Most people believe that some optimific acts are wrong. Since we are not permitted to perform wrong acts, we are not permitted to carry out optimific wrongs. Does the moral relevance of the distinction between action and omission nonetheless permit us to allow others to carry them out? I show that there exists a plausible argument supporting the conclusion that it does. To resist my argument, we would have to endorse a principle according to which, for any wrong action, there (...) is some reason to prevent that action over and above those reasons associated with preventing harm to its victim. I argue that it would be a mistake to value the prevention of wrong acts in the way required to resist my argument. (shrink)

This paper revisits the classical use of Nash bargaining to model the social contract by addressing the two central objections of John Rawls: the influence of threat advantage and the multiplicity of bargaining solutions. We introduce an innovative framework that applies an optimific moral rule, termed Pure Strategy Deontarianism (PSD), to the Nash Bargaining Game. PSD is a synthesis of Kantian deontology and utilitarian altruism. By applying PSD to the Nash bargaining game, we demonstrate how rational agents can normatively select (...) maximal disagreement points as rights, thereby equalizing bargaining power and aligning with Rawls’ first principle of justice. Furthermore, we derive the Kantian solution (KS) for surplus division from PSD, and prove that KS satisfies five key axioms of fairness - symmetry, Pareto optimality, scale invariance, strong monotonicity, and contraction consistency. We argue that KS is an ideal solution, since it does not always lie in the feasible set and so serves as an ideal benchmark that practical approximations like the Nash Bargaining Solution can approach. This synthesis not only offers a robust theoretical resolution to Rawls’ objections but also provides a structured methodology for integrating moral considerations into game-theoretic models of justice. (shrink)

The paper deals with the governance of Unmanned Aircraft Systems in European law. Three different kinds of balance have been struck between multiple regulatory systems, in accordance with the sector of the governance of UAS which is taken into account. The first model regards the field of civil aviation law and its European Union ’s regulation: the model looks like a traditional mix of top-down regulation and soft law. The second model concerns the EU general data protection law, the GDPR, (...) which has set up a co-regulatory framework summed up with the principle of accountability also, but not only, in the field of drones. The third model of governance has been adopted by the EU through methods of legal experimentation and coordination mechanisms for UAS. The overall aim of the paper is to elucidate the ways in which such three models interact, insisting on differences and similarities with other technologies, and further legal systems. (shrink)

This paper argues that ross's theory is an unsatisfactory compromise between moore's ideal utilitarianism and prichard's intuitionism. by including an 'optimific' principle, ross is exposed like moore to such difficulties as having to grant that we never know our duty and that logically we have a duty to pursue our own pleasure. in addition, this paper attributes to moore's influence ross's very inadequate treatment of justice; difficulties in his basic distinction of prima facie versus actual duties; and his unsatisfactory treatments (...) of the deontological/teleological issue. (shrink)

If doing good is often beyond the call of duty, instances of the All or Nothing Problem abound. I have argued elsewhere that we should solve this problem by accepting a principle that I call Optimific Altruism, which has interesting implications both for the correct account of supererogation and for our obligations to give to charity. However, Theron Pummer and Daniel Muñoz have argued that we should instead solve this problem by rejecting an inference rule that I call Conditional Obligation. (...) I here recap my preferred solution and argue against this alternative. (shrink)

