ABSTRACT People tend to be unable to evaluate themselves accurately in many areas. One such area is their own and others’ morality. The current research explores the self–other moral valuation difference in the context of moral foundation theory. We propose that people generally have a moral positive illusion. Specifically, people overestimate their own morality and underestimate the morality of others. Two studies provide converging evidence that individuals underestimate the average moral valuations of others on (...) the five dimensions of moral foundation theory. In particular, we demonstrate three moderators for moral positive illusion: moral foundation type, gender, and political identity. Specifically, compared with the binding foundations, people have greater moral positive illusions based on the individualizing foundations; compared to men, women have greater moral positive illusions; and compared with liberals, conservatives have greater moral positive illusions based on the binding foundations. (shrink)

Available from UMI in association with The British Library. Requires signed TDF. ;The libertarian conception of free will is incoherent, irrespective of the prospects for determinism. However, both compatibilist and hard determinist accounts of the implications of the lack of libertarian free will are inadequate. This I attempt to show primarily with respect to the notions of desert and justice. Working from a "Core Conception" of justice, I argue that we are obliged to recognize a "Fundamental Dualism" in the morally (...) proper attitude to desert and justice. This means that the compatibilist claim that moral responsibility and justice are not harmed by the lack of libertarian free will is mistaken; but so is the hard determinist claim that no account of moral responsibility and justice is possible once the lack of libertarian free will is realized. The dualistic position proposed attempts to combine the insights of compatibilism and hard determinism, while avoiding their inadequacies. Other alternative positions on the free will issue are also argued to be inadequate. In the light of these considerations it is argued that motivated illusion is a central requirement of moral and personal life. In arguing for the importance of illusion, I claim that it is a reality today, that it is mostly positive, and that by and large it ought to continue. To some extent illusion is unavoidable, but, even more interestingly, there seem to be avoidable but morally necessary illusions. The importance of illusion presents great difficulties in the moral and political sphere as well as in the cognitive sphere. Appreciation of the relatively neglected role of illusion, which follows from the basic structure of the free will problem in its moral aspects, is an important key to making progress on this problem. (shrink)

This essay clarifies Nietzsche's early views on truth and falsity by giving a systematic reading of On Truth and Lie in the Extra-Moral Sense. Contrary to the prevailing view in recent Nietzsche scholarship, I argue that Nietzsche, in TL, affirms neither truth as correspondence nor the inevitable falsification of the world by cognition. I show that where Nietzsche appears to affirm falsification, he is in fact giving a reductio ad absurdum of truth as correspondence and the notion of objectivity (...) on which it relies. Though I limit my discussion to TL, I engage the more general debate around falsification by showing that more than one sense of falsification is at work in Nietzsche's discussions of truth and cognition. I argue that by criticizing illusory conceptions of truth, essence, and objective knowledge, Nietzsche develops a conception of cognition that prefigures his later naturalistic and perspectival accounts of knowledge. Because of the clear links between the views sketched in the early essay and Nietzsche's later philosophical project, I conclude that TL sets out positions and a project that Nietzsche continues to develop and experiment with throughout his "mature" work.Dieser Aufsatz erläutert Nietzsches frühes Verständnis von Warheit und Fälschung durch eine systematische Auslegung von Ueber Wahrheit und Lüge im aussermoralischen Sinne. Im Gegensatz zu einer voherrschenden Ansicht der heutigen Nietzsche-Forschung wird hier argumentiert, dass Nietzsche in Wahrheit und Lüge weder Wahrheit im Sinne von adacquatio versteht, noch sich für eine These von der unvermeidlichen Fälschung der Welt durch den Erkenntnisvorgang einsetzt. Die Textstellen, in denen Nietzsche von einer der Erkenntnis innewohnenden Fälschung zu sprechen scheint, kann man viel besser verstehen, wenn man diese Stellen als eine reductio ad absurdum von Warheit asl adaquatio liest, einschliesslich des Begriffs der Objektivität, dem sic entspricht. Im folgenden wird die Auslegung auf Nietzsches Verständnis von Fälschung auf den frühen Aufsatz Warheit aund Lüge begrenzt; dennoch werden die Schlüsse, die von diesem Aufsatz gewonnen werden, in die weitere Diskussion von Nietzsches Verständnis von Fälschung einbezogen. In diesem Sinne wird gezeigt, dass meberere Anischten zum Thema Fälschung in Nietzsches Texten verkommen, und folglich dass in Bezug auf Nietzsches Verständnis von Warheit und Erkenntnis Fälschung nur in dieser Vielfalt in Betracht gezogen werden kann. Ich vertete die Ansicht, dass Nietzsche eine Vorstellung von Erkenntnis entwickelt, die seine spätere naturalistische und perspektivische Auffassung von Erkenntnis ankündigt Wegen der klaren verbindung zwischen den im frühen Aufsatz skizzierten Ansichten und Nietzsches späterem philosophischen Vorhaben, komme ich zu dem Schluss, dass Warheit und Lüge philosophische Denkweisen darlegt, die Nietzsche nach und nach entwickelt und mit denen er in seinen späteren Werken experimentiert. (shrink)

The Illusion of the Body: Introducing the Body Alive Principle is the divinely inspired work of author David Almeida. This book opens the door to a new understanding in metaphysical thinking. The author draws on the philosophy of panpsychism to support his contention that an unseen ocean of consciousness exists all around us, and within our own bodies (i.e. cells, organs, and systems). The author refers to the Body Alive Principle as “panpsychic healing.” This text offers proven techniques for (...) communicating with the body intelligences the author terms the “little minds.” This process is intended to bring healing to those with both minor and severe medical conditions. Some of the most common medical complaints treated by the Body Alive Principle includes:1. Back or neck pain2. Allergies3. Arthritis/rheumatism4. Difficulty walking5. Headaches6. Lung problems7. Digestive8. Gynecological9. Anxiety disorders10. Heart conditionsThe author contends that even the most nefarious medical issues are curable or can be successfully managed using the Body Alive Principle. This is accomplished through the action of human “super mind”, which will at times consciously supervise the activities of the little minds. The Illusion of the Body instructs its Body Alive practitioners to approach their recovery using several time-tested techniques. Three widely recognized methods are employed in the application of the panpsychic healing philosophy. These modalities are creative visualization and empathetic listening followed by affirmative commands. Each technique is essential to the effectiveness of the Body Alive Principle.This book also discusses guilt and its deleterious effect on the body. True guilt has a beneficial quality when it prevents us from repeating an unacceptable behavior. Beyond this, guilt causes us to become ineffectual. The author holds that this antiquated form guilt needs to be purged, so that we may move on with our lives. A step-by-step process for liberating oneself from the chains of guilt is provided.There is also a section dedicated to trauma because of its potential to immobilize an affected person. Traumatic experiences suddenly unleashed on the body may produce waves of acute anxiety, which wreak havoc on its finely tuned systems. The author recounts his personal experience of negotiating the discharge of negative experiences with the entities supporting them.The Body Alive Principle promotes the importance of adhering to high moral standards in order to maintain homeostasis within ourselves. Integrity is of the outmost importance to the little minds. The author emphasizes the necessity for one to act within the domain of moral excellence. However, the author makes it clear that integrity is a process we work to perfect throughout our lives.The Illusion of the Body represents the author's many years of metaphysical study and experimentation. The author hopes to generate a greater awareness and appreciation of our precious bodily intelligences. The organic vessels that contain our consciousness are alive. They are almost countless in number. If we, the super mind can learn to communicate with the little minds in a positive way, we can ensure ourselves of a more comfortable journey. (shrink)

