Traditional statistical model evaluation typically relies on goodness-of-fit testing and quantifying model complexity by counting parameters. Both of these practices may result in overfitting and have thereby contributed to the generalizability crisis. The information-theoretic principle of minimum description length addresses both of these concerns by filtering noise from the observed data and consequently increasing generalizability to unseen data.

It has been recognized in the literature of the calculus of variations that the classical statement of the principle of least action (Hamilton's principle for conservative systems) is not strictly correct. Recently, mathematical proofs have been offered for what is claimed to be a more precise statement of Hamilton's principle for conservative systems. According to a widely publicized version of this more precise statement, the action integral for conservative systems is a minimum for discrete (...) systems for small time intervals only and is never minimum for continuous systems. In this paper, two contradictions to this “more precise” statement are demonstrated, one for a discrete system and one for a continuous system. (shrink)

This paper seeks to provide an approach for achieving a more socially and environmentally sustainable life by reframing the rules of engagement with the planet and with each other by setting minimum standards on essential criteria i.e., by defining “off-limits”zones for corporate action. For a more humanistic and socially just way of living life that would sustain the planet, a set of moral boundaries that cannot be breached are conceived. We offer a set of possible normative leverage points (...) that must not be violated by business in the long-term. Our paper takes a forward-looking view beyond the current generational targets for sustainability. We operate on the premise that sustainability involves preserving the future generations of the planet in both an environmental and human sense. The Moral Boundaries for Business framework embraces the Seventh Generation Principle. The moral boundaries we offer in this paper, if followed, are meant to have positive implications for humanity and the planet in the next seven generations. (shrink)

According to history texts, philosophers searched for a unifying natural law whereby natural phenomena and numbers are related. More than 2300 years ago, Aristotle postulated that nature requires minimum energy. More than 220 years ago, Euler applied the minimum energy postulate. More than 200 years ago, Lagrange provided a mathematical “proof” of the postulate for conservative systems. The resulting Principle of Least Action served only to derive the differential equations of motion of a conservative system. Then, (...) 170 years ago, Hamilton presented what he claimed to be a “general method in dynamics.” Hamilton's resulting “Law of Varying Action” was supposed to apply to both conservative and non-conservative systems and was supposed to yield either the differential equations of motion or the integrals of those differential equations. However, no direct evaluation of the integrals of motion ever resulted from Hamilton's law of varying action. In 1975, a scant 29 years ago, following five years of controversy with engineer mechanicians, Dr. Wolfgang Yourgrau, Editor, Foundations of Physics, published my first paper based on Aristotle's postulate, without mathematical proof. That and subsequent papers present, through applications, a true “general method in dynamics.” In this essay, I present the mathematical proof that is missing from my 1975 and subsequent papers. Six fundamental integrals of analytical mechanics are derived from Aristotle's postulate. First, however, Hamilton must be revisited to show why his H function and his “force function” prevents the law of varying action from being the general method in dynamics that he claimed it to be. I have found that Hamilton’s Law of Varying Action (HLVA), as Hamilton presented it, cannot be applied to systems for which the force function is non-integrable. In 1972, Dr. B.E. Gatewood and Dr. D.P. Beres (then a graduate student) discovered that the end-point term associated with the principle of least action does not vanish. I named the new equation, “the general energy equation.” In 1973, because I was doing with it what Hamilton claimed could be done with HLVA, I simply assumed that this new equation was HLVA. I gave the new equation the misnomer HLVA. In 2001, I learned that I had made a grave mistake. I found that HLVA is at most a special case of the general energy equation. My interpretation of Aristotle's postulate permits one to by-pass the differential equations of motion completely for both conservative and non-conservative systems (no calculus of variations). (shrink)

Despite the importance of the variational principles of physics, there have been relatively few attempts to consider them for a realistic framework. In addition to the old teleological question, this paper continues the recent discussion regarding the modal involvement of the principle of least action and its relations with the Humean view of the laws of nature. The reality of possible paths in the principle of least action is examined from the perspectives of the contemporary metaphysics (...) of modality and Leibniz's concept of essences or possibles striving for existence. I elaborate a modal interpretation of the principle of least action that replaces a classical representation of a system's motion along a single history in the actual modality by simultaneous motions along an infinite set of all possible histories in the possible modality. This model is based on an intuition that deep ontological connections exist between the possible paths in the principle of least action and possible quantum histories in the Feynman path integral. I interpret the action as a physical measure of the essence of every possible history. Therefore only one actual history has the highest degree of the essence and minimal action. To address the issue of necessity, I assume that the principle of least action has a general physical necessity and lies between the laws of motion with a limited physical necessity and certain laws with a metaphysical necessity. (shrink)