This paper presents a large-scale simulation study evaluating the relative success of competing moral theories in strategic interactions. Rather than relying on abstract philosophical argumentation, we adopt a game-theoretic framework in which agents governed by distinct moral principles interact across the entire range of symmetric 2-player, 2-strategy, normal form games, including the Prisoner’s Dilemma, Stag Hunt, and Hawk-Dove. We analyze 32 moral theories, including five foundational frameworks—average consequence utilitarianism, Kantian deontology, selfishness, maxi-min, and empathy-based morality—as well as 26 synthesized (...) moralities formed by combining these base theories. Through Monte Carlo simulations, we determine which moral rules yield the highest expected material payoffs, both in homogeneous interactions (where all agents follow the same rule) and in mixed populations that include selfish agents. Our findings reveal that synthesized moralities systematically outperform their foundational counterparts, highlighting the practical advantages of moral autonomy. In particular, the synthesis of utilitarianism and deontology (UD) emerges as the 'optimific champion', achieving the highest payoffs under the assumption of universal adherence. However, in mixed societies where agents must coexist with selfish individuals, a different moral rule, what we call the 'realist’s champion', prevails: the synthesis of deontology and selfishness (SD). These results have significant implications for moral philosophy, challenging the traditional focus on isolated moral theories and suggesting that moral rules are best understood in relation to their interactive success. The study also underscores the essential role of deontology in viable moral syntheses, raising fundamental questions about the evolutionary robustness and practical viability of moral systems. -/- . (shrink)

The thesis of this paper is that consequentialism does not work as a comprehensive theory of right action. This paper does not offer a typical refutation, in that I do not claim that consequentialism is self-contradictory. One can with perfect consistency claim that the good is prior to the right and that the right consists in maximizing the good. What I claim, however, is that it is senseless to make such a claim. In particular, I attempt to show that the (...) notion of what course of action maximizes the good has no content within a consequentialist framework. Since the problem that I identify rests with maximization, this refutation does not cut across the act/rule distinction. If rule consequentialism holds that there are occasions on which one should follow a rule rather than violate the rule in an optimific way, then it is not maximizing and my arguments do not apply; if not, then it collapses into act consequentialism. I have nothing to say about nonmaximizing forms of consequentialism.1 This refutation does, however, cut across the direct/indirect distinction.2 It makes no difference whether we take consequentialism as offering a principle of decision, or a standard of right. Presumably the former would be parasitic upon the latter for its legitimacy. (shrink)

Free will is a problem of modality, hampered by a commitment to modal dualism: the view that there is only necessity and pure contingency. If we have necessity, then things couldn't have been otherwise, against the Principle of Alternate Possibilities (AP). If there is complete contingency, then the agent seems to have no control over her actions, against the principle of Ultimate Authorship (UA). There is a third modality in natural causal processes, however. AP and UA can be reconciled if (...) we allow both causation and agency to involve the dispositional modality. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Perelmanian Universal Audience and the Epistemic Aspirations of ArgumentScott F. AikinIThe notion of universality in argumentation is as fecund as is it is controversial. Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca’s notion of universal audience (UA), given their requirement that all arguments be evaluated in terms of their audiences, clearly promises a rich account of argumentative norms. It equally yields a variety of questions. For the most part, the questions come (...) in three forms: what, precisely, is the universal audience; whether it is, in the end, a coherent notion; and how its norms actually constrain argument. Many objections to the notion claim that it is either incoherent or too empty to constrain. My objective here is to provide an account of Perelman’s notion of UA that avoids these objections. I will argue that the UA can be clarified with a distinction between two functions it plays in argumentation— one pragmatic and another epistemic. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca do not explicitly disambiguate these roles themselves, though they do use the notion in two distinct ways in The New Rhetoric (TNR [1969]), and so it seems clear that although the view in the end may be Perelmanian, it is arguably not Perelman’s. No matter. The purpose of this essay is not to exhume Perelman but to resurrect and exercise his views. That is, historical work in philosophy must straddle the demands of two distinct goals— fidelity to the author in question and defensibility of the views developed. My case [End Page 238] will jointly depend on the comparative plausibility of my account as an interpretation of Perelman’s universal audience and of the view as correct regarding argumentative norms in relation to the other competing interpretations of Perelman’s UA. So if my argument for a divided universal audience is at least Perelmanian in spirit, and if it survives the objections to UA that other interpretations do not survive, it should be the philosophically preferable interpretation.IIThe first principle of Perelmanian rhetoric is that arguments are addressed to audiences for the purpose of inducing or increasing adherence to a view (TNR, 14). Consequently, the less reliant arguments are on a specific audience’s idiosyncratic commitments, the more effective the arguments will be in generating assent and resolving disagreements in wider and wider groups of people. Perelman describes the universal audience in The Realm of Rhetoric (RR [1982]) as “itself... made up of an infinite variety of particular audiences” (14). The UA is the regulative ideal of maximal intersubjective agreement. That is, we see both the relative weakness of arguments that depend on the commitments of particular audiences and “the value attached to opinions that enjoy unanimous approval” (TNR, 31). This unanimity is reached at its highest point in the universal audience. As such, UA is an agglomerative notion that functions as a criterion for how widely an argument may be given credence. Call this trajectory toward unanimity the pragmatic element of UA.However, the universal audience’s assent is used to define facts for arguments, and as such, it is a marker of the objectivity of a conclusion, not just the breadth of the effectiveness of an argument. Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca stipulate that “from the standpoint of argumentation, we are confronted with a fact only if we can postulate uncontroverted, universal agreement with respect to it” (TNR, 67). Facts and truths are defined in terms of the “agreement of the universal audience” (TNR, 67). This, of course, is not to say that arguments make facts but, instead, that their universal acceptability is a criterion for whether some purported fact is or is not the case. Agreement on this level does not play a metaphysical role of explanation but, rather, a cognitive role of justification for taking a commitment as a premise for further argument. The agreement in a universal audience, further, must be uncontroverted, which means that this UA must have some shared commitment that survives scrutiny (or at least is [End Page 239] not defeated): “The agreement of a universal audience is... a matter, not of fact, but of right” (TNR, 31). And further, this right has a very powerful normative element: “Argumentation... (shrink)

