Hastings Center Report, Volume 52, Issue 3, Page 37-48, May–June 2022.

This letter responds to the essay “If Not Now, Then When? Taking Disability Seriously in Bioethics,” by Debjani Mukherjee, Preya S. Tarsney, and Kristi L. Kirschner, in the May‐June 2022 issue of the Hastings Center Report.

Volume 24, Issue 8, August 2024, Page 124-126.

Cesario's analysis has three key flaws. First, the focus on whether an effect is “real” overlooks the importance of theory testing. Second, obsession with effects sidelines theoretically informed questions about when and why an effect may arise. Third, failure to take stock of cultural and historical context strips findings of meaning.

I describe a thought experiment in which an agent must choose between suffering a greater pain in the past or a lesser pain in the future. This case demonstrates that the ‘temporal value asymmetry’ – our disposition to attribute greater significance to future pleasures and pains than to past – can have consequences for the rationality of actions as well as attitudes. This fact, I argue, blocks attempts to vindicate the temporal value asymmetry as a useful heuristic tied to the (...) asymmetry of causation. Since the two standard arguments for the rationality of the temporal value asymmetry appeal to causal asymmetry and the passage of time respectively, the failure of the causal asymmetry explanation suggests that the B-theory, which rejects temporal passage, has substantial revisionary implications concerning our attitudes toward past and future experience. (shrink)

In ‘Normative Uncertainty as a Voting Problem’, William MacAskill argues that positive credence in ordinal-structured or intertheoretically incomparable normative theories does not prevent an agent from rationally accounting for her normative uncertainties in practical deliberation. Rather, such an agent can aggregate the theories in which she has positive credence by methods borrowed from voting theory—specifically, MacAskill suggests, by a kind of weighted Borda count. The appeal to voting methods opens up a promising new avenue for theories of rational choice under (...) normative uncertainty. The Borda rule, however, is open to at least two serious objections. First, it seems implicitly to ‘cardinalize’ ordinal theories, and so does not fully face up to the problem of merely ordinal theories. Second, the Borda rule faces a problem of option individuation. MacAskill attempts to solve this problem by invoking a measure on the set of practical options. But it is unclear that there is any natural way of defining such a measure that will not make the output of the Borda rule implausibly sensitive to irrelevant empirical features of decision-situations. After developing these objections, I suggest an alternative: the McKelvey uncovered set, a Condorcet method that selects all and only the maximal options under a strong pairwise defeat relation. This decision rule has several advantages over Borda and mostly avoids the force of MacAskill’s objection to Condorcet methods in general. (shrink)

In the growing literature on decision-making under moral uncertainty, a number of skeptics have argued that there is an insuperable barrier to rational "hedging" for the risk of moral error, namely the apparent incomparability of moral reasons given by rival theories like Kantianism and utilitarianism. Various general theories of intertheoretic value comparison have been proposed to meet this objection, but each suffers from apparently fatal flaws. In this paper, I propose a more modest approach that aims to identify classes of (...) moral theories that share common principles strong enough to establish bases for intertheoretic comparison. I show that, contra the claims of skeptics, there are often rationally perspicuous grounds for precise, quantitative value comparisons within such classes. In light of this fact, I argue, the existence of some apparent incomparabilities between widely divergent moral theories cannot serve as a general argument against hedging for one's moral uncertainties. (shrink)

Defenders of deontological constraints in normative ethics face a challenge: how should an agent decide what to do when she is uncertain whether some course of action would violate a constraint? The most common response to this challenge has been to defend a threshold principle on which it is subjectively permissible to act iff the agent's credence that her action would be constraint-violating is below some threshold t. But the threshold approach seems arbitrary and unmotivated: what would possibly determine where (...) the threshold should be set, and why should there be any precise threshold at all? Threshold views also seem to violate ought agglomeration, since a pair of actions each of which is below the threshold for acceptable moral risk can, in combination, exceed that threshold. In this paper, I argue that stochastic dominance reasoning can vindicate and lend rigor to the threshold approach: given characteristically deontological assumptions about the moral value of acts, it turns out that morally safe options will stochastically dominate morally risky alternatives when and only when the likelihood that the risky option violates a moral constraint is greater than some precisely definable threshold (in the simplest case, .5). I also show how, in combination with the observation that deontological moral evaluation is relativized to particular choice situations, this approach can overcome the agglomeration problem. This allows the deontologist to give a precise and well-motivated response to the problem of uncertainty. (shrink)