My aim is to argue for the incompatibility of one of the central principles of physics, namely the principle of least action (PLA), with the increasingly popular view that the world is, ultimately, merely something like a con- glomerate of objects and irreducible dispositions. First, I argue that the essentialist implications many suppose this view has are not compatible with the PLA. Second, I argue that, irrespective of whether this view has any essentialist implications, it is not compatible (...) with the kind of explanation that the PLA affords. (shrink)

Some time ago, Joel Katzav and Brian Ellis debated the compatibility of dispositional essentialism with the principle of least action. Surprisingly, very little has been said on the matter since, even by the most naturalistically inclined metaphysicians. Here, we revisit the Katzav–Ellis arguments of 2004–05. We outline the two problems for the dispositionalist identified Katzav in his 2004 , and claim they are not as problematic for the dispositional essentialist at it first seems – but not for the (...) reasons espoused by Ellis. (shrink)

The article attempts to reconstruct the solution of the fundamental for the Anglo-American historical school (T. Kuhn, I. Lakatos, P. Feyerabend) problem of incommensurability, proposed by Helmut Spinner, a prominent representative of German critical rationalism (hereinafter referred to as CR). It is shown that this solution became possible on the way of rethinking the shortcomings of the orthodox CR of K. Popper and H. Albert, the main one of which Spinner saw in “scarcity” pluralism and criticism. To overcome it, he (...) considered it necessary to develop the KR in the direction of “pluralistically extended fallibilist criticism” of the Feyerabend persuasion with some innovations. Spinner’s new version of the CR, was based on the following three fundamental principles: 1) the principle of radicalization of pluralism (hyperpluralism); 2) the principle of the infallibility of fallibilism (hyperfallibilism) (Fallubilität des Fallibilismus); 3) the principle (requirement) of the minimum commensurability of theories. The essence and content of the third principle is as follows. Minimal commensurability means that competing theories are commensurate, at least in one essential point: commensurability of this kind is mediated by “transition theories”. Incommensurable theories are by no means useless, for thanks to “transition theories” they can become commensurate, at least in a minimal sense. And this minimum commensurability is the most essential and desirable for theoretical pluralism, since only it provides the maximum criticism of alternative theories, thereby expanding the possibilities of confrontation and strengthening pluralistic criticism in general. (shrink)

The present paper investigates why logical empiricists remained silent about one of the most philosophy-laden matters of theoretical physics of their day, the principle of least action (PLA). In the two decades around 1900, the PLA enjoyed a remarkable renaissance as a formal unification of mechanics, electrodynamics, thermodynamics, and relativity theory. Taking Ernst Mach's historico-critical stance, it could be liberated from much of its physico-theological dross. Variational calculus, the mathematical discipline on which the PLA was based, obtained a (...) new rigorous basis. These three developments prompted Max Planck to consider the PLA as formal embodiment of his convergent realist methodology. Typically rejecting ontological reductionism, David Hilbert took the PLA as the key concept in his axiomatizations of physical theories. It served one of the main goals of the axiomatic method: ''deepening the foundations.'' Although Moritz Schlick was a student of Planck's, and Hans Hahn and Philipp Frank enjoyed close ties to Gottingen, the PLA became a veritable Shibboleth to them. Rather than being worried by its historical connections with teleology and determinism, they erroneously identified Hilbert's axiomatic method tout court with Planck's metaphysical realism. Logical empiricists' strict containment policy against metaphysics required so strict a separation between physics and mathematics to exclude even those features of the PLA and the axiomatic method not tainted with metaphysics. (shrink)