Risk management is a well-known method to face technological challenges through a win–win combination of protective and proactive approaches, fostering the collaboration of operators, researchers, regulators, and industries for the exploitation of new markets. In the field of autonomous and unmanned aerial systems, or UAS, a considerable amount of work has been devoted to risk analysis, the generation of ground risk maps, and ground risk assessment by estimating the fatality rate. The paper aims to expand this approach with a tool (...) for managing data protection risks raised by drones through the design of flight maps. The tool should allow UAS operators choosing the best air corridor for their drones based on the so-called privacy by design principle pursuant to Article 25 of the EU data protection regulation, the GDPR. Among the manifold applications of this approach, the design of fly zones for drones can be tailored for public authorities in the phase of authorization of new operations, much as for national Data Protection authorities that have to control the lawfulness of personal data processing by UAS operations. The overall aim is to present the first win–win approach to data protection issues, aerospace engineering challenges, and risk management methods for the threats posed by this technology. (shrink)

We can distinguish two kinds of moral universalization tests for practical principles. One requires that the universal practice of the principle, i.e., universal conformity to it by all agents in a given world, satisfies some condition. The other requires that conformity to the principle by any possible agent, in any situation and at any time, satisfies some condition. We can call these universal practice and universal applicability tests respectively. The logical distinction between these tests is rarely appreciated, and many (...) philosophers systematically confuse them with each other. In practice, UP tests are more frequently used to defend deontological norms, while UA tests are used to defend consequentialist norms. Both conceptual argument and practical examples of their applications will show that UA tests are decisively superior to UP tests for grounding moral norms, casting greater doubt upon deontological theories which rely upon the latter unless they can reformulate their arguments using some version of a UA test. (shrink)

Journal of Mathematical Logic, Volume 22, Issue 02, August 2022. The Ultrapower Axiom is a combinatorial principle concerning the structure of large cardinals that is true in all known canonical inner models of set theory. A longstanding test question for inner model theory is the equiconsistency of strongly compact and supercompact cardinals. In this paper, it is shown that under the Ultrapower Axiom, the least strongly compact cardinal is supercompact. A number of stronger results are established, setting the stage for (...) a complete analysis of strong compactness and supercompactness under UA that will be carried out in the sequel to this paper. (shrink)

