The concept of vulnerability is widely used in bioethics, particularly in research ethics and public health ethics. The traditional approach construes vulnerability as inherent in individuals or the groups to which they belong and views vulnerability as requiring special protections. Florencia Luna and other bioethicists continue to challenge traditional ways of conceptualizing and applying the term. Luna began proposing a layered approach to this concept and recently extended this proposal to offer two new concepts to analyze the concept of vulnerability, (...) namely understanding external conditions that trigger vulnerability and layers of vulnerability with cascading effects. Luna's conception of vulnerability is useful, which we demonstrate by applying her layered view and the new analyses in multiple contexts. We begin by outlining Luna's view and we use vignettes from healthcare involving transgender patients, the care of patients in psychiatric contexts, and research involving prisoners to illustrate how each part of Luna's concept elucidates important moral issues. (shrink)

Violence is somehow equivalent to Be Right? How can I be fair and non-violent? It depends on the receptor, in terms of social comunication.

new treatie on human understanding, pursuing Spinoza and Locke.

O presente artigo tem como finalidade apresentar um panorama geral acerca da realidade pastoral da região metropolitana de Campinas. Como todos os grandes centros urbanos, Campinas exibe uma condição bastante complexa, repleta de contradições, belezas e desafios. Jesus, como homem histórico, sensível e inserido nas realidades de seu tempo, respondeu também às situações de sua época e nos dá pistas para respondermos de modo satisfatório aos fiéis de nosso tempo. Neste artigo, para a atividade eclesial diante de tais realidades metropolitanas, (...) são enumeradas sugestões, assumidas em nosso sétimo Plano de Pastoral Orgânica da Arquidiocese, no que diz respeito às atuações de pastorais, movimentos e outros organismos. Dessa forma, visamos, na práxis de Jesus de Nazaré, tornar os pobres protagonistas de suas vidas no exercício da evangelização, na realidade pastoral em que vivemos. (shrink)

In the fall semester of 1772/73 at the Albertus University of Königsberg, Immanuel Kant, metaphysician and professor of logic and metaphysics, began lectures on anthropology, which he continued until 1776, shortly before his retirement from public life. His lecture notes and papers were first published in 1798, eight years after the publication of the _Critique of Judgment, _the third of his famous _Critiques. _The present edition of the _Anthropology _is a translation of the text found in volume 7 of _Kants (...) gesammelte Schriften, _edited by Oswald Külpe. Kant describes the _Anthropology _as a systematic doctrine of the knowledge of humankind. Kant’s lectures stressed the "pragmatic" approach to the subject because he intended to establish pragmatic anthropology as a regular academic discipline. He differentiates the physiological knowledge of the human race—the investigation of "what Nature makes of man"—from the pragmatic—"what man as a free being makes of himself, what he can make of himself, and what he ought to make of himself." Kant believed that anthropology teaches the knowledge of humankind and makes us familiar with what is pragmatic, not speculative, in relation to humanity. He shows us as world citizens within the context of the cosmos. Summarizing the cloth edition of the _Anthropology_,_ Library Journal_ concludes: "Kant’s allusions to such issues as sensation, imagination, judgment, taste, emotion, passion, moral character, and the character of the human species in regard to the ideal of a cosmopolitan society make this work an important resource for English readers who seek to grasp the connections among Kant’s metaphysics of nature, metaphysics of morals, and political theory. The notes of the editor and translator, which incorporate material from Ernst Cassirer’s edition and from Kant’s _marginalia _in the original manuscript, shed considerable light on the text.". (shrink)

Un certain nombre de critiques ont affirmé que dans la doctrine de Descartes il n’y a aucune possibilité d’une esthétique. La plupart des autres ont pensé qu’il y avait, dans cette doctrine, tout au moins une esthétique implicite et que cette esthétique, dont ils empruntaient les traits, non à Descartes lui-même, mais à des critiques comme Boileau, d’Aubignae, Bosse, de Chambray, etc., était rigoureusement rationaliste, Descartes ayant « confondu le Beau dans le Vrai ».J’ai essayé de montrer qu’il y a (...) une esthétique cartésienne explicite : que 1° cette esthétique est moins pauvre qu’on ne Ta dit, si Ton tient compte de tout ce qui dans les Lettres du philosophe est relatif à l’art ; que 2° le Compendium musicæ est plus riche en théorie qu’on ne l’a cru et que les vues qu’y développe Descartes ne valent pas seulement pour la musique ; que 3° ces vues ne sont pas rigoureusement intellectualistes, mais que la part qui y est faite à la sensation et à l’association est au moins égale à celle revendiquée pour la raison ; que 4° s’étant posé la question de savoir ce qu’est le Beau en général, Descartes a conclu qu’il est impossible de le déterminer, qu’il n’y a pas d’évidence esthétique et que, en dernière analyse, « ce qui plaira à plus de gens pourra être nommé simplement le plus beau ». (shrink)

In the light of partial (mis)understanding, we examine the thesis that concepts are individuated in terms of possession conditions and show that adherents face a fatal dilemma: Either concept‐individuating possession conditions include cases of partially (mis)understood concepts or not. If yes, possession conditions do not individuate concepts. If no, the thesis is too restricted and lacks a minimally satisfactory level of generalization.