The paper delves into the methodological aspects of how foundational mathematical and physical tenets, most notably the principle of least action, are interpreted and assimilated within humanities discourse. The pursuit of the article’s objectives is driven by the necessity for a philosophical and methodological analysis of the current conceptual status of the principle of least action. This analysis is informed by cognitive-axiological and teleological imperatives of a “synthetic” development program for the principle. Any fundamental (...) class='Hi'>principle will not have a definitive explanation, as otherwise it would not be fundamental, but in this case, some justification can be given based on deeper grounds discussed in the article. Drawing on the epistemological frameworks of French philosophers P. Hadot, E. Levinas, J. Bouveresse, and J.-T. Desanti, the article weaves together mathematical abstractions with human experience and philosophical doctrines with physical theories. J.-T. Desanti’s perspective on mathematical objects as an outcome of human activity is examined. Also scrutinized is B. Nicolescu’s concept of transdisciplinarity, which challenges the traditional subject-object dualism in science. The author’s methodological stance emerges from a dialectical viewpoint, one that eschews a simplistic dichotomy between materialism and idealism and is grounded in rigorous scientific inquiry and an exhaustive examination of the subject matter itself. The principle of least action, as a paramount principle in physics, is shown to exemplify a legacy of innovation, positioning it as both methodologically insightful and heuristically valuable. The paper also highlights how this principle diverges from the classical principle of economy. The broader goal – within the context of “sustainable development,” transdisciplinary studies, and creative industries – is to establish the principle of least action as a paradigmatic imperative for interaction within social and economic systems. The conclusions drawn from this study contribute to a deeper understanding of the principle’s essence, the nature of transdisciplinarity, and confront the vestiges of scientism in the humanities. (shrink)

The principle of least action (PLA) has often been cited as a counterexample to the dominant mode of causal explanation in physics. In particular, PLA seems to involve an appeal to final causes or some other teleological ideology. However, Ben-Menahem (Causation in science, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 2018) argues that such implications no longer apply given that PLA can be recovered as limiting case from quantum theory. In this paper, I argue that the metaphysical implications of PLA-based explanations (...) are not undermined by its status as derivative. However, I contend that PLA functions as a diachronic constraint that licenses explanations by constraint (Lange, Because without cause: non-casual explanations in science and mathematics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2016). PLA-based explanations, on this account, are non-causal but also differ from familiar cases of teleological explanations in several respects. (shrink)

In the Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic, Kant formulates teleological principles, or rather ideas, and explicates them referring to concrete examples of natural science such as chemistry, astronomy, biology, empirical psychology, and physical geography. Despite the increasing interest in the systematic relevance of the Appendix to the Transcendental Dialectic and its importance for Kant’s conception of natural science, the numerous historical sources for the regulative use of reason have not yet been investigated. One that is very central is Maupertuis’ (...) class='Hi'>principle of least action. In 1781, Kant transformed teleology into heuristics and methodology, but in doing so, he partially develops a teleology which was disqualified by Maupertuis because its starting point lies in the construction of animals or plants, the structure of the earth, and the immensity of the celestial bodies. Based on Maupertuis’ principle of action, it can be shown that the Appendix forms a systematic interface between Universal Natural History and Theory of the Heavens and Critique of Judgement which allows the reconstruction of Kant’s regulative use of reason and its specific status in the context of natural science and his critical appraisal of Maupertuis. (shrink)