In this paper we present a set of good practices in the design of a security-centric architecture for a Communication Channel that can be used to secure a Loosely-Coupled distributed platform, over unreliable communication mediums. The proposed practices are derived from designing a complete architecture that is modular and designed to support principles of Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) and the common functional requirements of a wide range of applications, including cybersecurity, smart power grids and industrial Internet of Things (IoT). (...) The architecture was developed and implemented as part of the BIECO project, and is based around open standards such as Open Platform Communications United Architecture (OPC-UA). The key feature of the architecture is that it enables secure asynchronous near-real-time communication between a large number of nodes in a multimodal setup, without the need of any Service to know its place within the tool-chain. Based on our experience with building this system and based on the good results obtained, we are presenting a list of lessons learnt, recommendations for better communication channel modules within loosely coupled distributed systems. (shrink)

Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) are widely utilized in competency-based medical education (CBME) to assess clinical readiness, yet their application in bioethics remains less explored. This study introduces Entrustable Professional Ethical Actions (EPEAs) to address the ethical complexities faced by medical professionals transitioning to residency or postgraduate training. A structured framework for EPEAs was developed through a systematic review of bioethics literature and the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. Competencies were categorized under seven domains, including ethical decision-making, patient-centered (...) communication, and sustainability. Using these competencies, ten core EPEAs were formulated with measurable milestones for entrustment. Validation involved an international panel of 35 experts, who evaluated the EPEAs through a 47-item online questionnaire. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement on relevance, clarity, and feasibility, with iterative revisions informed by expert feedback. Validation demonstrated high global consensus, with 86.49% of experts rating the EPEAs as highly relevant, 82.86% agreeing on milestone differentiation, and 81.76% endorsing measurability. Content validity indices (S-CVI/AVE: 0.80, I-CVI: 0.85, S-CVI/UA: 0.92) and reliability (ICC: 0.87) confirmed the robustness of the framework. The final set includes ten EPEAs covering critical domains such as informed consent, privacy, confidentiality, shared decision making, equity, sustainability etc. The EPEAs represent a pioneering framework for integrating bioethical decision-making into medical education. By aligning with global ethical principles, these actions equip trainees to navigate complex moral dilemmas in clinical practice while fostering trust among educators, peers, and patients. (shrink)

Most people believe that the rights of others sometimes require us to act in ways that have even substantially sub-optimal outcomes, as viewed from an axiological perspective that ranks outcomes objectively. Bringing about the optimal outcome, contrary to such a requirement, is an ‘optimific wronging’. It is less clear, however, that we are required to prevent optimific wrongings. Perhaps the value of the outcome, combined with the relative weakness of prohibitions on allowing harm as compared to those against doing harm, (...) justifies non-intervention. In this article, I consider arguments to that effect, focusing on a recent paper in this journal by Andreas Mogensen. I argue that while we do not, in general, do wrong by failing to prevent optimific wrongings, we are nevertheless not permitted, in key cases, to refrain from intervening on the grounds that not intervening will secure the optimal outcome. (shrink)

This volume presents a collection of refereed papers reflecting the state of the art in the area of over-constrained systems. Besides 11 revised full papers, selected from the 24 submissions to the OCS workshop held in conjunction with the First International Conference on Principles and Practice of Constraint Programming, CP '95, held in Marseilles in September 1995, the book includes three comprehensive background papers of central importance for the workshop papers and the whole field. Also included is an introduction (...) by one of the volume editors together with a bibliography listing 243 entries. All in all this is a very useful reference book relevant for all researchers and practitioners interested in hierarchical, partial, and over-constrained systems. (shrink)