Saul Smilansky's Illusionism suggests that some false beliefs are important enough to warrant the indefinite perpetuation of illusions in order to protect the larger moral community from breaking down. In this article I suggest that this position actualises an old educational paradox where education is expected to protect the common moral community (even if this means maintaining some illusions), and at the same time promote the pursuit of truth. Taking Smilansky's position of Illusionism as a starting point, I (...) argue that while Illusionism highlights and addresses an important problem—that sometimes false beliefs can function to maintain social stability where the truth threatens to unsettle it—relying on indefinite illusions is problematic from an educational point of view. It is difficult to justify that education, being at least in part motivated by truth-seeking, should (or even could) be grounded in illusion. Taking seriously the fact that a dimension of education concerns maintaining social stability, I suggest that Spinoza's notion of fiction can complement Smilansky's view in that it can be conceived in terms of an instrument for maintaining social stability and promoting truth-seeking without assuming that one end is pursued at the expense of the other. (shrink)

In the Protagoras, Socrates argues that what appears to be akrasia is, in fact, the result of a hedonic illusion: proximate pleasures appear greater than distant ones. On the face of it, his account is puzzling: why should proximate pleasures appear greater than distant ones? Certain interpreters argue that Socrates must be assuming the existence of non-rational desires that cause proximate pleasures to appear inflated. In this paper, I argue that positing non-rational desires fails to explain the hedonic error. (...) However, careful consideration of Socrates’ treatment of appearances reveals that he is not without resources to explain the illusion. I argue that in the Protagoras, appearances are imagistic mental representations that appear true but tend to be false. I suggest that proximate pleasures produce inflated hedonic predictions because we represent them more vividly than distant ones, yielding greater anticipatory pleasure which causes us to overestimate their magnitude. (shrink)

1. “All Theory is Against Free Will…” Powerful arguments have been leveled against the concepts of free will and moral responsibility since the Greeks and perhaps earlier. Some—the hard determinists—aim to show that free will is incompatible with determinism, and that determinism is true. Therefore there is no free will. Others, the “no-free-will-either-way-theorists,” agree that determinism is incompatible with free will, but add that indeterminism, especially the variety posited by quantum physicists, is also incompatible with free will. Therefore there (...) is no free will. Finally, there are the a priori arguments against free will. These arguments conclude that it makes no difference what metaphysical commitments we hold: free will and ultimate moral responsibility are incoherent concepts. Why? Because in order to have free will and ultimate moral responsibility we would have to be causa sui, or ‘cause of oneself.’ And it is logically impossible to be self-caused in this way. Here, for example, is Nietzsche on the causa sui. (shrink)

Investigation of spiritual-moral factors of psychological defence of personality is being put in practice through Christian cognition about a man and with the help of modern psychological achievement in science. The most important spiritual factors are sin and passion. Sin is observed as one of the reasons of moral men'sdiseases, which brings to moral, psychological and body's destructions and unconscious psychological defence. Defensive mechanisms is the way to support men's sin passion, blunt conscience, keep positive (...) class='Hi'>illusion and unbroken “I” of his personality. All the necessary ways to overcome destructive psychologicaldefence and to get mental healthy are being observed. Confession, prayer, keep eating, taking part in Church Mystery, charity-wisdom are the main ways in Christian Tradition. (shrink)

During combat, soldiers make critical split-second choices about matters of life and death dozens of times a day. These individual decisions accumulate to determine the outcome of wars. In this book, Marcus Schulzke examines the theory and practice of how military ethics can guide conduct in counterinsurgency, which are particularly difficult operations because the opponent operates outside of the laws of war. Schulzke surveys the ethical traditions that militaries borrow from; compares ethics in practice in the US Army, British Army (...) and Royal Marines Commandos, and Israel Defense Forces; and draws conclusions that may help militaries refine their approaches in future conflicts. The work is based on interviews with American, British, and Israeli soldiers who were deployed between 2000 and 2012, review of training materials and other official publications, published accounts from combat veterans, and observation of US Army focus groups with active duty soldiers. Examining three distinct national militaries illuminates positives and negatives is different approaches to military ethics. Schulzke makes a convincing argument that while moral warfare is an illusive goal, it is possible to make incremental improvements that can reduce war's destructiveness while improving the success of counterinsurgency operations. (shrink)

"Morality and religion have failed because they are based on duplicity and fantasy. We need something new." This bold statement is the driving force behind Richard Garner's "Beyond Morality." In his book, Garner presents an insightful defense of moral error theory-the idea that our moral thought and discourse is systemically flawed. Establishing his argument with a discerning survey of historical and contemporary moral beliefs from around the world, Garner critically evaluates the plausibility of these beliefs and ultimately (...) finds them wanting. In response, Garner suggests that humanity must "get beyond morality" by rejecting traditional language and thought about good and bad, right and wrong. He encourages readers to adhere to an alternative system of thought: "informed, compassionate amoralism," a blend of compassion, non-duplicity, and clarity of language that Garner believes will nurture our capability for tolerance, creation, and cooperation. By abandoning illusion and learning to listen to others and ourselves, Garner insists that society can and will find harmony. Richard Garner's, "Beyond Morality" delves deep into the thoughts and codes that inform the actions of humanity and offers a solution to the embedded error of these forces. An essential text for students of philosophy, "Beyond Morality" provides a groundwork for improving human action and relationships. Richard Garner is Professor Emeritus of Philosophy at Ohio State University. "One can discern the influence of the moral skeptic upon philosophy for as far back as one can gather any solid evidence at all, yet all too often the skeptical case has been articulated by opponents only with an eye to its refutation. All the more important it is, then, that forms of moral skepticism are sympathetically developed and advocated in the intellectual community. When first published in 1994, "Beyond Morality" was one of very few books that intelligently championed a radical type of moral skepticism; here Garner threw down the gauntlet in a firm, level-headed, and engaging manner. In so doing, he showed amoralism to have many attractions and a rich cultural history. Garner's position remains very much a live option in metaethics, and the importance of "Beyond Morality" has not diminished." -Richard Joyce, Professor of Philosophy, Victoria University of Wellington "This work is a tremendous achievement. The author's erudition is overwhelming, yet it is expressed without overwhelming the reader. He goes easily from modern to ancient thought. Some of the most difficult areas of thought are explored with such clarity that readers unfamiliar with them can grasp them readily. One of the chief virtues of this highly informative book is that it sets the problems of ethics in the context of wider areas of thought and brings them down to earth. Garner's main thesis, referred to as amoralism, is extremely important, not only to philosophy, but to all popular thinking about ethics, both theoretical and applied. He has done a magnificent job defending this important theme. This is a landmark work." -Richard Taylor, Professor Emeritus of Philosophy, University of Rochester "Garner is one of the first philosophers since Nietzsche to take seriously the idea that 'morality' might be nothing more than a sham. . . . In his hands, 'amoralism' turns out to be more appealing and humane than many thinkers' versions of 'morality'!" -James Rachels, Professor of Philosophy, University of Alabama at Birmingham. (shrink)

