At first sight, moral blame is an unpleasant thing. No one likes being blamed and few people like experiencing the negative emotions associated with blaming others. Therefore, some suggest a radical reform of our everyday moral life: We should replace our tendency to blame wrongdoers with a tendency to criticize them in a less harmful and more productive way. The blameless fight for the good by Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi may exemplify this alternative. Many philosophers, however, think (...) that such a reform would be bad. In this discussion note, I will focus on R. Jay Wallace’s claim that our tendency to blame wrongdoers stands in relation to some important good such that we would necessarily lose this good if we stopped blaming each other. He argues that blaming wrongdoers expresses one’s commitment to morality in a special way and that no other response could serve this function. I will show that there are forms of moral sadness in our psychological repertoire that differ from blame but have the same expressive dimension that blame is supposed to have. Thus, I will suggest that the question of whether we should try to get rid of our tendency to blame is still open. (shrink)

In Being Realistic About Reasons,T.M. Scanlon develops a non-naturalistic realist account of normative reasons. A crucial part of that account is Scanlon’s contention that there is no deep epistemological problem for non-naturalistic realists, and that the method of reflective equilibrium suffices to explain the possibility of normative knowledge. In this critical notice we argue that this is not so: on a realist picture, normative knowledge presupposes a significant correlation between distinct entities, namely between normative beliefs and normative facts. This correlation (...) calls for an explanation. We show that Scanlon does not have the resources to offer such an explanation. (shrink)

For a long time the dominant view on the nature of blame was that to blame someone is to have an emotion toward her, such as anger, resentment or indignation in the case of blaming someone else and guilt in the case of self-blame. Even though this view is still widely held, it has recently come under heavy attack. The aim of this paper is to elaborate the idea that to blame is to have an emotion and to defend the (...) resulting emotion account of blame. (shrink)

Climate change is one of the most important issues we are currently facing. There are many ways in which states can fight climate change. Some of them involve interfering with citizens’ personal lives. The question of whether such interference is justified is under-explored in philosophy. This paper focuses on a specific aspect of people’s personal lives, namely their informational privacy. It discusses the question of whether, given certain empirical assumptions, it is proportional of the state to risk its citizens’ privacy (...) or to risk infringing its citizens’ right to privacy to fight climate change. The main claim this paper argues for is that if fighting climate change and protecting our privacy conflict, we have good reason to fight climate change rather than protect our privacy. (shrink)

This paper presents an account of the right to privacy that is inspired by classic control views on this right and recent developments in moral psychology. The core idea is that the right to privacy is the right that others not make personal information about us flow unless this flow is an expression of and does not conflict with our deep self. The nature of the deep self will be spelled out in terms of stable intrinsic desires. The paper argues (...) that this view has advantages over alternative accounts of the right to privacy, that it is extensionally adequate in interesting test cases, that there is a good reason to think that the right to privacy, thus understood, can be justified, and that this view helps identify what kind of information is protected by the right to privacy. (shrink)

Even though the idea that privacy is some kind of control is often presented as the standard view on privacy, there are powerful objections against it. The aim of this paper is to defend the control account of privacy against some particularly pressing challenges by proposing a new way to understand the relevant kind of control. The main thesis is that privacy should be analyzed in terms of source control, a notion that is adopted from discussions about moral responsibility.

This paper discusses the idea that the concept of privacy should be understood in terms of control. Three different attempts to spell out this idea will be critically discussed. The conclusion will be that the Source Control View on privacy is the most promising version of the idea that privacy is to be understood in terms of control.