How should an agent decide what to do when she is uncertain not just about morally relevant empirical matters, like the consequences of some course of action, but about the basic principles of morality itself? This question has only recently been taken up in a systematic way by philosophers. Advocates of moral hedging claim that an agent should weigh the reasons put forward by each moral theory in which she has positive credence, considering both the likelihood that that theory is (...) true and the strength of the reasons it posits. The view that it is sometimes rational to hedge for one's moral uncertainties, however, has recently come under attack both from those who believe that an agent should always be guided by the dictates of the single moral theory she deems most probable and from those who believe that an agent's moral beliefs are simply irrelevant to what she ought to do. Among the many objections to hedging that have been pressed in the recent literature is the worry that there is no non-arbitrary way of making the intertheoretic comparisons of moral value necessary to aggregate the value assignments of rival moral theories into a single ranking of an agent's options. -/- This dissertation has two principal objectives: First, I argue that, contra these recent objections, an agent's moral beliefs and uncertainties are relevant to what she rationally ought to do, and more particularly, that agents are at least sometimes rationally required to hedge for their moral uncertainties. My principal argument for these claims appeals to the enkratic conception of rationality, according to which the requirements of practical rationality derive from an agent's beliefs about the objective, desire-independent value or choiceworthiness of her options. Second, I outline a new general theory of rational choice under moral uncertainty. Central to this theory is the idea of content-based aggregation, that the principles according to which an agent should compare and aggregate rival moral theories are grounded in the content of those theories themselves, including not only their value assignments but also the metaethical and other non-surface-level propositions that underlie, justify, or explain those value assignments. (shrink)

The principle that rational agents should maximize expected utility or choiceworthiness is intuitively plausible in many ordinary cases of decision-making under uncertainty. But it is less plausible in cases of extreme, low-probability risk (like Pascal's Mugging), and intolerably paradoxical in cases like the St. Petersburg and Pasadena games. In this paper I show that, under certain conditions, stochastic dominance reasoning can capture most of the plausible implications of expectational reasoning while avoiding most of its pitfalls. Specifically, given sufficient background uncertainty (...) about the choiceworthiness of one's options, many expectation-maximizing gambles that do not stochastically dominate their alternatives "in a vacuum" become stochastically dominant in virtue of that background uncertainty. But, even under these conditions, stochastic dominance will not require agents to accept options whose expectational superiority depends on sufficiently small probabilities of extreme payoffs. The sort of background uncertainty on which these results depend looks unavoidable for any agent who measures the choiceworthiness of her options in part by the total amount of value in the resulting world. At least for such agents, then, stochastic dominance offers a plausible general principle of choice under uncertainty that can explain more of the apparent rational constraints on such choices than has previously been recognized. (shrink)

Even if I think it very likely that some morally good act is supererogatory rather than obligatory, I may nonetheless be rationally required to perform that act. This claim follows from an apparently straightforward dominance argument, which parallels Jacob Ross's argument for 'rejecting' moral nihilism. These arguments face analogous pairs of objections that illustrate general challenges for dominance reasoning under normative uncertainty, but (I argue) these objections can be largely overcome. This has practical consequences for the ethics of philanthropy -- (...) in particular, it means that donors are often rationally required to maximize the positive impact of their donations. (shrink)

Grill (2023) defends the sum of averages view (SAV), on which the value of a population is found by summing the average welfare of each generation or birth cohort. A major advantage of SAV, according to Grill, is that it escapes the Egyptology objection to average utilitarianism. But, we argue, SAV escapes only the most literal understanding of this objection, since it still allows the value of adding a life to depend on facts about other, intuitively irrelevant lives. Moreover, SAV (...) has a decisive drawback not shared with either average or total utilitarianism: it can evaluate an outcome in which every individual is worse off as better overall, even when exactly the same people exist in both outcomes. These problems, we argue, afflict not only Grill's view but any view that uses a sum of subpopulation averages, apart from the limiting cases of average and total utilitarianism. (shrink)