Much historical investigation has been conducted into the Victorians' fear of moral decline at the end of the nineteenth century. In part, concerns about the future of human morality and ethics were intimately connected with the rise of materialist science that appeared to be permeating every facet of human life and civilization. Uniquely, Alan Rauch's work moves this investigation back in time to examine the fear of moral decline in the early years of the Victorian era. Rauch posits (...) that in this period there was, on the one hand, a cultural recognition of the importance of the growth of “knowledge” production, often of the scientific kind. Such knowledge was considered to be useful in making technological advances that would improve human life. Yet, on the other hand, there was also concern that too much emphasis on the “getting and spending” of knowledge, especially scientific knowledge, would lead to materialism, atheism, and, thus, a loss of moral and ethical standards.Arguing that novels in this period reflected and responded to the larger cultural movements of the time, Rauch takes up a discussion of five novels: Jane Loudon's The Mummy , Mary Shelley's Frankenstein , Charlotte Bronte's The Professor , Charles Kingsley's Alton Locke , and George Eliot's The Mill on the Floss . Each of these novels, he argues, attempts to balance the need of British society to recognize the usefulness of scientific knowledge with the desire to retain traditional morals and values: “The challenge for the novelist was to create societies that responded to these inevitable developments without succumbing to a cynical dismissal of moral responsibility” . Before beginning his discussion of the novels, each of which gets a chapter, Rauch includes a useful introduction to the process of the dissemination of knowledge in this period that attends to the rise of encyclopedias, the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, and popular works for children. In each instance he shows how knowledge was paired with moral responsibility in this wider literary milieu. Rauch then moves on to show how novelists were clearly as fascinated as other writers by scientific and technological advances. They were also as worried as other groups in society that such progress could cause humans to lose their sympathy and concern for others, their spirituality, their ability to cooperate with members of other classes, their ability to grow and change for the better as physical, moral, and religious beings, and their respect for the natural world. The novelists Rauch discusses seem to argue that a balance may be struck between scientific knowledge and morality, maintaining the advantages of both.While the last chapter, on The Mill on the Floss, takes the reader beyond Rauch's time frame of the early Victorian period, his aim here is to show how the depiction of the relationship between science and morality in the novel must necessarily change after Darwin. Rauch argues that, unlike the earlier novelists, Eliot “constructed a world where scientific knowledge is, prima facie, the appropriate measure of the material world, and moral knowledge must bend to accommodate it” . Still, despite her acceptance of the laws of nature, Eliot, according to Rauch, still looked for a way to maintain human free will and moral duty. The introduction of this post‐Darwinian writer, in contrast to the earlier writers, raises the question of whether there were other novelists attempting to reconcile science and morality in this way in the later period and, if so, how they went about it.Rauch's main argument is convincing and contributes to the work to date on the relationship between literature and science and, more generally, to the recognition of the importance of science as a powerful cultural force in nineteenth‐century society. The book would certainly have benefited, however, from a much stronger gender analysis. Of the five novels treated, four are by women. The Victorian association of women with the moral, spiritual, and religious world, together with the female authorship of the majority of novels under discussion, leaves the reader to ponder the relationship between Rauch's main thesis and the gender of his chosen novelists. This is particularly relevant as Rauch argues that only Kingsley's novel fails in its endeavor to “link science with tradition” and attributes that failure to his insistence on “invoking religion” rather than a moral tradition that is not necessarily connected with the Church . Are women novelists alone responsible for successful explorations of the relationship between morality and scientific knowledge? Do the men who explore this relationship always fail? Considering his choice of novelists, this is an issue Rauch ought to have explored. (shrink)

This study analyses how online participants of celebrity gossip position themselves in relation to their audience through forms of moral argumentation and thereby contribute to social hierarchies. In this study, forms of moral argumentation are seen as enthymemes, that is, claim-reason units based on moral norms as premises. The material consists of a total of 900 asynchronous online comments in English and 900 in Finnish. In addition to rhetorical argumentation analysis, the study investigates the dependency of (...) class='Hi'>moral argumentation on three contextual variables: gendered violence as the topic of discussion, as the shared culture of participants and a media institution as the moderator of online discourse. Four forms of moral argumentation were found in the material: 1) theoretical, 2) practical, 3) categorical and 4) digital enthymeme. Theoretical, practical and categorical enthymemes are rhetorical in a traditional sense because they include the hierarchical idea of moral norms as the shared, more or less authoritarian, basis of a community. Digital enthymemes, conversely, are texts without clear borders or any notion of moral norms. Such arguments characterized especially user-generated, English-language discussions concerning female celebrities’ fights. This indicates that the digital enthymeme is particularly prevalent where there is a lack of obvious hierarchies in the context of argumentation. As this study argues, however, the seemingly non-hierarchical and individualistic participation through digital enthymemes is a mere illusion, for these enthymemes are based on crowd behaviour supportive of sexist and class-bound domination. (shrink)

While Kant’s claim that the moral law discloses our freedom to us has been extensively discussed in recent decades, the reactions to this claim among Kant’s immediate successors have gone largely overlooked by scholars. Reinhold, Creuzer, and Maimon were among three prominent thinkers of the era unwilling to follow Kant in making the moral law the condition for knowing our freedom. Maimon went so far as to reject Kant’s method of appealing to our everyday awareness of duty on (...) the grounds that common human understanding is susceptible to error and illusion. In this paper I shall examine how these skeptical reactions to Kant’s position shaped the background for Fichte’s method of moral justification, leading up to his own deduction of the moral law in the System of Ethics. By way of conclusion, I shall propose a new interpretation of how consciousness of the moral law serves as an entry-point to Fichte’s form of idealism. (shrink)

The epitome of modern scientific infrastructure and distributed knowledge systems is scientific social networks (NSS). Their number, as well as the number of their users, is constantly growing and reaches millions. They are in demand, and, therefore, perform significant social functions. It is still unclear what their own nature is, what their functions are and how they perform and, finally, what are the consequences of their integration with the social institute of science. Along with the obvious advantages, the NSS creates (...) clear cultural dissonances and challenges that change the usual ways of communication. There is already enough evidence that the NSS not only bring about positive change, but also face rejection. Science policy, the scientist's moral code, the scientific citation and evaluation systems are all affected by the activities of the NSS and become an important subject matter of science and technology studies (STS). This text is a response to the article “Social Networks for Researchers on the Internet: A New Sociality?” by S.V. Shibarshina. (shrink)

Over the course of the twentieth century, the logical space available to metaethics has been rather thoroughly mapped out. We now have a pretty good idea of the inhabitable terrain, and each bit of that terrain appears to be occupied by able defenders. So it comes as a surprise when Mark Timmons stakes out previously undiscovered and unclaimed territory. He defends a view that he labels “ethical contextualism,” a position that is at once naturalistic, nonreductive, nonrelativist, irrealist, nondescriptivist, and cognitivist. (...) The list may seem incoherent so as to risk identifying contextualism with a form of error theory, but Timmons thinks this is an illusion resulting from a failure to realize that not all assertions need be descriptive. Some assertions are evaluative assertions distinct from descriptive assertions. As assertions, they express beliefs, but not representational beliefs. (shrink)