Blame skeptics argue that we have strong reason to revise our blame practices because humans do not fulfill all the conditions for it being appropriate to blame them. This paper presents a new challenge for this view. Many have objected that blame plays valuable roles such that we have strong reason to hold on to our blame practices. Skeptics typically reply that non-blaming responses to objectionable conduct, like forms of disappointment, can serve the positive functions of blame. The new challenge (...) is that skeptics need to show that it can be appropriate (or less inappropriate) to respond with this kind of disappointment to people’s conduct if it is inappropriate to respond with blame. The paper argues that current blame-skeptical views fail to meet this challenge. (shrink)

When confronted with the question of why it is appropriate to morally blame a person for some bad action, it may seem plausible to reply that she is morally responsible for it. Some authors, inspired by Peter Strawson's "Freedom and Resentment," argue, however, that thinking this way is backwards. They believe that a person is morally responsible for some bad action because it would be appropriate to blame her for it. The aims of this paper are to present this account, (...) to highlight some of its important but often overlooked features, and to defend it against pressing objections. (shrink)

ABSTRACT Recently, many authors have argued that claims about determinism and free will are situated on different levels of description and that determinism on one level does not rule out free will on another. This paper focuses on Christian List’s version of this basic idea. It will be argued for the negative thesis that List’s account does not rule out the most plausible version of incompatibilism about free will and determinism and, more constructively, that a level-based approach to free will (...) has better chances to meet skeptical challenges if it is guided by reasoning at the moral level – a level that has not been seriously considered so far by proponents of this approach. (shrink)

In the last two decades, blame has become a core topic in ethics, philosophical moral psychology and, more recently, epistemology. This chapter aims at clarifying the complex state of the debate and at making a suggestion for how we should proceed from here. The core idea is that accounts of blame are often motivated by very different background goals. One standard goal is to provide a unifying account of our everyday blame practices. The chapter argues that there is reason to (...) think that this goal is not achievable. Another goal is to provide the tools for solving or clarifying important social or philosophical problems. The chapter suggests that this is what theories of blame should focus on. (shrink)

A standard account of privacy says that it is essentially a kind of control over personal information. Many privacy scholars have argued against this claim by relying on so-called threatened loss cases. In these cases, personal information about an agent is easily available to another person, but not accessed. Critics contend that control accounts have the implausible implication that the privacy of the relevant agent is diminished in threatened loss cases. Recently, threatened loss cases have become important because Edward Snowden’s (...) revelation of how the NSA and GCHQ collected Internet and mobile phone data presents us with a gigantic, real-life threatened loss case. In this paper, I will defend the control account of privacy against the argument that is based on threatened loss cases. I will do so by developing a new version of the control account that implies that the agents’ privacy is not diminished in threatened loss cases. (shrink)

Many philosophers characterize a particularly important sense of free will and responsibility by referring to basically deserved blame. But what is basically deserved blame? The aim of this paper is to identify the appraisal entailed by basic desert claims. It presents three desiderata for an account of desert appraisals and it argues that important recent theories fail to meet them. Then, the paper presents and defends a promising alternative. The basic idea is that claims about basically deserved blame entail that (...) the targets have forfeited their claims that others not blame them and that there is positive reason to blame them. The paper shows how this view frames the discussion about skepticism about free will and responsibility. (shrink)

How do the fact that an agent is morally responsible for a certain morally objectionable action and the fact that she is an appropriate target of blame for it relate to each other? Many authors inspired by Peter Strawson say that they necessarily co‐occur. Standard answers to the question of why they co‐occur say that the occurrence of one of the facts explains that the other obtains. This article presents a third option: that they are one and the same fact. (...) There is no difference between the fact that a person is an appropriate target of blame for an objectionable action and the fact that she is morally responsible for it. This view has the advantage of being metaphysically more parsimonious and of answering, in an elegant and plausible way, an interesting question about which many standard theories of responsibility keep silent: what is it to be morally responsible simpliciter? (shrink)

The Top-Down Argument for the ability to do otherwise aims at establishing that humans can do otherwise in the sense that is relevant for debates about free will. It consists of two premises: first, we always need to answer the question of whether some phenomenon (such as the ability to do otherwise) exists by consulting our best scientific theories of the domain at issue. Second, our best scientific theories of human action presuppose that humans can do otherwise. This paper argues (...) that this is not enough to establish the conclusion. The Top-Down Argument supports that humans can do otherwise _in some sense_. But it does not show that humans can do otherwise _in the sense that is relevant for debates about free will_. The paper then shows that the apparently best way to make the argument valid does not work. (shrink)

