Traditional justifications of punishment, deterrence theory and retributivism, are subject to counterexamples that show that they do not explain why generally we have positive reason to punish those who commit serious crimes. Nor do traditional views sufficiently explain why criminals cannot reasonably object to punishment on the grounds that it deprives them of goods to which they are usually entitled. I propose an alternative justification of punishment, grounded in its blaming function. According to the “reactive theory,” punishment is justified because (...) it expresses the appropriate indignation of the community. I argue that this blaming function provides a superior account of the positive reason to punish and of why serious criminals cannot reasonably object to their punishment. (shrink)

With the advent of the relativity theory science has entered a transformative period in which previous certainties are undergoing critical scrutiny and renovation. Critical movements in science arise at periods of its history when its foundations are brought into question. True it is that natural philosophers still regard science as a growing body of propositions dealing with natural events enabling them to find the structural laws of the external world. But this “external world” about them changes in significance, interpretation, and (...) meaning as new epoch-making theories are propounded and experimental verification of some of their consequences tend to give them scientific plausibility. (shrink)

In this article, I argue that Heidegger’s political failures haunt Arendt’s complex “phenomenology of thinking,” and, in the words of Richard Bernstein, “Arendt’s most novel and striking thesis—that there is an intrinsic connection between our ability or inability to think and evil—depends on discriminating the thinking that may prevent catastrophes from the thinking that does not.” The key to doing so, I suggest, is to attend more closely to Arendt’s persistent use of the language of stabilization, orientation, and navigation: in (...) other words, how we “take our bearings” in a world of perpetual change and motion. The ability (or inability) to locate oneself in relation to the world is a recurrent theme in Arendt’s writings, and the metaphors of (dis)orientation appear frequently in her attempts to understand totalitarianism and Heidegger’s turn to National Socialism. Whereas most theorists collapse the idea of “taking our bearings” into judging, I argue that the activity of orientation should be theorized in its own right. As such, I explore the disorientation experienced during the traversal between thinking and acting via a close reading of Heidegger’s “Conversation on a Country Path About Thinking.” My reading illustrates how certain elements of the world, crucial to maintaining our bearings, fade from view while one is thinking. I conclude by discussing representative thinking as an explicitly political mode of thought that escapes some of the difficulties inherent in pure thinking—showing how it shores up those elements of the world that enable us to take our bearings. (shrink)

Philosophers have highlighted a dilemma for the criminal law. Unjust, racist policies in the United States have produced conditions in which the dispossessed are more likely to commit crime. This complicity undermines the standing of the state to blame their offenses. Nevertheless, the state has reason to punish those crimes in order to deter future offenses. Tommie Shelby proposes a way out of this dilemma. He separates the state’s right to condemn from its right to punish. I raise doubts about (...) Shelby’s proposed resolution. So long as punishment is widely and reasonably understood to condemn crime, Shelby’s proposal does not resolve the dilemma. Moreover, there is reason to think the blaming aspect of punishment plays a role in the justification of its hard treatment. I conclude by considering some other ways out of the dilemma, focusing especially on how the United States might take responsibility for its complicity. (shrink)

We provide an ethical evaluation of the debate on managing diversity within teams and organizations between equality and business case scholars. Our core assertion is that equality and business case perspectives on diversity from an ethical reading appear stuck as they are based on two different moral perspectives that are difficult to reconcile with each other. More specifically, we point out how the arguments of equality scholars correspond with moral reasoning grounded in deontology, whereas the foundations of the business case (...) perspective are crafted by utilitarian arguments. We show that the problems associated with each diversity perspective correspond with the traditional concerns with the two moral perspectives. To resolve this stalemate position, we argue that the equality versus business case debate needs to be approached from a third, less well-known moral perspective (i.e. virtue ethics). We posit that a focus on virtues can enhance equality by reducing prejudice and illustrate this by applying it to the HRM domains of recruitment and selection and of performance management. Subsequently, we argue that values are key to aligning virtues with each other and with corporate strategy, delineate our values and virtues perspective on diversity, and argue why and how it can enhance organizational performance. (shrink)

Some philosophers (Duff, Hampton) conceive of punishment as a way of communicating a message to the punished and argue that this communicative function justifies the harm of punishment. I object to communicative theories because punishment seems intuitively justified in cases in which it fails as a method of communication. Punishment fails as communication when the punished ignores the intended message or fails to understand it. Among those most likely to ignore or fail to understand the message of punishment are the (...) most hardened criminals, whom we typically think are appropriate targets of punishment. I suggest that an alternative justificatory strategy, one that focuses not on the successful receipt of the message of punishment by the wrongdoer but on the expression of condemnation by the community, is not subject to the same worry. The norms of successful expression are more easily met than those of communication, so that expressing condemnation toward a criminal might be justified even if he is unreceptive in the face of the expression. (shrink)

It is evident to every earnest thinker that a theory of time is in a very significant sense implicit in any philosophy of nature. Indeed, the search for a time standard independent of the variation of the earth's speed, the maximum variation being slightly more than one-thousandth of a second, involves the most basic concepts and principles of physical theory.

In 2023, thousands of young Norwegian physicians joined an online movement called #legermåleve (#doctorsmustlive) and shared stories of their own mental and somatic health issues, which they considered to be caused by unacceptable working conditions. This paper discusses this case as an extreme example of physicians’ and healthcare workers’ suffering in late modern societies, using Vosman and Niemeijer’s approach of rethinking care imaginaries by a structured process of thinking along, counter-thinking and rethinking, bringing to bear suffering as a heuristic device. (...) Thinking along, taking the physicians’ stories and arguments literally, reveals an image of an unbearable workload. Counter-thinking resituates their suffering within the broader conditions of late modernity, suggesting that the root cause may lie not in the quantity of the workload itself but in its qualities and in its perceived threat to their integrity as caregivers through epistemic and moral injury and an inability to respond to this threat. In rethinking, the ambiguity of suffering– its dual potential as both a constraint and an opening– becomes central. Following the physicians’ own interpretations and the solutions emerging from this framing, both their suffering and that of their patients could paradoxically be exacerbated by further decentering physicians and reinforcing utilitarian, data-driven approaches. However, staying with their suffering and reinterpreting its causes opens possibilities to leverage critiques of medicalization at large and of their own suffering in particular, challenging the assumption that the weight of care must always grow heavier. From this reframing, I argue, it is possible to reclaim and reimagine care and the clinical space as a nexus of epistemic and moral privilege, recentering response-ability both relationally and socially. (shrink)