Moral philosophy has long been dominated by the aim of understanding morality and the virtues in terms of principles. However, the underlying assumption that this is the best approach has received almost no defence, and has been attacked by particularists, who argue that the traditional link between morality and principles is little more than an unwarranted prejudice. In Principled Ethics, Michael Ridge and Sean McKeever meet the particularist challenge head-on, and defend a distinctive view they call "generalism as (...) a regulative ideal.". (shrink)

Utilitarianism has recently been criticised on two counts in a recent number of Ratio. According to Terrance C. McConnell, it represents many of the acts which are ordinarily regarded as supererogatory as obligatory, and some of the others as actually wrong. In support of the latter criticism, he gives two kinds of examples: cases of self-sacrifice, and cases of trivial favours. Acts of self-sacrifice performed for the sake of others’ good, but which result in a greater balance of harm over (...) benefits than alternative acts would produce, would, he claims, normally be regarded as heroic, but are forbidden as wrong by the utilitarian: and of two alternative trivial favours, either of which would ordinarily count as supererogatory the utilitarian must treat the more beneficial as an obligation, and the less beneficial alternative as unallowable. These departures from ordinary responses are considered grounds for seriously doubting the adequacy of utilitarianism. (shrink)

In developing autonomous agents, one usually emphasizes only (situated) procedural knowledge, ignoring more explicit declarative knowledge. On the other hand, in developing symbolic reasoning models, one usually emphasizes only declarative knowledge, ignoring procedural knowledge. In contrast, we have developed a learning model Clarion, which is a hybrid connectionist model consisting of both localist and distributed representations, based on the two-level approach proposed in Sun (1995). learns and utilizes both procedural and declarative knowledge, tapping into the synergy of..

Complete URL to this document: http://srsc.ulb.ac.be/axcWWW/93-Principles.html.

The nature of attention is one of the oldest and most central problems in psychology. A huge amount of research has been produced on this subject in the last half century, especially on attention in the visual modality, but a general explanation has remained elusive. Many still view attention research as a field that is fundamentally fragmented. This book takes a different perspective and presents a unified theory of visual attention: the TVA model. The TVA model explains the many aspects (...) of visual attention by just two mechanisms for selection of information: filtering and pigeonholing. These mechanisms are described in a set of simple equations, which allow TVA to mathematically model a large number of classical results in the attention literature. The theory explains psychological and neuroscientific findings by the same equations; TVA is a complete theory of visual attention, linking mind and brain. Aimed at advanced students and professional researchers, Principles of Visual Attention contains a detailed review of the most important research done on attention in vision, spanning cognitive psychology, brain imaging, patient studies, and recordings from single cells in the visual cortex. The book explains the TVA model and shows how it accounts for attentional effects observed across all the research areas described. Principles of Visual Attention offers a uniquely integrated view on a central topic in cognitive neuroscience. (shrink)

neglected aspect: knowledge of error, or ‘‘negative’’ knowledge. The development of knowledge of what counts as error occurs via a kind of internal variation and selection, or quasi-evolutionary, process. Processes of reflection generate a hierarchy of principles of error.

Berkeley's idealism started a revolution in philosophy. As one of the great empiricist thinkers he not only influenced British philosophers from Hume to Russell and the logical positivists in the twentieth century, he also set the scene for the continental idealism of Hegel and even the philosophy of Marx. -/- There has never been such a radical critique of common sense and perception as that given in Berkeley's Principles of Human Knowledge (1710). His views were met with disfavour, and (...) his response to his critics was the Three Dialogues between Hylas and Philonous. -/- This edition of Berkeley's two key works has an introduction which examines and in part defends his arguments for idealism, as well as offering a detailed analytical contents list, extensive philosophical notes and an index. (shrink)