Climate change is one of the most important issues we are currently facing. There are many ways in which states can fight climate change. Some of them involve interfering with citizens’ personal lives. The question of whether such interference is justified is under-explored in philosophy. This paper focuses on a specific aspect of people’s personal lives, namely their informational privacy. It discusses the question of whether, given certain empirical assumptions, it is proportional of the state to risk its citizens’ privacy (...) or to risk infringing its citizens’ right to privacy to fight climate change. The main claim this paper argues for is that if fighting climate change and protecting our privacy conflict, we have good reason to fight climate change rather than protect our privacy. (shrink)

Skepticism about blameworthiness says that there is good reason to doubt that, in our world, humans are ever blameworthy for their deeds. A significant problem for the discussion of this view is that it is unclear how to understand the kind of blame that should be at issue. This paper makes a new proposal. The basic idea is that the kind of blame skeptics should be skeptical about is constituted by responses that can violate the targets’ claims and by the (...) responders’ thought that the targets have forfeited this claim because of their morally objectionable actions and because of how they were when they performed them. This view identifies an important part of our everyday lives and frames discussions about skepticism about blameworthiness in a new way. (shrink)

Climate change is one of the most important issues we are currently facing. There are many ways in which states can fight climate change. Some of them involve interfering with citizens’ personal lives. The question of whether such interference is justified is under-explored in philosophy. This paper focuses on a specific aspect of people’s personal lives, namely their informational privacy. It discusses the question of whether, given certain empirical assumptions, it is proportional of the state to risk its citizens’ privacy (...) or to risk infringing its citizens’ right to privacy to fight climate change. The main claim this paper argues for is that if fighting climate change and protecting our privacy conflict, we have good reason to fight climate change rather than protect our privacy. (shrink)

Vorwürfe sind ein wichtiger Bestandteil unseres moralischen Alltags und spielen zentrale Rollen in grundlegenden philosophischen Diskussionen. In dieser Studie wird nach der Natur, der Angemessenheit und dem Wert moralischer Vorwürfe gefragt und es wird untersucht, wer in der richtigen Position ist, Vorwürfe zu machen. Abschließend wird das Verhältnis von Vorwürfen und Verantwortung in den Blick genommen.

AI systems, like self-driving cars, healthcare robots, or Autonomous Weapon Systems, already play an increasingly important role in our lives and will do so to an even greater extent in the near future. This raises a fundamental philosophical question: who is morally responsible when such systems cause unjustified harm? In the paper, we argue for the admittedly surprising claim that some of these systems can themselves be morally responsible for their conduct in an important and everyday sense of the term—the (...) attributability sense. More specifically, relying on work by Nomy Arpaly and Timothy Schroeder (In Praise of Desire, OUP 2014), we propose that the behavior of these systems can manifest their ‘quality of will’ and thus be regarded as something they can be blameworthy for. We develop this position in detail, justify some of its crucial presuppositions, and defend it against potential objections. (shrink)

As Christian List (2021) has recently argued, the increasing arrival of powerful AI systems that operate autonomously in high-stakes contexts creates a need for “future-proofing” our regulatory frameworks, i.e., for reassessing them in the face of these developments. One core part of our regulatory frameworks that dominates our everyday moral interactions is blame. Therefore, “future-proofing” our extant regulatory frameworks in the face of the increasing arrival of powerful AI systems requires, among others things, that we ask whether it makes sense (...) to extend our blaming practices to these systems. In the paper, we argue for the admittedly surprising thesis that this question should be answered in the affirmative: contrary to what one might initially think, it can make a lot of sense to blame AI systems, since, as we furthermore argue, many of the important functions that are fulfilled by blaming humans can also be served by blaming AI systems. The paper concludes that this result gives us a good pro tanto reason to extend our blame practices to AI systems. (shrink)

We show that for every intermediate \ s-degree there exists an incomparable \ s-degree. As a consequence, for every intermediate \ Q-degree there exists an incomparable \ Q-degree. We also show how these results can be applied to provide proofs or new proofs of upper density results in local structures of s-degrees and Q-degrees.