Establishing a precise definition of moral innocence is a difficult task. Ordinarily philosophers explore the necessary and sufficient conditions of a term or concept in order to determine its meaning. Doing so with “moral innocence” proves difficult because the concept is mutable. The term is used in varying contexts to refer to ignorance, naiveté, sexual inexperience, legal and moral culpability, noncombatants in war, and moral purity. For our present purposes, we can exclude the contexts of law (...) and war because they are too specialized to aid us in identifying the commonalities present in the more general uses of the term. Once we take the other common uses into consideration—ignorance, naiveté, and sexual inexperience—a shared feature surfaces. Each of these conditions of character or states of being is a mode of immaturity. Now we are impelled to ask: what are the qualities of this immaturity? More specifically, what are the features of moral immaturity? To answer this question, the first section of this chapter argues that moral innocence ought to be interpreted in terms of illusion and inability. The innocent hold certain illusions about the moral order that make them unable to engage in practices constitutive of the moral community. Specifically, the morally innocent falsely believe that a life of moral purity—that is, a life devoid of wrongdoing—is possible to achieve. This illusion is based on the following three elements characteristic of an immature and rudimentary understanding of moral interaction: the belief that human nature has only a propensity for goodness; the belief that following ethical rules is sufficient to avoid transgressing moral values; and, the inability to see oneself as a perpetual source of wrongdoing. The subsequent sections establish why each of these elements hinders the development of a realistic and mature moral acumen. We will proceed by examining the thought of two figures in the history of philosophy who have not previously been associated with the notion of moral innocence, and yet through the present analysis and interpretation can provide insight into its nature. First, Immanuel Kant’s theory of radical evil demonstrates that the human propensity to evil is so pervasive that it is, practically speaking, unavoidable. Therefore, to believe that one can avoid acting upon temptations to evil is self-deception. The final section engages in a thorough analysis of Søren Kierkegaard’s philosophy and interprets it in a new way as a theory of moral maturity. The morally mature individual is one who questions ethical rules and who, through self-reflection, recognizes herself as a potential source of wrongdoing. As a result of these arguments, we will identify rule-questioning, self-reflection, and locating wrongdoing in terms of one’s own agency as essential features of moral maturity. We will determine the essential characteristics of moral innocence by examining its positive attributes before establishing it as a negative counterpart to moral maturity. (shrink)

In The Force of Nonviolence, Judith Butler argues that nonviolent movements must replace a dominant neurotic identitarianism with a commitment to preserving relational life. However, Butler also argues that because relationality is volatile, freedom and equality cannot be accomplished through a simple negation of separation. Instead, nonviolence must be directed at moments of relational volatility precisely when violence is compelled. Drawing on Klein’s theory of subjectivity—in which imagining ourselves as other is a precondition for imagining ourselves independent—and on Benjamin’s vision (...) of conflict resolution in encountering the other without instrumentality, Butler asks that we meet such moments by honoring interdependence. While affirming much in Butler’s analysis, this article locates (1) a tension between Butler’s poststructuralist and psychoanalytic commitments, (2) the reification of a non-relational liberal subject as hegemonic, and (3) a tendency towards theoretical exclusivity. Through addressing these weaknesses, we can retain more of a positive role than Butler affords to traditional elements of the nonviolent toolkit such as love, morality, and upholding human rights prefaced on the integrity and dignity of the individual, to augment their theory as one among many resources for a diverse and multicultural nonviolent pursuit of social and political progress. (shrink)

This essay reconstructs the sophisticated views on free will and determinism of the nineteenth-century Hindu mystic Sri Ramakrishna and brings them into dialogue with the views of three western philosophers—namely, the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher Lord Kames and the contemporary analytic philosophers Saul Smilansky and Derk Pereboom. Sri Ramakrishna affirms hard theological determinism, the incompatibilist view that God determines everything we do and think. At the same time, however, he claims that God, in His infinite wisdom, has endowed ordinary unenlightened people (...) with the illusion of free will for the sake of their moral and spiritual welfare. Kames, I suggest, defends a theological determinist position remarkably similar to Sri Ramakrishna’s. However, I argue that Sri Ramakrishna’s mystical orientation puts him in a better position than Kames to explain why a loving God would implant in us the illusion of free will in the first place. I then show how certain aspects of the views of Smilansky and Pereboom resonate with those of Sri Ramakrishna. (shrink)

The problem of determinism and free will has occupied the minds of human beings since time immemorial. Philosophers have dwelt on it at great length. The problem is alike for both those who support determinism and those who do not. From one side, it is argued that since all the actions are causally determined, the belief that we are free is an illusion; from the other side, it is argued that since we know that we are free, universal determinism (...) is false. Some others argue for both – truth of determinism as well as that of free will but then the question of morality is left aside. The paper attempts to deal with the problem in the light of Jaina philosophy. It is further aggravated when one takes into account one of the central theme of Jaina philosophy – omniscience. Determinism then becomes a necessary corollary of the doctrine that there is a person who knows everything – past, present and future. But, if determinism is true, how does Jainism account for free will? What would be the Jaina position when one talks of moral obligation / responsibility? Is the Jaina position on determinism absolutistic or non-absolutistic? If it is absolutistic, then how does it affect anekāntavāda? The paper seeks to address these issues with some plausible solutions. (shrink)

In Sweden, most patients are recruited into biobank research by non-researcher doctors. Patients' trust in doctors may therefore be important to their willingness to participate. We suggest a model of trust that makes sense of such transitions of trust between domains and distinguishes adequate trust from mistaken trust. The unique position of doctors implies, we argue, a Kantian imperfect duty to compensate for patients' mistaken trust. There are at least three kinds of mistaken trust, each of which requires a different (...) set of countermeasures. First, trust is mistaken when necessary competence is lacking; the competence must be developed or the illusion dispelled. Second, trust is irrational whenever the patient is mistaken about his actual reasons for trusting. Care must therefore be taken to support the patient's reasoning and moral agency. Third, some patients inappropriately trust doctors to recommend only research that will benefit them directly. Such trust should be counteracted by nurturing a culture where patients expect to be asked occasionally to contribute to the common good. (shrink)

In Part I, I reflect in some detail upon the free will problem and about the way its understanding has radically changed. First I outline the four questions that go into making the free will problem. Second, I consider four paradigmatic shifts that have occurred in our understanding of this problem. Then I go on to reflect upon this complex and multi-level situation. In Part II of this essay, I explore the major alternative positions, and defend my views, in new (...) ways. Instead of trying to spread over many issues, I present one new argument against compatibilism, which I call “The Trap”. This tries to explicate the main problem that I find with this position. Then I present an exposition of what we nevertheless need to follow, which I call “the Appreciation of Agency”. This supports a measure of compatibilism in a more modest form, and opposes hard determinism. On this basis, we can confront the philosophical and practical questions, as to what we ought to believe and how we ought to live, with respect to free will and moral responsibility. This leads to what I call “The Bubble,” which addresses the way in which we deal with the tension between the absence of libertarian free will and The Trap, and the crucial need for the Appreciation of Agency. I conclude by reflecting upon three attributes of the free will problem that I consider central, but that have been neglected in the debate: complexity, risk and tragedy. (shrink)

Unger extends Singer’s arguments and demands for aiding serious sufferers, especially children, of whom over ten million die yearly of easily preventable diseases. According to Unger, our callous behaviour in ignoring such suffering is partly the result of dispositions that distort our moral understandings and motivations. He sees our present practices as barbarous, and argues for a liberationist position on morality, calling for major revisions in our moral thinking and practices. He even gives the 1-800 numbers which, with (...) a credit card, you can easily phone to save many children. (shrink)

To explain why we should be structurally rational – or mentally coherent – is notoriously difficult. Some philosophers argue that the normativity of structural rationality can be explained in terms of substantive rationality, which is a matter of correct response to reason. I argue that the psychological phenomena – positive illusions – are counterexamples to the substantivist approach. Substantivists dismiss the relevance of positive illusions because they accept evidentialism that reason for belief must be evidence. I argue that (...) their evidentialist stance would imply that we are caught in unsolvable dilemmas arising from positive illusions. (shrink)