Quest after values and their realization constitute innate necessity for human being. This presupposes knowledge of Reality and knowledge of the value-schema. In this context, a distinction can be drawn between descriptive awareness of Reality and prescriptive awareness of Values. For the latter, the pῡrva mimāmsā system postulates ‘codanā’ as a means of knowledge. In Indian Culture, two types of values are enunciated, viz. preyas and śreyas. The Taittirῑya upaniṣad puts forth a five-dimensional theory of human constitution and accordingly advocates (...) a fivefold value-schema. In general, theory of puruṣartha has been accepted by all the cultural traditions of India with variant details. It would be interesting and enlightening to discuss different aspects and issues concerning this theory. Knowledgeable scholars may delineate on related issues as well. (shrink)

The rationality of future bias figures crucially in various metaphysical and ethical arguments (Prior 1959; Parfit 1984; Fischer 2019). Recently, however, philosophers have raised several arguments to the effect that future bias is irrational (Dougherty 2011; Suhler and Callender 2012; Greene and Sullivan 2015). Particularly, Greene and Sullivan (2015) claim that future bias is irrational because future bias leads to two kinds of irrational planning behaviors in agents who also seek to avoid regret. In this paper, I join others who (...) have objected to Greene and Sullivan’s argument (Dorsey 2016; Tarsney 2017), but for significantly different reasons that put into question an unchallenged premise in the debate. These reasons are based on the relationship between the alleged irrational planning behaviors and certain features of regret that regret shares with future bias. First, regret is dynamic, involving preferences that change over time and in inconsistent ways. Second, regret comes in degrees, meaning that we can rank our potential regrets. Because regret has these features, I show that the future-biased agents in Greene and Sullivan’s cases do not need to act in irrational ways to rationally avoid regret. (shrink)

Demiryolu yük taşımacılığı, yurtiçi ve yurtdışı ekonomik işlemlerin gerçekleştirilmesi bakımından büyük öneme sahiptir. Bu taşımacılık türü ihracatçılara, ara malı tedariki ve tamamlanmış ürünlerin ihraç edilmesinde masrafların azalmasına ve daha fazla mal ihracı sağlaması açısından önemli katkılar sağlamaktadır. Bu olumlu katkılar ise ekonomik büyümenin artmasını sağlayabilmektedir. Türkiye’ de demiryolu taşımacılığında en başarılı gelişmeler Cumhuriyetin ilanından sonraki kalkınma yıllarında yaşanmıştır. Demiryolu taşımacılığının kullanımı, tarihsel süreçte sanayi sektörünün, ekonomik ve sosyal yapının gelişmesine katkı sağlamıştır. Bu çalışmada Türkiye için demiryolu yük taşımacılığının ekonomik büyüme (...) üzerindeki etkileri 1960-2021 dönemi için ARDL sınır testi ekonometrik tekniğiyle analiz edilmesi amaçlanmıştır. Çalışma sonucuna göre demiryolu yük taşımacılığı hem uzun hem de kısa dönemde ekonomik büyüme üzerinde pozitif etki oluşturmuştur. Buna göre uzun dönemde demiryolu yük taşımacılığındaki %1’lik artış ekonomik büyümenin %1,95 oranında artmasını sağlamıştır. Bu noktadan hareketle demiryolu sektörüne yapılması muhtemel yatırımların ekonominin büyümesine ve gelişmesine katkı sunacağı tahmin edilmektedir. (shrink)

A version of nonstandard analysis, Internal Set Theory, has been used to provide a resolution of Zeno's paradoxes of motion. This resolution is inadequate because the application of Internal Set Theory to the paradoxes requires a model of the world that is not in accordance with either experience or intuition. A model of standard mathematics in which the ordinary real numbers are defined in terms of rational intervals does provide a formalism for understanding the paradoxes. This model suggests that in (...) discussing motion, only intervals, rather than instants, of time are meaningful. The approach presented here reconciles resolutions of the paradoxes based on considering a finite number of acts with those based on analysis of the full infinite set Zeno seems to require. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of the classical and quantum mechanics of performing an infinite number of acts in a finite time. (shrink)