Contemporary debates about mechanisms in the philosophy of science raise the question about the relation between constitutive and causal relations. These discussions so far have not received Ernest Sosa’s “Varieties of Causation‘, which addresses similar questions from a metaphysical point of view. The present paper reconstructs and evaluates Sosa’s arguments from the perspective of the contemporary debates. We argue that while Sosa’s arguments are probably not suited to advance the current debate, his claim that there are different varieties of causation (...) might be an interesting idea to consider for those who assume that there are interlevel causal relations. (shrink)

Christoph Andreas Leonhard Creuzer (1768-1844), che dedicherà la propria vita alIa carriera ecclesiastica e aIle attività benefiche, pubblica nel 1793 - ancora giovane ed entusiasta della filosofia - un'opera che suscita un certo scalpore, le Considerazioni scettiche sulla libertà del volere, sulla quale prendono posizione, polernicamente, anche Fichte e Schelling. Pur accogliendo i princlpi della filosofia critica, Creuzer sostiene che l'idea di libertà come autonornia della volontà, quale Kant l'ha definita, conduca nienterneno che alio spinozismo, ossia alia negazione (...) dei concetti di imputazione, merito e colpa. Mascherandosi dietro uno scetticismo di comodo, Creuzer mostra corne tale conclusione spinoziana, a cui Kant ha tentato inutilmente di sottrarsi, sia l'esito obbligato tanto della sua filosofia teoretica quanto di quella pratica, che pure mirava in prima istanza a salvaguardare la responsabilità morale. (shrink)

The complexity of equivalence relations has received much attention in the recent literature. The main tool for such endeavour is the following reducibility: given equivalence relations R and S on natural numbers, R is computably reducible to S if there is a computable function f:ω→ω that induces an injective map from R-equivalence classes to S-equivalence classes. In order to compare the complexity of equivalence relations which are computable, researchers considered also feasible variants of computable reducibility, such as the polynomial-time reducibility. (...) In this work, we explore Peq, the degree structure generated by primitive recursive reducibility on primitive recursive equivalence relations with infinitely many equivalence classes. In contrast with all other known degree structures on equivalence relations, we show that Peq has much more structure: e.g., we show that it is a dense distributive lattice. On the other hand, we also offer evidence of the intricacy of Peq, proving, e.g., that the structure is neither rigid nor homogeneous. (shrink)

Leonhard Euler (1707–1783) published two lunar theories in 1753 and 1772. He also published lunar tables in 1745, 1746, and—anonymously—in 1750. There are notebook records, unpublished manuscripts, and manuscript fragments by Euler reflecting the development of his lunar theories between about 1725 until about 1752. These documents might be used to reconstruct Euler’s theory on which he based his calculations of those lunar tables and to analyze the development of his lunar theories within this time span. The results of (...) this analysis will be published here in three parts representing three stages of Euler’s research on this topic: First approaches (about 1725–1730), developing the methods (about 1730–1744), and the breakthrough (about 1744–1752). In this part, I analyze Euler’s manuscripts and, predominantly, Euler’s records of his first two notebooks written between 1725 and 1730. I found that his early theoretical approach is coined by his development of analytical (rational) mechanics of punctiform bodies moved by central forces. He tried to describe the Moon’s motion in terms of two simultaneously acting centripetal forces, Huygens’ centrifugal theorem, and associated osculating radii. (shrink)

The analysis of unpublished manuscripts and of the published textbook on mechanics written between about 1730 and 1744 by Euler reveals the invention, application, and establishment of important physical and mathematical principles and procedures. They became central ingredients of an “embryonic” lunar theory that he developed in 1744/1745. The increasing use of equations of motion, although still parametrized by length, became a standard procedure. The principle of the transference of forces was established to set up such equations. Trigonometric series expansions (...) together with the method of undetermined coefficients were introduced to solve these equations approximatively. These insights constitute the milestones achieved in this phase of research, which thus may be characterized as “developing the methods”. The documents reveal the problems Euler was confronted with when setting up the equations of motion. They show why and where he was forced to introduce trigonometric functions and their series expansions into lunar theory. Furthermore, they prove Euler’s early recognition and formulation of the variability of the orbital elements by differential equations, which he previously anticipated with the concept of the osculating ellipse. One may conclude that by 1744 almost all components needed for a technically mature and successful lunar theory were available to Euler. (shrink)