A new biography of one of the founding fathers of the Scientific Revolution, Robert Boyle, is no easy undertaking, but no scholar is better poised to give us a revisionist view of this iconic figure than Michael Hunter. For fourteen years Hunter, together with Edward Davis, supervised the definitive fourteen‐volume edition of Boyle's complete works, published and unpublished. This was the first such undertaking since the 1744 edition compiled by the cleric and antiquary Thomas Birch. Almost no Boyle scholar has (...) been as privileged—or as dogged—in probing every bit of Boyle's legendary scribblings as Hunter. With his new biography, which gestated for decades and reflects the accumulating wisdom gained only with disciplined, persistent, and wide‐ranging reading, Hunter has shed new light on Boyle's life and character. Specialists will delight in having Hunter's path‐breaking articles gathered together in one volume from journals as far ranging as the Journal of Ecclesiastical History and Medical History to the more standard venues of the profession.Which Boyle have historians of early modern science more recently encountered, and how does Hunter's book enhance or change our understanding? Richard S. Westfall and Marie Boas Hall produced portraits of Boyle as a bona fide, uncomplicated mechanist devoted to testing his view of the universe by frequent experimentation. Steven Shapin and Simon Schaffer in their Leviathan and the Air‐Pump set the stage for a more complex version of Boyle. They portrayed him as a consummate strategist who craftily used his experimental philosophy to serve his own conservative political and social agendas. Shapin's more recent A Social History of Truth claimed that Boyle relied heavily on his social status to carefully craft his public image as a gentleman in order to gain credibility and trust from his audiences. Lawrence Principe in his Aspiring Adept: Robert Boyle and His Alchemical Quest has shown us a Boyle who was passionately committed to alchemy and fascinated by, if fearful of, magic. Barbara Kaplan in her Divulging of Useful Truths in Physick emphasized Boyle's long‐standing interests in medical issues and medical practices.What sort of Boyle does Hunter offer his audience, and how has his high place in Boyle scholarship enabled him to present such a novel interpretation? Hunter shows us a Boyle whose fully complex personality directly contributed to, and thwarted, his scientific production as an experimenter. Hunter's analysis is not deeply seated in psychoanalytical theory but, rather, emerges from a fine‐grained analysis of Boyle's intense religious preoccupations. In the case of Boyle, Hunter argues, earlier eighteenth‐century biographers—including Gilbert Burnet, Roger North, Henry Miles, and William Wooton—produced adulation for a figure whose deep religiosity enhanced his scientific endeavors. Rather than casting his lot with contemporaries who sought a conservative solution to church and state relations after 1660, Boyle had troubling religious preoccupations so that things for him were not so simple, as Hunter shows. Indeed, Boyle befriended and associated with men who were openly acknowledged as mystics and enthusiasts and never allied himself exclusively—or even primarily—with Church of England spokesmen or ecclesiastics. Moreover, Hunter argues, Boyle felt more acutely aware of the dangers of excessive rationalism than he did of the claims of direct divine inspiration. Boyle's religious anxieties, far from mere youthful preoccupations, plagued him throughout his lifetime. Hunter reproduces Boyle's notes on two full confessional interviews he had with two prominent churchmen toward the end of his life. The two churchmen, Gilbert Burnet and Edward Stillingfleet, appeared unsympathetic with the great man's scruples over the legitimacy of his ownership of considerable lands once belonging to the Church. But for Boyle this was no trivial matter; throughout his life he was similarly plagued about the moral rectitude of inheritances from his wealthy father, about constant incursions of blasphemous thoughts, and about the moral propriety of taking oaths. Indeed, for Hunter Boyle's obsessive concern in salving his conscience induced his refusal to accept the presidency of the Royal Society in 1680 because of the oath‐taking necessitated by the position. His tortuous, obsessive religious preoccupations, Hunter argues, find their parallels in Boyle's equally exacting procedures related to his punctilious scientific experiments. Thus, while some historians might see the scrupulous religiosity of Boyle as “dysfunctional,” the same instincts and personality features made him a highly “functional” scientist.Hunter's careful probing of Boyle's defensive apologies, frequently found as prefatory material in his published treatises, reveals another side of Boyle, hitherto largely ignored by his biographers. Excessively concerned about his reputation for establishing new empirical findings, Boyle reveals himself to Hunter in several instances as a masterful dissembler or plagiarist, careful in the extreme to conceal his debts to empirics, compilers, and less learned or less socially prominent men, including George Starkey, William Salmon, Johann Glauber, J. J. Becher, and Jean‐Baptiste DuHamel. What emerges from Hunter's depiction is the antithesis of the decisive, manipulative, socially prepossessing Boyle that Shapin has depicted. What Hunter furnishes is a Boyle who is perhaps far more insecure than the one historians have allowed themselves to envision and who struggled to hide his own vulnerability and inadequacy.In a satisfying exploration of Boyle's connections with medical circles, Hunter searches to explain why Boyle, well known among his contemporaries for enjoying a constant state of ill health and for his dissatisfaction with learned Galenic medicine passed down by the esteemed physicians of his day, was, nevertheless, so loath to publish his stinging criticisms of the medical profession. Historians have long recognized that Boyle evinced strong interest in medical matters from the time of his early researches with physicians in the 1650s in Oxford and that he continued to write about medical issues for the next several decades of his life. But Boyle was acutely aware—as his prefaces attest—that he was not a member of the profession and that his access to sick bodies was severely constricted by his status as a gentleman. Hunter suggests that Boyle's reticence in publishing his attacks on the Galenists owed something to his social position—he was, after all, on good social terms with many eminent physicians. His deference, Hunter argues, owed not just to his hesitation to attack a well‐respected profession, but also to his diffidence about proclaiming universal truths on matters as changeable—and ultimately untestable—as sick human bodies. Hunter further probes another paradox of Boyle's life. We know that Boyle freely gave out his medical advice and medicines that were produced in his private laboratory to friends and acquaintances and that, furthermore, he saw this as a moral duty and Christian charity. Yet Boyle, the champion of open communication in matters of natural philosophy, steadfastly refused to publish his medicine recipes . His unpublished drafts reveal a Boyle who was sharply committed to widening the access of his poor countrymen to chemically prepared and effective medicines. But Boyle stopped well short of making these recipes available for wider dissemination through the medium of print. Why? Again Hunter presents no simple answers but suggests a medley of motives. Exquisitely sensitive to his own reputation, Boyle, in part, may have censored himself lest he be seen as the equal of empirics, apothecaries, and quacksalvers, all abundant and thriving in London in the 1670s. Despite his high‐minded sense of philanthropy, Boyle was particularly concerned about his public persona, so much so that his private passions at times took second seat. Hunter suggests a similar explanation for Boyle's refusal to forthrightly publish his investigations of supernatural phenomena, including witchcraft, visions, angelic apparitions, and second sight. In addition to his strong religious scruples that such investigations might be tainted by demonic participation, Boyle censored himself out of his fear of the charge of easy credulity. As popular satires of experimenters were beginning to pour forth from the pens of Thomas Shadwell and Samuel Butler, Boyle must have smarted at the thought of being classified among those indulging in magical pursuits unbecoming to a genteel experimenter. Hunter concludes by revealing a Boyle far from being a confident showman and expositor of the new science. Instead he shows us a conflicted, ambivalent man who suffered from his high social status, even as he manipulated it for his own aggrandizement or for that of the Royal Society and its experimental program.Hunter's depiction of a tortured man—hitherto most often conceived as an iconic devotee of experimental science or as a consummate, self‐fashioning, smooth‐talking gentleman—will not sit well with some historians. Nor will his characterization of Boyle's lifelong religious scruples sit well. Just as Lawrence Principe presented readers with a disturbing vision of a Boyle duped by alchemical operators or conversing with angelic voices, Hunter offers up a tentative, hesitant, and uncertain man who does not seem to fit with earlier portraits. With extremely convincing and documented evidence, Hunter draws a complex, strong personality that left its stamp on his scientific agenda. Hunter's most piercing insight is to see Boyle's deep‐seated diffidence not as an obstacle to his science but as a driving force behind his commitment to experimentalism. In the end Hunter's view will outlast earlier, less complex versions. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:A Social Psychology and Contemplative Science Perspective on Character and VirtuePaul Condon (bio)Character Trouble: Undisciplined Essays on Moral Agency and Personality. By John M. Doris. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2022.The early years of experimental social psychology showed the power of situations to discourage people from helping others. The murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964, allegedly witnessed by 38 nonresponsive bystanders, sparked interest in the situational forces that shape (...) social behavior.1 Experimental research later confirmed that the presence of nonresponsive bystanders led to a reduction in helping behavior, called “the bystander effect” (Latane and Darley 1968; Fischer et al. 2011). Surprisingly, situations also reduce helping behavior among those who have dedicated their lives to virtues such as compassion. In a highly cited study, seminary students who were on their way to deliver a lecture on generosity, under time pressure, were less likely to help an actor portraying a homeless man compared with those students not under time pressure (Darley and Batson 1973). Stanley Milgram’s (1963) research on obedience demonstrated the overwhelming tendency of people to obey authorities who encouraged ostensible harm toward others, thereby sacrificing an impulse for compassionate intervention. Social psychology has repeatedly shown that situations override people’s virtuous inclinations.For over 20 years, John M. Doris and other self-identified character skeptics—also sometimes called situationists—have drawn on empirical results from social psychology to challenge the concept of moral character and virtue. In their view, empirical data from social psychology convincingly show that situational forces can override the values and motivations that stem from individual personality traits and moral character. Doris’ latest iteration, Character Trouble, chronicles the evolution of his thought over his career, applying social psychology to examine and question the project of virtue ethics, moral character, and agency. The book begins with chapters from Doris’ initial work, responses, and applications over time, then concludes with two original chapters and a methodological primer for those who wish to engage scientific psychology to develop philosophical theory. [End Page 527]Throughout the book, Doris reviews an impressive range of experimental literature across social and cognitive psychology that will be of interest to philosophers and psychologists. The coverage includes classic studies and important revised accounts in light of new historical research and replication efforts, for example, concerning Milgram’s obedience studies and Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment. Doris cites various examples in which subtle situations surprisingly override character traits (e.g., the presence of noise pollution from a lawnmower reduced helping behavior; discovering a dime in a phone booth increased helping behavior). Indeed, findings that subtle situational cues can decrease or increase prosocial behavior have been a hallmark throughout the history of social psychology. Doris also describes various phenomena that pose challenges to the normative ideals of reflection and deliberation, including self-delusion, the correspondence bias (in which people are biased to attribute others’ behaviors to traits and ignore situational influence), the limits of self-report, and positive illusions about one’s own capacities.Doris shows that philosophers and psychologists need not fear interdisciplinary work, and that we can venture beyond the bounds of our disciplinary training through intentional, thoughtful conversation with colleagues across disciplines. The appendix offers practical suggestions for scholars who wish to incorporate lessons and material from beyond their home discipline to achieve a generative, undisciplined body of work. Doris also gives the reader a valuable tutorial on methodological and statistical considerations. As an experimental social psychologist who studies compassion training—a program that one might call a normative project of moral and emotional training—I read Doris and his interlocutors with great interest. Other reviewers of Character Trouble are more qualified to speak to the philosophical contours of this debate (i.e., Robertson and Spencer in this issue; Fileva 2022). Here, I focus my review on three themes concerning social psychological research and their implications for normative projects related to virtue and character. In the end, inspired by Doris, I offer some original thoughts on the potential to reconcile situationism with normative ideals through dialogue with Eastern contemplative traditions.The Person-Situation DebateThe crux of Character Trouble’s position on virtue ethics and character skepticism is the parallel debate... (shrink)

