Normative Ethics

Daniel Immerman has recently put forward a novel account of harm, the Worse than Nothing Account. We argue that this account faces fatal problems in cases in which an agent performs several simultaneous actions. We also argue that our criticism is considerably more powerful than another one that has recently been advanced.

An important strand of argument in Alastair Norcross's Morality by Degrees: Reasons without Demands is the rejection of the standard account of harm, which underwrites non-comparative statements of the form “act A harms person X.” According to Norcross, the correct account of harm is a contextualist one that only underwrites comparative statements of the form “act A results in a worse world for X than alternative act B, and a better world than alternative act C.” This article criticizes Norcross's contextualist (...) account and his rejection of the standard account. It follows that moral theorists of all kinds should not be deterred by Norcross's arguments from continuing to rely on the standard account and using it to non-comparatively categorize some acts as harmings. (shrink)

Norcross's recent book has a two-part title: Morality by Degrees: Reasons without Demands. In this essay I focus on the second part of the title – the idea that there are moral reasons without demands. I do not think that it is at all obvious what this means, and whether it is distinct from Norcross's central (and compelling) idea, that moral reasons come in degrees. I explore several possible ways of cashing out a distinctive claim that morality does not make (...) demands, and argue that we should not accept that morality does not make demands. It does make demands, but it sometimes makes them in degrees. (shrink)

In Morality by Degrees, Alastair Norcross presents contextualist accounts of good and right acts as well as harm and free will. All of his analyses compare what is assessed with “the appropriate alternative,” which is supposed to vary with context. This paper clarifies Norcross's approach, distinguishes it from previous versions of moral contextualism and contrastivism, and reveals difficulties in adequately specifying the context and the appropriate alternative. It also shows how these difficulties can be avoided by moving from contextualism to (...) a kind of contrastivism that does not claim that any alternative is or is not appropriate or relevant. (shrink)

Climate change is to a large extent a collective action problem, but many believe that individual action is also required. But what if no individual contribution to climate change is necessary nor sufficient to cause climate change-induced harms? This issue is known as the problem of inconsequentialism. It is particularly problematic for act consequentialism because the theory does not seem to judge such inconsequential contributions negatively. In this paper, we apply Henry Sidgwick's idea of esoteric morality to climate change and (...) assess whether what we call a climate esoteric morality could help to deal with the problem of inconsequentialism from an act consequentialist perspective. Consequentialists ought then to promote what we call nonconsequentialist faux principles; exaggerate existing consequentialist principles that pro tanto forbid contributing to climate change whenever strictly consequentialist principles fail to do so; and refrain from criticising nonconsequentialist principles that forbid contributing to climate change. (shrink)

Quite early in the Covid-19 pandemic, a recommendation was issued in Germany to address potential scarcity scenarios in hospital intensive care units. At its core, the recommendation from Germany’s medical professional societies stated that, in the event of overcrowded ICUs, physicians should base the selection of patients who could still be admitted on the likelihood of success for each individual in need (DIVI 2021). The purpose of focusing on the likelihood of success is to use the available resources to help (...) the greatest possible number of people in need effectively. However, legal scholars have repeatedly argued that a lottery-based solution would be far more suitable for such tragic rescue conflicts. This perspective was also adopted by some disability advocates, who fear the risk of discrimination against people with disabilities in scarcity scenarios, as their chances of success are often presumed to be systematically lower than those of people without disabilities. From an ethical standpoint, this raises the legitimate question of the conditions under which a decision-making criterion implies indirect discrimination against a particular group of people. ----- Schon recht früh in der Covid-19-Pandemie wurde in Deutschland eine Empfehlung für mögliche Knappheitsszenarien auf den Intensivstationen der Krankenkenhäuser herausgegeben. Im Kern besagt die Empfehlung der deutschen medizinischen Fachgesellschaften, die Ärzteschaft solle im Falle überfüllter Intensivstationen die Auswahl derjenigen, die in einem solchen Fall nochmal aufgenommen werden können, an der Erfolgsaussicht der einzelnen Bedürftigen festmachen. Der Zweck einer Orientierung an der Erfolgsaussicht besteht darin, mit den vorhandenen Ressourcen einer möglichst großen Anzahl an Bedürftigen erfolgreich helfen zu können. Insbesondere von Juristen wurde jedoch auch immer wieder argumentiert, eine Lotterie-Lösung sei sehr viel geeigneter für derartige tragische Rettungskonflikte. Eine solche Auffassung wurde auch von einigen Behindertenvertreter:innen übernommen, die eine Gefahr der Benachteiligung von Menschen mit Behinderung in Knappheitsszenarien befürchten, denn bei ihnen dürften die Erfolgsaussichten regelhaft schlechter sein als bei Menschen ohne Behinderung. In ethischer Hinsicht wurde hier also die berechtigte Frage aufgeworfen, unter welchen Bedingungen ein Entscheidungskriterium eine indirekte Diskriminierung einer bestimmten Personengruppe impliziert. (shrink)