Maupertuis and Euler had an ambivalent and tense relationship to their Leibniz, especially concerning his grounding of physics in metaphysics. Consequently, this paper has two intersecting goals: first, it attempts to flesh out some aspects of the reception of Leibnizian thought in the context of Enlightenment physics, more precisely, in the deduction of the Principle of least action (henceforth PLA). Second, it also highlights a specific approach towards the intersection of physics and metaphysics that was championed by the (...) Berlin Academy, which would not have been well received in Paris or London. To that end, I will briefly examine some aspects of the strategies of argumentation, metaphysical presumptions and self-ascribed methodologies (often quite different from their actual methodology) employed by Maupertuis and Euler in their respective deductions of the PLA. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Reviewed by:Aquinas on Imitation of Nature: Source of Principles of Moral Action by Wojciech GolubiewskiAnthony T. FloodGOLUBIEWSKI, Wojciech. Aquinas on Imitation of Nature: Source of Principles of Moral Action. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2022. xx + 309 pp. Cloth, $75.00Does Aquinas's ethical account necessarily rely upon his metaphysics of goodness and natural forms, or can we fairly interpret his ethics as merely cursorily (...) connected to these other aspects of his thought? Golubiewski offers a thorough and compelling case that Aquinas indeed bases his ethics on these various broader principles, such that proper practical principles inextricably and fundamentally are an imitation of nature.Golubiewski details the full range of scholarship on Aquinas's natural law theory in order to set up his meticulous and comprehensive analysis. He motivates his interpretation by examining two opposed positions in current discussion. On one side is the view championed by Stephen Brock and others that focuses on Aquinas's metaphysics of the good, along with "the imitation of nature as the 'imitation of the divine mind'" as crucial to an accurate understanding of the natural law. On the other side is Martin Rhonheimer, who maintains, "natural law is not the 'imitative reflex' of the 'natural order'." Rhonheimer wishes to avoid a moral physicalism that succumbs to charges of the naturalistic fallacy. Golubiewski sides with Brock and proceeds to show the extent to which the notion of imitation performs throughout Aquinas's ethical thought.Early in his analysis, Golubiewski notes that we should avoid an overly strict distinction between the two virtues of practical reason, namely, art and prudence. While art does have the specific sense of right reason regarding the making of things, Aquinas also uses it more broadly and analogically as conveying any kind of right reason. Thus, when Aquinas speaks of art, particularly in terms of right reason as an imitation of nature, this includes prudence and all of the moral virtues it directs. Moreover, the notion of art also pertains to God's creative act. Insofar as created natures are the effect of divine art, the parameters of their goodness are already determined. In the case of rational natures, they are not free to determine their own goodness. By imitating nature, a person imitates the mind behind nature.Golubiewski devotes considerable attention to the sources of moral knowledge. For human beings, the imitation of nature pertinent to right moral reasoning begins with the knowledge of sensible things, whereby we grasp the patterns, modes of operations, and inclinations of them. All [End Page 139] beings have a movement toward—a desire for—actuality, which in turn orients them to divine goodness. "In this way things 'desire' the divine goodness, according to their own 'immanent likeness' to it. They desire it insofar as they imitate it." Each kind of thing imitates God's goodness in its own, admittedly very limited way. Human nature has this same relation to God; thereby, proper human action is based on the same sort of imitation.This leads to a relevant analysis of the part/whole notion in Aquinas. Golubiewski remarks that we have an inclination not merely toward our own individual good but also to the good of the whole human community and ultimately God as the ultimate good. "Not only political virtue but all kinds of properly human virtues are intrinsically ordered to the common good. In this way all of them are part of general justice as ordered to reason in its imitation of nature." In light of the recent resurgence of interest in the precise connection between personal rights and the common good, Golubiewski's elaboration on these points might prove especially helpful to anyone desiring to bring Thomistic principles into the debate.Golubiewski proceeds to delve into the precise character of the inclinations of human nature as rational inclinations. The common intelligible structure of goodness entails three elements. One, the mode of each kind of thing's congruent action. Two, the virtuous dispositions as rooted in that nature. Three, the virtuous agency by which the proper good of that nature is obtained. In the case of human beings, the mode of obtaining goodness is... (shrink)

Without doubt, the principle of least action is a fundamental principle in classical mechanics. Contemporary physicists, however, consider the PLA as a purely mathematical principle – even an axiom which they cannot completely justify. Such an account stands in sharp contrast with the historical meaning of the PLA. When the principle was introduced in the 1740s, by Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis, its meaning was much more versatile. For Maupertuis the principle of least action (...) signified that nature is thrifty or economical in all its actions, i.e., that nature avoids to do anything unnecessary. Maupertuis understood the principle in teleological terms and even considered the principle as an expression of God’s wisdom. It has been correctly pointed out by historians that Maupertuis in his later years moved towards a more speculative and metaphysical approach, whereas his contemporary Euler and later Lagrange, wanted to avoid such theological and metaphysical implications and frame the PLA in purely mathematical terms. Such readings, however, have had the unintended side-effect that they lose out of sight the question how the mathematical and metaphysical aspect of the principle of least action fit together within Maupertuis’ own work. Investigating if and how the mathematical and metaphysical aspects of the PLA are compatible within Maupertuis’ thought will be the main goal of this paper. (shrink)