Rather than being a genuine adaptation, are examples of doxastically uncommitted policies implemented at both the individual and societal levels. Even when they are genuine misbeliefs, most positive illusions are not evolved but ephemeral – a phenomenon limited to a particular social and economic moment. They are essentially a consumer response to messages from the pop-psychology industry in the recently terminated era of easy credit.

The ethics of psychiatry The ethics of psychiatry is one of the areas of medical ethics where the overlap between medical ethics and philosophy of medicine is largest. This is illustrated by two papers in the current issue of the JME. Charlotte Blease discusses whether it is “… ever right to prescribe placebos to patients in clinical practice?” in the context of prescribing for patients with severe depression . Would such prescriptions for instance amount to morally problematic deception? In an (...) intricate analysis she points out that the answer to the question depends on a range of complex conceptual distinctions that will be familiar to scholars in philosophy of medicine. One very significant issue that is raised is that well-being is not synonymous with a realistic assessment of oneself or one's circumstances. Most of us who are not depressed have positive illusions about ourselves and this may even …. (shrink)

The ethics of psychiatry The ethics of psychiatry is one of the areas of medical ethics where the overlap between medical ethics and philosophy of medicine is largest. This is illustrated by two papers in the current issue of the JME. Charlotte Blease discusses whether it is “… ever right to prescribe placebos to patients in clinical practice?” in the context of prescribing for patients with severe depression . Would such prescriptions for instance amount to morally problematic deception? In an (...) intricate analysis she points out that the answer to the question depends on a range of complex conceptual distinctions that will be familiar to scholars in philosophy of medicine. One very significant issue that is raised is that well-being is not synonymous with a realistic assessment of oneself or one's circumstances. Most of us who are not depressed have positive illusions about ourselves and this may even …. (shrink)

