi-product or externality of economic activity, which can either be positively or negatively influenced. This conventional view is returning to the fore in the face of renewed criticisms of ESG reporting standards as leading business astray from its core financial purpose. However, such reactivism overlooks the fact that wellbeing is the functional and overarching aim of human activity, which Aristotle defines as self-actualization. As such, any sound economic system must, in a fundamental way, enhance individual (...) and collective wellbeing. This essay calls for reinforcing social purpose commitments through a capitalism rooted in moral self-awareness in which the common good displaces profit as the sole function of business. According to this picture, profit maintains its proper place as the means of economic transactions, allowing social purpose to take up its proper place as business' central aim. (shrink)

Animals obviously cannot have a right of free speech or a right to vote because they lack the relevant capacities. But their right to life and to be free of exploitation is no less fundamental than the corresponding right of humans, writes Julian H. Franklin. This theoretically rigorous book will reassure the committed, help the uncertain to decide, and arm the polemicist. Franklin examines all the major arguments for animal rights proposed to date and extends the philosophy in new (...) directions. _Animal Rights and Moral Philosophy_ begins by considering the utilitarian argument of equal respect for animals advocated by Peter Singer and, even more favorably, the rights approach that has been advanced by Tom Regan. Despite their merits, both are found wanting as theoretical foundations for animal rights. Franklin also examines the ecofeminist argument for an ethics of care and several rationalist arguments before concluding that Kant's categorical imperative can be expanded to form a basis for an ethical system that includes all sentient beings. Franklin also discusses compassion as applied to animals, encompassing Albert Schweitzer's ethics of reverence for life. He concludes his analysis by considering conflicts of rights between animals and humans. (shrink)

Julian Baggini's inspector Gore is puzzled by Abraham's faith in God, which, Gore suspects, boils down to a form of mental illness.

Julian Baggini has managed to lay his hands on some newspaper articles from the future.

We spend much of our adult lives thinking and reminiscing about particular events of the past, which, by their very nature, can never be repeated. What is involved in a capacity to think thoughts of this kind? In this paper, I propose that such thoughts are essentially connected with a capacity to communicate about past events, and specifically in the special way in which events of the past are valued and shared in our relationships with one another. I motivate this (...) proposal by way of the claim that such thoughts are practically useless: there are no practical, forward-looking tasks that require information which is specific to particular past events. Thus I suggest that thoughts of this specific kind have a home only in the cognitive economy of a creature who finds past events to be of interest for their own sake, and that this interest in the past is a peculiar feature of human social life. (shrink)

Robert Trueman (2022) sets out and defends an ‘immodest’ identity theory of truth: that is, an identity theory in which the facts with which true propositions are identical are things whose totality is the world: i.e. obtaining states of affairs. This brief reply argues that Truman’s theory falls foul of a perennial objection to such immodest identity theories: namely, that it cannot explain how a candidate proposition’s putative elements can be unified into a proposition proper without this proposition being true.

Predicates like _knowable_, _believable_ or _evincible_ each are associated with Fitch-like paradoxes. Given some plausible assumptions, the _prima facie_ reasonable hypotheses that _what is true is knowable/believable/evincible_ entail, respectively, the decidedly unreasonable conclusions that _what is true is known/believed/evinced_. I argue that all Fitch-like paradoxes admit of a common diagnosis and give a uniform semantics for predicates like _knowable_ that avoids the paradoxes while accounting for the intuitive meaning of these predicates. Moreover, I argue that a semantics of the same (...) shape is to be given to similar predicates like _erasable_ or _legible_, whose simple analyses likewise face broadly Fitch-like problems. This semantics also highlights and explains the context-sensitive nature of such predicates. (shrink)

There’s not only indifference, there’s actually a huge sense of sneering superiority. The need for intercultural understanding and global dialogue between different philosophical traditions and philosophical countries is so important. It’s just crazy to think that in your own monoglot culture you’ve got all the essential tools that you need to do philosophy.

“It’s not good enough to say there’s some mechanism such that you start out with amoebas and you end up with us. Everybody agrees with that. The question is in this case in the mechanical details. What you need is an account, as it were step by step, about what the constraints are, what the environmental variables are, and Darwin doesn’t give you that.”.

ABSTRACTAny philosophy which aspires to universality is caught in a perennial tension: the attempt to transcend the particularities of the individual thinker and her time and place can only be made by specific individuals in specific times and places. Anglophone philosophy deals with this tension by ignoring it.

It’s quite unlike anything else. One just gets the sense of a breadth and variety of philosophy that’s going on. I’m making a point of going on the whole to sessions in areas which aren’t close to my specialised scholarly interests and hearing people from countries I don’t normally encounter. One could stick to mainstream Anglo-American analytic philosophy – there’s enough of that going on here – but why come all this way for that?

Knowledge is often thought of as something that we each individually have, something inside our own minds. But our knowledge depends on other people's testimony and expertise. And what we know depends on what our society makes it possible for us to know, either formally or informally through social norms and practices that suppress some ideas and privilege others. The philosophical study of the social dimension of knowledge is called Social Epistemology. This volume gathers experts in the field from across (...) the world to give their perspectives on it. (shrink)

“Socrates spent many of his prime years fighting the most vicious, pitiless wars. I think that has a huge impact. I wonder if his central interest in the good is because actually he saw a lot that was very bad all around him.”.

Kids can astonish with the philosophical ideas they spontaneously have, but are they really able to follow through their implications systematically and logically? And isn’t that what philosophy is essentially about, not just having interesting ideas?

It was only after the liberation in 1945 that we started to reflect and revive again our traditional philosophy. But for a long time it was neglected. Many of our universities did not teach oriental philosophy or Korean philosophy at all. We learned Heiddegger, Nietzsche, Hegel, Kant.

My father really looked forward to reading my book and then was terribly disappointed when he found it was unreadable. One of the reader’s reports for the press when it was published said ‘This book is written ordinary English – there are no symbols, little of what could be called technical terminology – but this appearance is entirely misleading’.