In this contribution, I investigate the way in which our understanding of a dementia patient’s self holds relevance to issues of punishment and respon- sibility. This topic is motivated by the fact that some countries with particularly large prison populations—such as the United States—are starting to build special- ized prison tracts for inmates with dementia. In other countries that do not have such specialized facilities, authorities are trying to find the least badly-equipped facility for such patients, and they are turning (...) to ordinary retirement homes, forensic hospitals as well as ordinary psychiatric and geriatric hospital wards. The problem is expected to become increasingly urgent as the population ages and the number of dementia patients increases. I analyse the way in which justifications of legal (or private) punishment for offenders with dementia can depend on an account of relevant psychological features of the self. I argue that especially retributivist and expressivist justifications of punishment require the offender’s ability to comprehend that he or she is being punished for a particular action in the past and that it was him or herself who committed this action. In the second part of my paper, I distinguish between different accounts of responsibility and argue that accounts of relevant features of the self are also needed here to answer the question of whether offenders with dementia are still responsible for past or current inappropriate behavior. In the final part of the paper, I argue that potentially existing private punishment intuitions among care- takers as well as certain puzzles of responsibility interpretation can make it plausible to relieve certain caretakers from primary responsibility for offenders with dementia, especially caretakers who belong to a relevant former victim group of the offender. (shrink)

According to the Asymmetry, creating a miserable person is wrong but failing to create a happy person is permissible, other things being equal. Some attempt to underwrite the Asymmetry by appealing to a choice-dependent moral theory according to which the deontic status of an act depends on whether it is chosen by the agent. We show that all choice-dependent moral theories in the literature are vulnerable to what we call the Parent Trap. These theories imply that the presence of impermissible (...) options can generate a moral requirement to create happy people, even at the cost of the procreator’s well-being. We consider two new choice-dependent theories that avoid this result, but show that they generate implausible moral permissions to create miserable people. Either way, choice-dependent theories fail to do justice to the intuitions that motivate the Asymmetry. (shrink)

The fact that I am a committed gardener has some practical upshot or other. But what, exactly, is the upshot of the fact that I am committed to some project, person, or principle? According to a standard view, my commitment to gardening provides me with or constitutes a further reason to garden, beyond whatever reasons arise from the commitment-independent merits of gardening. I will argue that we should reject this conception of commitment’s practical upshot and its attendant psychological story involving (...) the will. According to the view I develop here, a commitment to X is a decision to take seriously the reasons to which X gives rise, and where necessary, to give those reasons an elevated place in one’s practical thinking. (shrink)