Many familial and cultural traditions rely on animals for their fulfillment - think of Christmas ham, Rosh Hashannah chicken soup, Fourth of July barbeques, and so forth. Though philosophers writing in animal ethics often dismiss interests in certain foods as trivial, these food-based traditions pose a significant moral problem for those who take animals’ lives and interests seriously. One must either turn one’s back on one’s community or on the animals. In this paper, I consider the under-theorized area of intra-cultural (...) critique. My focus is how we should think about and seek to resolve inter-animal conflicts of interest that arise within our own communities and cultural or religious groups. How should a theory that takes animals seriously approach a conflict between animals’ interests and culturally important human interests in the context of one’s own cultural, ethnic, or religious group? How, for example, should we think about the person staring down at a bowl of her grandmother’s chicken soup while recognizing the moral impermissibility of slaughtering chickens for human consumption? In contrast to traditional approaches that fail to take these robust, food-based, interests into account, I offer an ecofeminist approach that highlights the importance of respecting animals’ interests while also undertaking the work of moral repair to address damage done to relationships of love and care in the process. (shrink)

Analyzes the origin, structure and resolution of Kant's antinomies of reason from a systematic rather than a historical perspective, exploring the relationship between the theoretical antinomies and the practical antinomy in order to indicate their similarities and differences and to suggest the dependence of the latter on the former.

A two-volume set. Print edition available in cloth only. Awarded the Nicholas Hoare/Renaud-Bray Canadian Philosophical Association Book Prize, 2001 From the Preface: _Hegel's Ladder_ aspires to be... a ‘literal commentary’ on _Die Phänomenologie des Geistes_.... It was the conscious goal of my thirty-year struggle with Hegel to write an explanatory commentary on this book; and with its completion I regard my own ‘working’ career as concluded.... The prevailing habit of commentators... is founded on the general consensus of opinion that whatever (...) else it may be, Hegel’s _Phenomenology_ is not the logical ‘Science’ that he believed it was. This is the received view that I want to overthrow. But if I am right, then an acceptably continuous chain of argument, paragraph by paragraph, ought to be discoverable in the text. (shrink)

Kānûn-i şâhenşâhî -- Mukaddime -- Birinci maksat -- Ikinci maksat -- Üçüncü maksat -- Dördüncü maksat.

Study of philosophy of semantics in Vākyapadīya of Bhartr̥hari.

Predstavlenie ob "obraze Bozhiem" v svi︠a︡shchennom Pisanii -- Poni︠a︡tie "obraz Bozhiĭ" v svi︠a︡shchennom Predanii -- Lichnye svoĭstva Boga i cheloveka v svi︠a︡shchennom Pisanii -- Poni︠a︡tie "obraz Bozhiĭ" i lichnye svoĭstva -- Analiz sootnoshenii︠a︡ poni︠a︡tiĭ "lichnostʹ" i "obraz Bozhiĭ" v pravoslavii -- "Idei︠a︡ lichnostnogo bytii︠a︡ v russkoĭ bogoslovskoĭ mysli XIX veka".

Constitutional federalism is usually suggested as an appropriate and effective form of government for a country that is characterized by significant levels of ethnic diversity. Hence, where destructive ethnic mobilization has resulted in state failure, the suggestion has usually been for the country to adopt some form of constitutional federalism as a way to more effectively manage diversity and minimize further violent conflict. While Somalia is, today, a clear example of a failed state, its governance problems, however, do not emanate (...) from its inability to effectively manage its diverse ethnic populations since the country, essentially, is the most ethnically homogenous country in Africa. Instead, the origins of state failure in Somalia can be traced to violent mobilization by clans and sub-clans for control of the apparatus of governance. This paper puts forth several strategies that can be used to reconstruct and reconstitute the Somali State and provide the country with the types of institutions that will enhance peaceful coexistence and promote long-term and sustainable economic growth and development. The first line of business must be to secure the peace-and this will require external intervention-and then to engage all relevant stakeholders in negotiations to construct and adopt an appropriate system of government. Constitutional federalism, however, may not be well-suited for Somalia, especially given the expressed desire of many of the country's factions for autonomy. A more fitting alternative is the functional overlapping competing jurisdictions governance model, under which regional political units are defined by their physical boundaries but the delivery of public goods and services is provided jointly by various overlapping jurisdictions. Under the FOCJ, an individual can choose to belong to more than one political jurisdiction, for example, establishing his residence in one jurisdiction and purchasing water, electricity and other services from another. (shrink)

R. S. Woolhouse; IV*—Leibniz's Reaction to Cartesian Interaction, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Volume 86, Issue 1, 1 June 1986, Pages 69–82, https:/.