Over-flexibility in the definition of Friston blankets obscures a key distinction between observational and interventional inference. The latter requires cognizers form not just a causal representation of the world but also of their own boundary and relationship with it, in order to diagnose the consequences of their actions. We suggest this locates the blanket in the eye of the beholder.

El propósito de esta investigación es hacer una relectura histórico-crítica de la Ética de la Liberación como ética de la vida. Este planteamiento se hace desde la memoria política crítica que permitirá ver la influencia que ella ha tenido con otras éticas que hoy pueden agruparse en torno al concepto de convivencia: la ética intercultural, la ética ecológica, la ética de la economía solidaria, la ética de una ciencia construida socialmente y de una tecnología al servicio de las personas, la (...) ética educativa como expresión de apertura y diálogo y no como adoctrinamiento, la ética religiosa separada de todo fanatismo, la ética civil más allá de todo militarismo, la ética del género más allá de toda exclusión. Lo que implica la necesidad de consolidar una ética de la convivencia, como eje central de la cultura y de la vida de los habitantes de América Latina que no es sólo necesario estudiar sino practicar. (shrink)

This thought-provoking book, first published in 1991, examines sexual politics in a world which is being radically changed by the challenges of feminism. Seidler explores how men have responded to feminism, and the contradictory feelings men have towards dominant forms of masculinity. Seidler’s stimulating and original analysis of social and political theory connects personally to everyday issues in people’s lives. It reflects the growing importance of sexual and personal politics within contemporary politics and culture, and demonstrates clearly the challenge that (...) feminism brings to our inherited forms of morality, politics and sexuality. (shrink)

On the face of it, On Tyranny is a straightforward commentary on Xenophon's dialogue Hiero or Tyrannicus. As such it is a very model of thoroughness and learning. It amply repays careful study, and it goes a long way toward explaining Strauss's influence in training a generation of scholars. The dialogue proper takes up just under 20 pages. Its analysis runs to 90-odd pages, followed by another 30 pages of tightly packed notes that are largely devoted to parallels between the (...) Hiero, Xenophon's teaching as a whole, and the teachings of Plato, of Aristotle and, to a lesser extent, of Cicero. What at first appears as an exercise in textual analysis soon reveals itself as a much broader undertaking: the delineation of the main features of classical political philosophy. Strauss does not mean to deny that differences in perspective, procedure, and even conclusions separate the major representatives of classical political philosophy. He does want to maintain, however, that their agreements are more fundamental than are their differences. But even this is incidental to his main purpose: to understand classical political philosophy for the guidance it might provide in understanding the great moral and political problems that confront us here and now. He conceives of these problems in large measure as the consequence of modern philosophy, of what he calls "the modern project." But modern philosophy cannot be understood on its own terms alone any more than it can be understood by directly confronting it with the phenomena. For it does not owe its most characteristic features to such a confrontation. It owes them, rather, to the fact that, from its very outset, it defined itself in explicit contrast to classical philosophy. Modern philosophy is essentially derivative. It presupposes the tradition it opposes. Classical philosophy, and in particular classical political philosophy, on the other hand "... belongs to the fertile moment when all political traditions were shaken, and there was not yet in existence a tradition of political philosophy." Hence "only in the light of the quarrel between the ancients and the moderns can modernity be understood. By rediscovering the urgency of this quarrel we return to the origins of modernity." It further follows from this line of reasoning that the quarrel must be re-kindled if we are once again to gain access to the phenomena themselves. To this end historical studies become necessary which do not presuppose that the whole issue has, for all intents and purposes, been settled in favor of the moderns. The most basic and most constant assumption of Strauss's historical studies is, therefore, the assumption that classical philosophy is truer than are any of the teachings that criticize or reject it. The passion and the inventiveness with which he defends this assumption sufficiently prove that he does not put it forward merely for reasons of method or of rhetoric. Yet it seems to fall short of being his settled belief. By stressing his agreements with the ancients and his disagreements with the moderns, by holding the moderns responsible for the great problems that face us while calling for a restoration of classical political philosophy, he fosters the impression that his own views coincide fully with those of classical political philosophy. But even if classical political philosophy spoke with a single clear voice, the fact remains that "no competent man of our age would regard as simply true the complete teaching of any thinker of the past." Presumably only someone who thinks himself competent would issue such a warning. (shrink)