Contextual Integrity (CI) is built to assess potential privacy violations of new sociotechnical systems and practices. It does so by evaluating their respect for the context-relative informational norms at play in a given context. But can CI evaluate new sociotechnical systems that severely disrupt established social practices? In this paper, I argue that, while CI claims to be able to assess privacy violations of all sociotechnical systems and practices, it cannot assess the ones that cause severe changes and disruptions in (...) the norms and values of a given context. These types of technology are known as socially disruptive technologies (SDTs) and this paper argues that they are beyond CI’s scope. It follows that at best, a privacy assessment of those technologies by CI would be useless and, at worst, lead to potential harm, including failure to identify privacy violations and unwarranted legitimisation of privacy-threatening technology. Government actors, policymakers, and academics should refrain from relying on CI to assess this type of technology. (shrink)

Austrian engineer, philosopher, and political economist Josef Popper-Lynkeus (1838–1921) was a renowned public intellectual of Viennese Late Enlightenment. In this article, we unearth and explore Popper-Lynkeus’s social program. It sought to implement social conscription to unconditionally guarantee a basic level of goods and services for every human individual. We appraise the economic and ethical justifications provided by Popper-Lynkeus for his allegedly “rational” proposals and the intended consequences for the discipline of economics. Finally, and based on our disambiguation of different notions (...) of “unconditionality”, we clarify similarities and differences between Popper-Lynkeus’s social program and contemporary proposals for a universal basic income, characterising both as alternatives to traditional welfare states. (shrink)

This chapter examines a variety of discussions in the Shenzi Fragments that might lead one to think that there is some sort of morality undergirding its political philosophy including: 1) positive references to conventional virtues, 2) an advocacy of according with the overarching Way, and 3) the development of a form of state consequentialism. While it would be possible to construct moral reasons in support of each of these three positions, the Shenzi Fragments does not do so. Rather, as this (...) chapter argues, the justification of each of these positions arises from practical considerations of political order. The normativity at work, then is political in nature, rather than moral. (shrink)

This chapter argues that the _Shenzi Fragments_, _Shangjunshu_, and _Han Feizi_ all contend that, from the perspective of creating and maintaining political order, the most effective method is for the state to employ the already existing motivations of those over whom it rules. Once human motivations are understood, it becomes a relatively simple task to channel those motivations to get people to act in ways that the state wishes. Implicit in this claim are at least two other commitments: 1) whatever (...) the content of human motivations, this content is sufficiently similar across all human beings that the methods employed to channel it need not vary person by person and 2) human motivations are fairly stable, and their content does not shift in any appreciable way over time. Whether these texts think it is possible to change such motivations, is less clear, though they all argue that attempts to do so at the political level will lead to disaster. While important differences arise amongst these three texts, they are most often differences in focus and detail. (shrink)

This paper extensively develops and thoroughly creates a highly centralized and extremely efficient log collection system utilizing and leveraging the robust syslog server and comprehensively collects and gathers log data from the numerous hosts residing within the network, meticulously analyses and scrutinizes the detailed log files and promptly sends and transmits a critical alert message to the central host through secure and reliable SMS. This paper thoroughly and comprehensively addresses and tackles the increasingly growing and rapidly expanding need for extremely (...) robust and highly reliable cybersecurity measures and solutions in the vulnerable and sensitive power sector. (shrink)

Many of our large-scale problems that arise only recently in human history and in an industrialized global world present us with a unique challenge. Often while people collectively make a difference, individual actions are inconsequential. Consider climate change. We all collectively contribute to its unwanted consequences. But individual actions are inconsequential: One more or one less person taking a joyride in a gas-guzzler on a Sunday afternoon makes no difference regarding these consequences. Donating to charity, voting, buying fair trade products, (...) factory farming, and environmental pollution all present the same challenge. One more or one less vote doesn’t make a difference. But then it’s unclear why individuals should act against climate change or vote. This is the so-called problem of inconsequentialism. In this paper, I present a new solution to this problem by appealing to a type of action that is yet to receive philosophical attention—i.e., taking a stand. I show that taking a stand can be morally valuable and reason-giving even if it makes no difference. (NOTE: Email me for a copy.). (shrink)