The Principle of Context and the Principle of Compositionality only conflict when they are construed as claims about the origin of meanings. I will clarify this point by means of an historical survey into the treatment that PCtxt receives in Frege's Grundlagen and in Wittgenstein's Tractatus. I will argue that Frege actually introduces non-equivalent formulations of PCtxt generating an unstable notion of meaning when related with PCmp. The Tractatus solves this imbalance by assuming both the contextuality and the compositionality at (...) the very core of the notion of meaning, thus by ruling out the claim of two separated —sensitive to collision— principles. My thesis is that in the stage of development of the Tractatus, Wittgenstein found a way to meet and fit together the tensions between PCtxt and PCmp emerging in Frege´s philosophy of language and detected by latter commentators. (shrink)

Preparatory Principles is not a linear text in the conventional sense, but consists of a series of short passages on a variety of topics, whose themes are summarised in marginal headings. The material constitutes a philosophical commonplace book, compiled by Bentham in the mid-1770s, in which he worked out the foundational ideas for his new science of legislation. He then drew on this material when composing such works as A Fragment on Government and An Introduction to the Principles (...) of Morals and Legislation. Inspired by such figures as John Locke and Claude Adrien Helvetius, Bentham developed an original ontological and epistemological basis for legal terminology, with the aim of replacing the traditional terminology of English law with that of universal jurisprudence. The work that dominates the text, in that Bentham returns to it time and time again in order to offer criticism of it, is William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. While unorganized and fragmentary, the material in Preparatory Principles constitutes a remarkable record of the evolving ideas of a major legal philosopher at a formative stage of his career. (shrink)

New Principles of War: Enduring Truths with Timeless Examples argues that the currently recognized principles of war are flawed, and proposes a new set of principles to guide military leaders.

Principles of Ethics, Rosmini's first great work in the field of moral philosophy, looks to the light of reason as the objective basis of moral action. The subjective foundation of such action is the act of will by which we accept what the light of reason places before us. "Acknowledge what you know for what you know it to be" thus becomes the ultimate, self-evident expression of moral obligation. To acknowledge willingly what in fact we know is the essence (...) of morality. Rosmini's moral theory depends upon a thorough examination of the objective nature of knowledge (already carried out in his New Essay), and on a careful analysis of human volition and freedom. Within the system of truth both the simple, straightforward beauty of moral good in the human person and the duplicity of evil become immediately obvious. It is also clear that willing acceptance of moral imperatives does not diminish, but enhances innate human dignity. Moral law, rational law and natural law indicate a single, inviolable source of obligation present to human nature under different aspects. (shrink)

London shows that principled leadership and business diplomacy not only provide direction for management, but they also enhance development of leadership in ...

The free-energy principle states that all systems that minimize their free energy resist a tendency to physical disintegration. Originally proposed to account for perception, learning, and action, the free-energy principle has been applied to the evolution, development, morphology, anatomy and function of the brain, and has been called a postulate, an unfalsifiable principle, a natural law, and an imperative. While it might afford a theoretical foundation for understanding the relationship between environment, life, and mind, its epistemic status is unclear. Also (...) unclear is how the free-energy principle relates to prominent theoretical approaches to life science phenomena, such as organicism and mechanism. This paper clarifies both issues, and identifies limits and prospects for the free-energy principle as a first principle in the life sciences. (shrink)

Guiding principles are central to theory development in physics, especially when there is only limited empirical input available. Here I propose an approach to such principles looking at their heuristic role. I suggest a distinction between two modes of employing scientific principles. Principles of nature make descriptive claims about objects of inquiry, and principles of epistemic action give directives for further research. If a principle is employed as a guiding principle, then its use integrates both (...) modes of employment: guiding principles imply descriptive claims, and they provide directives for further research. By discussing the correspondence principle and the naturalness principle as examples, I explore the consequences for understanding and evaluating current guiding principles in physics. Like principles of nature, guiding principles are evaluated regarding their descriptive implications about the research object. Like principles of epistemic action, guiding principles are evaluated regarding their ability to respond to context-specific needs of the epistemic agent. (shrink)