The success of a few theories in statistical thermodynamics can be correlated with their selectivity to reality. These are the theories of Boltzmann, Gibbs, end Einstein. The starting point is Carnot’s theory, which defines implicitly the general selection of reality relevant to thermodynamics. The three other theories share this selection, but specify it further in detail. Each of them separates a few main aspects within the scope of the implicit thermodynamic reality. Their success grounds on that selection. Those aspects can (...) be represented by corresponding oppositions. These are: macroscopic – microscopic; elements – states; relational – non-relational; and observable – theoretical. They can be interpreted as axes of independent qualities constituting a common qualitative reference frame shared by those theories. Each of them can be situated in this reference frame occupying a different place. This reference frame can be interpreted as an additional selection of reality within Carnot’s initial selection describable as macroscopic and both observable and theoretical. The deduced reference frame refers implicitly to many scientific theories independent of their subject therefore defining a general and common space or subspace for scientific theories (not for all). The immediate conclusion is: The examples of a few statistical thermodynamic theories demonstrate that the concept of “reality” is changed or generalized, or even exemplified (i.e. “de-generalized”) from a theory to another. Still a few more general suggestions referring the scientific realism debate can be added: One can admit that reality in scientific theories is some partially shared common qualitative space or subspace describable by relevant oppositions and rather independent of their subject quite different in general. Many or maybe all theories can be situated in that space of reality, which should develop adding new dimensions in it for still newer and newer theories. Its division of independent subspaces can represent the many-realities conception. The subject of a theory determines some relevant subspace of reality. This represents a selection within reality, relevant to the theory in question. The success of that theory correlates essentially with the selection within reality, relevant to its subject. (shrink)