William Louis Poteat , a North Carolina intellectual of the Progressive Era, gained a reputation as a leading liberal in southern higher education. This book, which was recognized by a prestigious National Endowment for the Humanities publication grant, is useful for historians of science because it illustrates how scientific ideas, particularly Darwinism, were diffused into a rural and isolated society.From his student years to the end of his life, Poteat was intimately connected with a Southern Baptist college, Wake Forest. He (...) matriculated at Wake Forest and became a tutor there in 1878. Although almost entirely self‐taught in the sciences, he became a popular and respected professor of biology. As his knowledge of science came from reading contemporary papers and monographs rather than from traditional study, he developed a perspective more modern than that of most of his peers. He rose through the ranks, ultimately becoming president of Wake Forest in 1905.Relatively early in his career, Poteat began the work that earned him a place in southern history by writing articles and giving lectures on the ways in which science and religion were related. By the end of his first decade as a faculty member, he had become convinced of the importance of Darwin's theory of evolution and had decided that it posed no threat to traditional Christianity. In supporting this view, Poteat followed the lead of mainstream European and Northern American churches, which had no problem reconciling evolution with the Book of Genesis and its description of creation occurring in seven days. After all, who knew what a day meant in the mind of God? Many Southern Protestants, however, rejected this position.Randal Hall sees Poteat as an advocate of a liberal social philosophy fully in accord with the social gospel of the Progressive age. As a leading proponent for change in his state, Poteat “personified North Carolina Progressivism” , and his defense of Darwin was of a piece with his philosophy. But it is unclear whether Poteat's admiration for Darwin stemmed from an understanding of science or an obsession with eugenics, an obsession that in time came to dominate his thinking.Poteat vigorously used his position as president of the Southern Baptist Education Association to promote theories of eugenics. Although Darwin did not actively promote racism, followers of his thought such as Poteat could easily educe racist ideas from it. They could argue, for example, that individuals should speed up the process of producing superior humans by helping nature along through the process of selective breeding. Concerned with the large number of Americans who were institutionalized, and the even greater number who were barely educated, Poteat maintained that the government should control the right to reproduce and sterilize the unfit, including the “self‐centered, the coarse‐fibered, and the discourteous” . He thought that civilization would crumble unless such procedures were put in place, because there would be an “overproduction of under‐men” . Indeed, following this same line of thought, he opposed war because it foolishly wasted “our best blood” . He called for federal legislation to govern marriage and divorce, requiring applicants to meet his moral requirements and to pass a rigorous medical examination. Even in conservative North Carolina, these ideas provoked astonishment. A leading Raleigh newspaper accused Poteat of wanting to be the “boss of a human stock farm” .Although Randal Hall's book is primarily a biography of William Louis Poteat—and secondarily a history of Wake Forest as it evolved from a tiny Baptist school into a major college—it is also a study of the split personalities of Southern Progressives. On the one hand, they rejected rule by educated leaders; on the other, they wanted government to control the most intimate aspects of life, such as reproduction. Poteat thought that all these things should be overseen by a “genteel Christian community led by a liberal elite” . The complexity and cognitive dissonance of Southern Progressives are well illustrated in this book. (shrink)

Most people hold overly (though not excessively) positive self-views of themselves, their ability to shape environmental events, and their future. These positive illusions are generally (though not always) beneficial, promoting achievement, psychological adjustment, and physical well-being. Social processes conspire to produce these illusions, suggesting that affiliation patterns may have evolved to nurture and sustain them.

It is a common assumption among both philosophers and psychologists that having accurate beliefs about ourselves and the world around us is always the epistemic gold standard. However, there is gathering data from social psychology that suggest that illusions are quite prevalent in our everyday thinking and that some of these illusions may even be conducive to our overall well being. In this paper, we explore the relevance of these so-called 'positive illusions' to the free will debate. More specifically, (...) we use the literature on positive illusions as a springboard for examining Saul Smilansky 's so-called 'free will illusionism '. At the end of the day, we will use data from both social and developmental psychology concerning perceived control to try to show that his view is on shaky empirical footing. (shrink)

In this book Colin Russell and his colleagues tread a somewhat difficult path between apologia for the British chemical industry and the historical account of its development. It is not an altogether comfortable journey, less from the point of view of maintaining balance between apologetics and critique, a difficulty of which the authors are clearly aware, than from the need to balance “general” history of the industry with the “environmental” theme. Looking first at the former, the book represents a considerable (...) achievement for the authors. They have marshaled a very wide array of technical and other information in order to offer largely narrative accounts of a wide range of industries. It is unlikely that this degree of expertise could be brought together in any other group, particularly since the death of W. A. Campbell. The broad canvas that they cover means that many of the themes and topics are skated over quite briefly. Nevertheless there is a good deal of technical detail and substantial, though rather less, social and human detail. I did find myself wondering who would read this study: it attempts to be all things to all people, but risks satisfying neither the specialist nor the general reader, if the latter person exists. Overall, however, the authors have fulfilled effectively what I take to have been their brief and can expect their book to become a standard reference work.I was less convinced by the environmental theme. The very self‐conscious evenhandedness of the authors grew wearisome—in fact I began to feel as if I was being talked down to in the final chapter. Surely a reader of this book does not need to be convinced that “modern life would be impossible without the methods and products of the chemical industry” . Similarly, there is little to be gained, in my opinion, from offering quasi‐moral judgments on the failures or otherwise of the chemical industry or from telling us in the manner of a school textbook that “chemists have endeavored to improve the quality of water supply” . Chemists, I suspect, have done what they were told and paid to do. We know that the chemical industry has been a polluter and has attempted to recycle its waste products for economic and political reasons. What is of interest are the technical and socioeconomic determinants of this. We get a good deal of the former but rather little of the latter. This is disappointing when one knows that one of the authors, Sarah Wilmott, has written a sophisticated analysis of one aspect of this question, particularly emphasizing how the industry employed chemical knowledge to reconfigure the notion and legal positioning of chemical pollution . Of course it would be asking a lot to extend this type of empirically grounded analysis across the divisions and issues associated with the chemical industry.This then is a worthy book of reference that brings together good technical and synoptic accounts of many aspects of the British chemical industry in one location. However, it employs a cautious—if one were being brutal one might say pedestrian—historiography, and I did not feel that it broke new historical or conceptual ground. But perhaps it was never intended to. (shrink)

McKay & Dennett (M&D) argue that positive illusions are a plausible candidate for a class of evolutionarily misbeliefs. I argue (Flanagan 1991; 2007) that the class of alleged positive illusions is a hodge-podge, and that some of its members are best understood as positive attitudes, hopes, and the like, not as beliefs at all.

There is a distinctive form of existential anxiety, neuroexistential anxiety, which derives from the way in which contemporary neuroscience provides copious amounts of evidence to underscore the Darwinian message—we are animals, nothing more. One response to this 21st century existentialism is to promote Eudaimonics, a version of ethical naturalism that is committed to promoting fruitful interaction between ethical inquiry and science, most notably psychology and neuroscience. We argue that philosophical reflection on human nature and social life reveals that while working (...) to be and remain biologically fit, humans also seek meaning in a way that conforms to a pattern recognized by Plato. We argue that human beings should seek “the good,” “the true,” and “the beautiful”; moreover, the proper measure of human flourishing is the degree to which humans achieve these three, in a maximally harmonious way. One potential problem with this view, however, is that it might privilege the role of truth, such that if there is a conflict among these three, what is good or beautiful should yield to what is true. But this seems to conflict with evidence from neuroscience and psychology (e.g. the study of positive illusions) which suggests that people with a tendency to form and harbor certain false beliefs tend to more easily achieve eudaimonia than do those for whom truth takes precedence in all domains. We argue that this conflict is only apparent: the false beliefs in question are not literally beliefs; instead, they are an amalgam of belief and desire, an amalgam that we dub, tertullian beliefs (or, t-beliefs). Among other things, what is distinctive about t-beliefs is that they are able to change the world, in certain specific ways, such that, strictly speaking, it would be erroneous to say of them that they aim away from the truth. Paradoxically, it is because they seem to aim away from the truth, that they are sometimes able to succeed in changing the world so that it matches what we desire, or, what we t-believe. (shrink)

We question a central premise upon which the target article is based. Namely, we point out that the evidence for is in fact quite mixed. As such, the question of whether positive illusions are adaptive from an evolutionary standpoint may be premature in light of the fact that their very existence may be an illusion.