Scientists need that scientific descriptions meet request methodological principles. Science knowledge is independent. Methodological principles guarantee autonomic regime of scientific investigations. Methodological principles are requirements the process of descriptive knowledge receiving as result of methodological analysis on best samples of scientific investigations, or methodological standards in history of science. There are mane principles in methodology of science: autonomic scientific investigation, competence, objectivity, expedience, systemness, verification, coherence, unity of methods, integration, differentiation, many-variation of formulizations, modernizations, diversity of (...) chosen types of descriptions, two logical meanings – truthfulness and falseness. (shrink)

Aberrations -- Absorption -- Accuracy and precision -- Alpha radiation -- Amplitude -- Angular forces -- Angular momentum -- Antenna -- Arago dot -- Aperture -- Archimedes's principle -- Band theory of solids -- Bernoulli's principle -- Beta radiation -- Blackbody radiation -- Bohr atom -- Bose condensation -- Bra-ket notation -- British thermal unit (BTU) -- Calculating system efficiency -- Circular motion -- Closed systems and isolated systems -- Concave and convex -- Conservation of charge -- Conservation of energy (...) -- Convection and conduction -- Cosmic radiation -- Crest and trough -- Density and specific gravity -- Diode -- Distance and area -- Distortion -- Doppler effect -- Dynamic systems theory -- Edison effect -- Eigenvectors -- Elastic and inelastic collisions -- Electric circuits: Parallel vs series, diagrams and components -- Electric potential -- Energy and power -- Enthalpy -- Entropy -- Euler's laws of motion -- Falling bodies and physics -- Faraday's law -- Feynman diagrams -- Flywheel -- Focal point -- Free body diagram -- Frequency -- Gamma radiation -- Gauss's law -- Gluon -- Gravitational potential energy -- Harmonic oscillator -- Harmonics -- Heisenberg uncertainty principle -- Higgs boson -- Horsepower -- Ideal gas law -- Joule --. (shrink)

The book applies the principle of proportionality to a number of conventional wisdoms in the social sciences, such as in dubio pro reo and the assumption that a crime is always a crime; that you must go to war if instructed to do so. Individuals and states are not obliged to come to the aid of stricken individuals and states. The book is organised in seven chapters, each dealing with a self-standing theme related to proportionality.

In Germany, Otfried Höffe has been a leading contributor to debates in moral, legal, political, and social philosophy for close to three decades. Höffe's work, brings into relief the relevance of these German discussions to their counterparts in English-language circles. In this book, originally published in Germany in 1990 and expanded since, Höffe proposes an extended and original interpretation of Kant‚ philosophy of law, and social morality. Höffe articulates his reading of Kant in the context of an account of modernity (...) as a "polyphonous project," in which the dominant themes of pluralism and empiricism are countered by the theme of categorically binding moral principles, such as human rights. Paying equal attention to the nuances of Kant's texts and the character of the philosophical issues in their own right, Höffe ends up with a Kantianism that requires, rather than precludes, a moral anthropology and that questions the fashionable juxtaposition of Kant and Aristotle as exemplars of incompatible approaches to ethical and political thought. (shrink)

Jacob Neusner, a leading scholar of Judaism, offers a provocative statement on methodology in this history of religion. Neusner offers initial generalizations, or 'first principles, ' seen as the histories of four periods of Judaism. Co-published with Studies in Judaism. Co-published with Studies in Judaism.

'How To Profit From Principle' examines the fundamental values and principles of business life - integrity, trust and service - which are vital for long-term sustainability and the personal well-being of the individuals employed in the enterprise.

Excerpt from Principles of Correct Thinking Thus we see that logic has a case of physical sciences as compared with the single function which it performs in the field of mathematics. In the case of the latter, ideas are logical if they are consistent but they must correspond to objects in the physical world. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important (...) historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works. (shrink)

Introduction : what is policy thought? -- The principle of policy statism -- The principle of policy goodness -- The principle of policy balance -- The principle of policy practicality -- The principle of policy humans : interpenetrated policy humans with nonhumans -- Concluding remarks.