This memoir consists of two parts, of which the first deals with the foundations of the theory of the struggle for existence, and begins with the introduction of the important concept of quantity of life, besides that of population. The fundamental equations are then established for the case where the individuals of a biological association mutually devour each other, the reasoning being based on the principle of encounters and on the fundamental hypothesis of the existence of equivalents of the (...) individuals constituting the different species which form the association.Having now obtained the equations which determine the rates of change of the numbers of individuals and of the quantities of life of the species, the memoir proceeds to find the equations relating to the stationary state, by establishing theorems which are afterwards applied for the purpose of obtaining the three general laws of the fluctuations. This investigation of the equilibrium state is then followed by the determination of the integrals of the fluctuation equations, and the deduction from these of their most important consequences.The second part of the memoir contains the enumeration and demonstration of the general laws of the struggle for existence, which flow from the discussion of the principles and the integrals obtained in the first part. In this way there is established a new sort of dynamics, demographic dynamics, which, though substantially different from the dynamics of material systems, is developed from an analogous point of view.The second part begins with the principle of the conservation of demographic energy, according to which there are two sorts of energy, one actual and one potential, which transform mutually the one into the other. This principle is the analogue of the principle of conservation of mechanical energy. It is followed by the enunciation of the three laws relating to the biological fluctuations, the experimental verification of which has been investigated by several naturalists. The success which has attended their efforts is well known.Everybody knows the importance ofHamilton's principle in mechanics and in all the domains of physical science. An analogous variation principle can be found in biology, and from it one can deduce the fluctuation equations in the canonical Hamiltonian form and also in the form of a Jacobian partial differential equation. Their integrals in involution from the subject next studied, and in this way are found cases where the integration is reducible to quadratures.Hamilton's principle leads to the principle of least action . There exists also in biology a closely related principle, which may be called the principle of least vital action. Its analytical form is such that it requires the existence of a true minimum, a state of affairs which does not always hold good in the analogous case in mechanics.Die Abhandlung besteht aus zwei Teilen: Der erste ist den Grundlagen der Theorie des Kampfes ums Dasein gewidmet. Man beginnt damit, neben der Bevölkerung die Menge des Lebens einzuführen, welche eine sehr wichtige Rolle spielt. Man geht dann dazu über, die Grundgleichungen für den Fall aufzustellen, in welchem die Individuen einer biologischen Assoziation sich gegenseitig auffressen. Man wendet das Prinzip der Begegnungen an und stützt sich auf die Grundhypothese der Existenz von Individuenäquivalenten der verschiedenen Arten, welche die Assoziation bilden.Wenn man die Gleichungen, welche die Variationen der Individuenzahlen und der Lebensmengen der Arten liefern, gefunden hat, so schreitet man zu den statischen oder Gleichgewichtsgleichungen fort und findet so die Theoreme, die man alsdann benutzt, um die drei allgemeinen Gesetze der Fluktuationen zu erhalten.Nach dem Studium des Gleichgewichtes geht man dazu über, die verschiedenen Integrale der Fluktuationengleichungen zu finden und zieht endlich aus ihnen die wichtigsten Folgerungen.Im zweiten Teile werden die allgemeinen Gesetze des Kampfes ums Dasein, welche aus der Diskussion der Prinzipien und der im ersten Teil gewonnenen Integrale stammen, ausgesprochen und bewiesen. Man baut so eine neue Dynamik auf: die demographische Dynamik, welche, obschon sie wesentlich verschieden von derjenigen der materiellen Systeme ist, sich nach einem analogen Gesichtspunkt entwickelt.Man beginnt in diesem zweiten Teil mit dem Prinzip der Erhaltung der demographischen Energie, nach welchem zwei Energien, die aktuelle und die potentielle, sich ineinander verwandeln. Wir haben hier eine Analogie zum Prinzip der Erhaltung der mechanischen Energie. Dann werden die drei Gesetze der biologischen Fluktuationen formuliert. Für sie haben verschiedene Naturforscher experimentelle Bestätigungen gesucht. Man kennt den Erfolg ihrer Bemühungen.Alle Welt kennt die Bedeutung des Prinzips vonHamilton in der Mechanik und in allen Gebieten der Physik. Man kann ein dem Variationskalkül analoges Prinzip in der Biologie finden. Aus ihm kann man die Fluktuationsgleichungen in der kanonischen Form vonHamilton und in der Gestalt einer Gleichung mit partiellen Differentialquotienten vonJacobi herleiten. Ihre Integrale bilden den Gegenstand der folgenden Studien. Man findet Fälle, in denen die Integration sich auf Quadraturen reduziert.Das Prinzip vonHamilton zieht das Prinzip der kleinsten Wirkung oder das Prinzip vonMaupertuis nach sich. Auch in der Biologie gibt es ein mit dem vorgenannten zusammenhängendes Prinzip, welches man das Prinzip der kleinsten vitalen Wirkung nennen kann. Seine analytische Form ist derart, dass es sich um ein wahres Minimum handelt, das im analogen Fall in der Mechanik nicht immer zutrifft. (shrink)

Hannah Arendt’s conception of politics has long invited criticism for potentially turning political action into an exercise in hollow dramatics, both ethically unrestrained and restricted in its practical import. This essay offers a new response to these criticisms while attempting to honor Arendt’s commitment to a form of theorizing that engages politics on its own terms instead of legislating for politics from a perspective of moral philosophy. It does so by explicating an underappreciated aspect of Arendt’s political theory: her (...) claim that action is always inspired and guided by “principles.” Although Arendt fails to offer a sustained account of the significance of principles for politics, I argue that her numerous shorter discussions of principles together yield a robust political ethics and a more nuanced conception of action than many readings of her thought allow. Having reconstructed a fuller account of Arendt’s principles of action, I then examine how she understands these principles to be historically regenerated. (shrink)

Twenty extremal principles of the natural sciences are reformulated to the general ontological scheme. The hypothesis is substantiated that the unique role of the principle of least action is based on its probabilistic interpretation. It is shown how most of the variational principles can be reduced to the principle of maximal probability, which is based on a realistic interpretation of Feynman’s path integral method.