This paper is interested in the relationship between evolutionary thinking and moral behavior and commitments, ethics. There is a traditional way of forging or conceiving of the relationship. This is traditional evolutionary ethics, known as Social Darwinism. Many think that this position is morally pernicious, a redescription of the worst aspects of modern, laissez-faire capitalism in fancy biological language. It is argued that, in fact, there is much more to be said for Social Darwinism than many think. In respects, (...) it could be and was an enlightened position to take; but it flounders on the matter of justification. Universally, the appeal is to progress—evolution is progressive and, hence, morally we should aid its success. I argue, however, that this progressive nature of evolution is far from obvious and, hence, traditional social Darwinism fails. There is another way to do things. This is to argue that the search for justification is mistaken. Ethics just is. It is an adaptation for humans living socially and has exactly the same status as other adaptations, like hands and teeth and genitalia. As such, ethics is something with no standing beyond what it is. However, if we all thought that this was so, we would stop being moral. So part of the experience of ethics is that it is more than it is. We think that it has an objective referent. In short, ethics is an illusion put in place by our genes to make us good social cooperators. (shrink)

This paper is interested in the relationship between evolutionary thinking and moral behavior and commitments, ethics. There is a traditional way of forging or conceiving of the relationship. This is traditional evolutionary ethics, known as Social Darwinism. Many think that this position is morally pernicious, a redescription of the worst aspects of modern, laissez-faire capitalism in fancy biological language. It is argued that, in fact, there is much more to be said for Social Darwinism than many think. In respects, (...) it could be and was an enlightened position to take; but it flounders on the matter of justification. Universally, the appeal is to progress—evolution is progressive and, hence, morally we should aid its success. I argue, however, that this progressive nature of evolution is far from obvious and, hence, traditional social Darwinism fails. There is another way to do things. This is to argue that the search for justification is mistaken. Ethics just is. It is an adaptation for humans living socially and has exactly the same status as other adaptations, like hands and teeth and genitalia. As such, ethics is something with no standing beyond what it is. However, if we all thought that this was so, we would stop being moral. So part of the experience of ethics is that it is more than it is. We think that it has an objective referent. In short, ethics is an illusion put in place by our genes to make us good social cooperators. (shrink)

Der Unterricht in Medizinethik soll Medizinstudierenden die Grundlagen dafür vermitteln, in ihrer zukünftigen ärztlichen Tätigkeit gute Entscheidungen treffen zu können. Im Rahmen einer Panelstudie wird derzeit die Entwicklung moralischer Positionen, medizinethischer Kenntnisse und Motivationen von Medizinstudierenden der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München über den Verlauf des Studiums untersucht. Für die Datenerhebung wurde ein Fragebogen entwickelt, der medizinethische Positionen und Kenntnisse sowie Motivationen erfasst. Im Wintersemester 2009/10 wurde die erste Querschnittsuntersuchung mit Studierenden im 1., 3. und 8. Semester sowie im Praktischen Jahr durchgeführt. Die (...) Mehrzahl der Befragten verfügte über einen geringen Kenntnisstand in verschiedenen Themenbereichen des Unterrichtsfachs GTE. Rechtliche Grundlagen und praktische Umsetzung von Therapiebegrenzungsmaßnahmen waren bis ins PJ-Semester vielen Studierenden nicht bekannt. Im Verlauf des Studiums veränderten sich die Motivationen weg von der Motivation, Menschen helfen zu wollen, hin zu Wissenserwerb und dem Ergreifen eines sicheren Berufs. Obwohl viele Befragte ein hohes Interesse an medizinethischen Fragestellungen und Unterricht im Bereich GTE angaben, zeigte sich kein nachhaltiger Zuwachs an medizinethischen Kenntnissen im Laufe des Studiums. In der Zusammenschau werfen die Ergebnisse die Frage auf, inwieweit verschiedene Ausbildungskonzepte Einfluss auf die individuelle ethische Entwicklung Medizinstudierender nehmen können. Eine Untersuchung dieser Fragestellung bleibt Gegenstand weitergehender Forschung. (shrink)

Does optimism lead to success? Friends of optimism argue that positive beliefs about ourselves and our future contribute to fitness and mental health, and are correlated with good functioning, productivity, resilience, and pro-social behaviour. Sceptics, instead, claim that when we are optimistic we fail to react constructively to negative feedback, and put ourselves at risk because we underestimate threats. Thus, it is controversial whether optimistic beliefs are conducive to success, intended as the fulfilment of our goals in a given (...) domain. According to the traditional view, optimistic beliefs lead to success when they do not involve any distortion of reality, and according to the trade-off view, they lead to success when they involve a distortion of reality, but a small one. Based on the literature about positive illusions in the perception of romantic partners and in the assessment of future health prospects, I suggest that optimistic beliefs lead to goal attainment when they support agency by contributing to the sense that we are competent and efficacious agents and that our goals are both desirable and attainable. (shrink)

McKay & Dennett (M&D) have done an admirable job of distinguishing among various forms of misbelief and evaluating the idea that they stem from evolved mental mechanisms. We argue that a complete account of misbeliefs must attend to the role that others play in creating and maintaining positive illusions.

In a well-known paper “Illusion and well-being”, Taylor and Brown maintain that positive illusions about the self play a significant role in the maintenance of mental health, as well as in the ability to maintain caring inter-personal relations and a sense of well-being. These illusions include unrealistically positive self-evaluations, exaggerated perceptions of personal control, and unrealistic optimism about one's future. Accurate self-knowledge, they maintain, is not an indispensable ingredient of mental health and well-being. Two lines of criticism (...) are directed against the creative self-deception hypothesis, one methodological and one substantive. First, it is argued that Taylor and Brown's method of eliciting experimental subjects' self-reports and comparative self-ratings under artificial experimental conditions lacks ecological validity and phenomenological realism. Second, it is argued that positive illusions diminish the range of reactive other-regarding attitudes and emotions that people can adopt. A literary case history (Ibsen's The wild duck ) which satisfies the criteria of ecological adequacy is used to illustrate the latter point. (shrink)

This article elucidates a unique metaethical theory implicit in the work of several thinkers associated with the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement. After positioning that theory within a broader landscape of metaethical positions endorsed by several prominent contemporary Christian philosophers and theologians, we address the concern that, when attending to the Euthyphro dilemma, the Restoration-inspired combination metaethical theory inevitably collapses into either an unalloyed divine command theory or an unalloyed natural law theory. In explaining how this sort of worry can be mitigated, (...) we offer reason to think that the nonreductive, combination metaethical theory in question constitutes potentially fertile territory for further scholarly work in Christian ethics. (shrink)

What are the conditions required for becoming better human beings? What are our limitations and possibilities? I understand “becoming better” as a combined improvement process bringing persons “up from” a negative condition and “up to” a positive one. Today there is a tendency to understand improvement in a one-sided way as a movement up to the mastery of cognitive skills, neglecting the negative conditions that can make these skills mis-educative. I therefore tell six stories in the Western tradition about (...) conditions for a combined improvement process. The first three stories belong to our cultural ABC: an Aristotelian story about moral wisdom which brings people up from being enslaved by passions and up to a good life of virtues; a Biblical story about God’s word bringing listeners up from a self-centred life and up into creative work as God’s fellow workers, and a short Cave story by Plato about liberation—up from living by common illusions and up to enlightenment from what is perfectly good. The subsequent three stories interpret and actualise these basic stories in different ways: a story about moral wisdom and divine love (Thomas Aquinas), a story about individual freedom and rationality (Immanuel Kant), and a story about the love that builds us up as equal human beings (Søren Kierkegaard). These stories may directly guide us adults—and indirectly the children and youth who learn from our examples—when we struggle to become better human beings. (shrink)