According to majority of contemporary ethicists, the so-called problem of the „dualism of the practical reason”, as formulated by Henry Sidgwick in his book Methods of Ethics calling it the „deepest problem of ethics”, still lacks an adequate theoretical solution. The problem, in short, is the assumption that our practical reason strives for two equally rational and justifiable goals – our own good and the common good – and that it is not always possible to count on a successful resolution (...) of a possible conflict between self-interest and concern for common good. This would, in the final analysis, lead to the suspension of rational decision- making. However, Peter Singer and Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek, authors of a notable monograph on Sidgvick, believe that the problem of the dualism of the practical reason can be solved if we resort to one kind of evolutionary explanation of moral beliefs. (shrink)

Outcomes tyrannize over prevailing accounts of ethics, actions, reasons, attitudes, and social practices. The right action promotes the best outcome, the end of every action is an outcome to be promoted, reasons to act are reasons to promote outcomes, and preferences and desires rationalize actions that aim at the outcome of realizing their contents—making their contents true. The case for this tyranny turns on a related set of counterintuitive outcome-centered interpretations of deeply intuitive claims that it is always right to (...) do what’s best, that every action brings about an outcome, and that the good is prior to the right. The ethical case for consequentialism elides the distinction between these claims in each case, allowing the counter-intuitive interpretations to hijack the plausibility of the intuitively plausible counterparts. This ethical hijacking has succeeded in large part because a conflation between two different senses of bringing about, and an assumption that all non-deontic value rationales for action are outcome-centered, are thoroughly entrenched at the non-ethical level as well. The “neutral” framework of reasons, actions, and attitudes within which we frame the ethical debate begs the question in favor of a consequentialist resolution of the debate, providing a non-ethical argument for outcome-centered ethics. To expose this conflation and this unwarranted assumption, then, is to undermine the case for these default outcome-centered accounts of reasons, actions, and attitudes as well, and in doing so to expose a subtle but pernicious shift from looking directly at oneself, one’s reasons, the values they reflect, one’s actions, and the practices in which one is involved, to looking at these same things as if in a fun house mirror—the recognizable features are there, but subtly, profoundly distorted, often beyond recognition. (shrink)

The acceptance of the idea of basic equality is widely recognized as one of the most significant achievements of modernity. However, what exactly does it mean to say that we are one another’s equals in some fundamental sense? How can it possibly be true, given that we are unequals in almost every other aspect of our lives? And, who, exactly, is meant to fall within its scope? In this introductory chapter, we outline the most significant challenges that theories of basic (...) equality must face in answering these questions, as well as introducing some conceptual distinctions that clarify important aspects of this debate. This, in turn, provides background for understanding the questions that the essays in this book seek to answer. (shrink)

Much of the literature on basic equality has focused on the question of what grounds the equal moral status of persons, typically understood as fully competent adults. However, less has been said about what justifies the equal moral status of those human beings who do not hold a wide range of sophisticated cognitive capacities, such as severely cognitively disabled human beings and children. This chapter contributes to filling this gap by developing a novel theory of the basis of children’s moral (...) equality. Specifically, I argue that children’s moral equality is entailed by a commitment to a kind of respect which requires providing children with those social conditions that foster their development into well-adjusted adults who hold a proper and stable capacity for moral personality. This is because unequal consideration and treatment precludes, or at least is a significant obstacle to, the provision of some goods that are crucial to the cultivation of a proper and stable capacity for moral personality. Children’s moral equality, then, is a constitutive requirement of what is owed to them qua moral status-holders. (shrink)

That all human beings are one another’s moral equals is taken by many to be the fundamental premise of contemporary moral, political, and legal theory. It is also the demand of individuals and groups to be treated as equals that drives much of political practice and protest today. However, what does such a claim of ‘basic equality’ between human beings mean? How can it possibly be true, given that we are unequals in almost every other aspect of our lives? And, (...) who, exactly, is meant to fall within its scope? This volume brings together today’s foremost thinkers on basic equality to address these questions. Collectively, they explore the concept in history and critique, encompassing novel efforts to overcome the problem of explanation as well as scepticism about it, and discussion of its implications for inclusion and marginalization. (shrink)