Towards the middle of the 18th century, Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis proposed the “principle of least action” as a fundamental law of physics and as a proof of the existence of God. Samuel König and other contemporary authors criticized Maupertuis’ work. There ensued a fierce discussion concerning this subject, in which Leonhard Euler, the king Frédéric II of Prussia and Voltaire took part. This paper discusses that debate, emphasizing its extrascientific features and analyzing the interests that motivated the (...) actions of the people involved in that episode. Key words: Pierre-Louis Moreau de Maupertuis, François Marie Arouet Voltaire, Johann Samuel König, Frédéric II – king of Prussia, principle of least action, history of physics, scientific controversies. (shrink)

It is argued that shu involves one's identification with another person while one criticizes the latter's perspective based on one's own. A mechanism is proposed for developing this sort of critique, based on some significant Confucian values. Finally, shu is applied to the context of caring actions, and it is shown how it can help to solve some of the problems arising in caring for others.

This paper considers a guardianship model for the legal representation of future generations. According to this model, national and international courts should be given the competence to appoint guardians for future generations, if agents who care about the welfare of posterity apply for the creation of a guardianship in relation to a dispute that can be resolved by the application of law. This reform would grant guardians of future people legal standing or locus standi before courts, that is, the right (...) to bring an action before a court of law for adjudication. Although the guardianship model faces several difficult theoretical and practical problems pertaining to the representation of different near and distant future generations, it is argued that this model – and certain other legal norms intended to protect future basic needs – can be justified on the basis of the principle of liberty. (shrink)

The article discusses a recurrent discursive mechanism by which contemporary societies respond to the emergence of a crisis. Faced with the surplus of objectivity produced by a particular crisis – be it the global economic crisis, the refugee crisis, the climate emergency or the recent pandemic – a two-component defence mechanism is formed in discourse, which in turn also assumes a pseudo-objective status. In the first step, after the initial attempt to directly deny the emergence of a crisis is overturned, (...) the crisis is affirmed by a compromise constatation of its existence that underscores the supposedly central insight that the crisis has brought; in the second step, the constatation is supplemented by a pseudo-objective rule of action. In the case of the current pandemic, discussed in detail in the third section of the article, the rule of action has been formed as a political generalisation of the principle of proportionality. Since it is not applicable to the basic dynamic principles of the pandemic and consequently cannot solve the crisis, it has been gradually reduced to a minimum: we must learn to live with the virus. (shrink)

The concept of self-interest is core to modern understandings of individual desire and need. It is also central in the concept of homo economicus and, in a variety of forms, underpins economic science. The critical discussion of the notion of self-interest in William Hazlitt, An Essay on the Principles of Human Action ([1805] 1969), remains unknown in sociology and economics even though it resolves a number of key problems associated with the concept and makes an original, indeed, unique contribution (...) to action theory. In particular, Hazlitt shows that the basis on which an individual pursues their own interest is identical with their sympathy with the interests of others. Hazlitt shows that a clear distinction between self and other cannot be sustained, and that an individual is as remote from their future self as they are from any other person. Even the `sexual appetite' Hazlitt shows cannot be understood in terms of simple self-interest as it is stimulated and consummated through mental and reciprocal capacities. These and related aspects of Hazlitt's Principles are set out below, and their relevance for an understanding of self-interested action and self-formation is demonstrated. (shrink)

The author argues that it is possible to develop a metaphysical interpretation of Aquinas's doctrine of natural law that still deserves serious philosophical consideration today; examines Aquinas's theoretical reflections on the metaphysical and epistemological aspects of human natural goodness, applying them to moral contexts as found in the Secunda secundae.

The Principle of Agency says that if it would be good for a state of affairs to occur “naturally”, then it is permissible to take action to bring it about. This contradicts the views of some bioethicists, who object to euthanasia, in vitro fertilization, and cloning, even though they acknowledge that the states of affairs produced are good. But the principle, or some form of it, seems inescapable. The opposite view — that we may not, by our (...) action, reproduce “natural” goods — may owe its appeal to an implicitly religious view of nature. (shrink)

Action must be taken to combat climate change. Yet, how the costs of climate action should be allocated among states remains a question. One popular answer—the polluter-pays principle (PPP)—stipulates that those responsible for causing the problem should pay to address it. While intuitively plausible, the PPP has been subjected to withering criticism in recent years. It is timely, following the Paris Agreement, to develop a new version: one that does not focus on historical production-based emissions but rather (...) allocates climate burdens in proportion to each state’s annual consumption-based emissions. This change in carbon accounting results in a fairer and more environmentally effective principle for distributing climate duties. (shrink)