Émilie Du Châtelet’s Foundations of Physics (Institutions de physique, 1740/42) has recently been attracting increasing interest from analytical philosophy in the anglophone world. Du Châtelet’s conception of space and time constitutes a controversial issue. I argue that the current debate underestimates the modal approach and epistemological turn in Du Châtelet’s view on space and time. A historical perspective on Abraham Gotthelf Kästner’s criticism and Jean Henry Samuel Formey’s plagiarism of Du Châtelet underlines the significance of this turning point. Against this (...) background, I revisit Leonhard Euler’s space-time realism and its influence on Immanuel Kant. -/- Les Institutions de physique (1740/1742) d’Émilie Du Châtelet suscitent depuis peu un intérêt croissant dans le monde anglophone, chez les philosophes analytiques. Une question controversée concerne les concepts d’espace et de temps de Du Châtelet. Je soutiens que le débat actuel sous-estime l’approche modale et la tournure épistémologique des considérations de Du Châtelet sur l’espace et le temps. Un regard historique sur la critique d’Abraham Gotthelf Kästner et le plagiat de Du Châtelet par Jean Henry Samuel Formey souligne l’importance de ce tournant. Dans ce contexte, je revisite le réalisme spatio-temporel de Leonhard Euler et son influence sur Emmanuel Kant. (shrink)

Seit Frege wird die Frage diskutiert, ob Existenz nun eine Eigenschaft erster Ordnung oder eine Eigenschaft zweiter Ordnung ist. Thomas von Aquin kann als Vertreter der ersten Position betrachtet werden – mit der Besonderheit freilich, dass es sich im Gegensatz zu gewöhnlichen Eigenschaften um eine Eigenschaft handelt, die dem Einzelding, dem sie zukommt, ontologisch vorausgeht; dazu später mehr. Dass Existenz eine Eigenschaft für Thomas von Aquin ist, könnte man vielleicht bestreiten; und tatsächlich steht diese Klassifizierung der Existenz bei Thomas von (...) Aquin nicht im Vordergrund. Dennoch gibt es eine ganze Menge von Textbelegen, die diese Auffassung nahelegen. In De potentia spricht Thomas von Aquin davon, dass Existenz den geschaffenen Dingen „inhäriert“, was ja normalerweise nur Eigenschaften tun, in den Quaestiones Quodlibetales spricht er von der Existenz als einem Akzidens von geschaffenen Dingen. (shrink)

Up to now only three lunar tables by Leonhard Euler (1707–1783), published in 1745, 1746, and 1772, were known. For a long time, however, it was assumed that the first two of these tables were identical. The author compared these tables with each other and proved the contrary. This fact also transpires from an examination of their history, which was reconstructed using Euler’s correspondence. In addition, evidence has been found in Euler’s voluminous scientific correspondence and in contemporary publications of (...) the eighteenth century that, between 1742 and 1750, Euler published additional lunar tables anonymously. The author proved Euler’s authorship of at least five lunar tables containing some 100 pages, which were neither recorded in the list of his works nor published in the Leonhardi Euleri Opera Omnia. (shrink)

This paper tries to summarize the main lines of discussion at the conference "Compatibilist Libertarianism: Advantages and Challenges" (October 29, 2021). This conference, organised by Alexander Gebharter and Maria Sekatskaya, served the discussion of Christian List's account of compatibilist libertarianism. Speakers were Taylor W. Cyr, Nadine Elzein, Alexander Gebharter, Christian List, Alfred R. Mele, Leonhard Menges, Tuomas K. Pernu, and Maria Sekatskaya.