Os capítulos aqui reunidos desdobram as temáticas do “corpo”, da “vida” e da “biopolítica” em assuntos que percorrem a epistemologia das ciências da vida, a arqueologia foucaultiana das ciências empíricas, a crítica de Foucault à psicanálise, a questão da loucura e da psiquiatria em torno da mulher e das questões de gênero, os dispositivos de segurança e biopolíticos envolvendo a noção de população, as relações entre subjetividade e verdade, o problema do governo de si e dos outros e as novas (...) publicações atribuídas a Foucault desde a recente publicação de As Confissões da Carne. Os trabalhos - de Gustavo Caponi (UFSC), José Ternes (UFG), Pedro Cattapan (UFF), Sandra Caponi (UFSC), Regiane Collares (UFCA), Fabio Gesueli (UNICAMP) e Malcom Rodrigues (UEFS/UFBA) contribuem com diversas discussões em torno de Foucault. -/- As contribuições são resultado do I e II Encontro de Estudos sobre Michel Foucault, eventos nacionais ocorridos em 2020-2021 e organizados pelo projeto de extensão da UFF - IHS - RPS intitulado “Introdução ao pensamento de Michel Foucault - Grupo de Estudos Jaguar do Fucô”, coordenado por Alessandra Daflon e Marcio Miotto. Os temas dos dois eventos foram “História da Sexualidade e Biopolítica” e “Corpo e Vida em Foucault”. Elas fomentaram verdadeiros diálogos extensionistas a partir dos estudantes de graduação da UFF. O livro é dedicado a Roberto Machado e Heliana Conde, entusiastas do evento e do grupo de extensão. (shrink)

This thesis explores the ethical challenges that a potential research program for solar climate engineering via Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) could incur. These ethical challenges are comprised of epistemic hurdles in relation to the research process, as well as societal questions of justice and the value of nature. The thesis proposes a variety of tools and approaches to assess and possibly govern the risks and uncertainties invoked by the research of SAI and its societal implications. The methodological approach is based (...) mainly on ethical and philosophical analysis and reflection and the main findings take the form of discursive argumentation and normative reflection. (shrink)

The paper explores how the framework of systemic risks can help govern the risks imposed through solar climate engineering research. The central argument is that a systemic perspective of risk is a useful tool for analysing and assessing the risks imposed through Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI) research. SAI is a form of climate engineering that could cool the planet by enhancing its albedo through the injection of aerosols into the stratosphere. Researching such a technology creates systemic risks with a strong (...) sociotechnical component. This component consists of the potential societal harm that a developing or new technology might cause to existing norms, values, institutions, and politics. The systemic risk framework is a valuable heuristic for this case, given the complex interdependencies of societal systems, infrastructures, markets, etc. At the same time, the systemic risk framework can be enhanced through the inclusion of a more robust and reflected ethical considerations on technological risks. Consequently, this article seeks to supplement the systemic risk governance framework with insights from technology ethics. Specifically, the paper offers an ethically reflective conception of societal value dynamism and stakeholder engagement and participation, tying it to existing systemic risk governance approaches. (shrink)

This paper juxtaposes two conflicting positions on the justifiability of authority: Robert Wolff's philosophical anarchist argument and a response to Wolff consisting in Joseph Raz's service conception of authority. Following an introduction, I provide a brief exposition of Wolff's claim that authority is incompatible with moral autonomy (Section 2). After presenting the Razian response (Section 3), I consider what implications follow from Raz's service conception of authority assuming it is correct (Section 4). I argue that, even if the service conception (...) successfully meets the anarchist challenge, it does so not by entirely dissolving the tension between authority and autonomy, but through a balancing act whereby one aspect of our autonomy gives way to another aspect of our autonomy. Finally, I consider the service conception of authority itself and point out certain vulnerabilities thereof (Section 5). (shrink)