scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "Journal of Applied Philosophy in 1992"


Journal ArticleDOI

21 citations


Journal Article
TL;DR: In this article, the meaning and role of toleration in various contexts from a philosophical point of view is explored, including personal relationships, academic argument, multi-cultural education and international relations.
Abstract: Explores the meaning and role of toleration in various contexts from a philosophical point of view. Contributions range from toleration in personal relationships to its role within history. It also looks at toleration in academic argument, multi-cultural education and international relations.

18 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In Germany, applied ethics is under attack from a diverse coalition of left-wing organisations, disability groups, and some conservative defenders of a strict doctrine of the sanctity of human life as discussed by the authors.
Abstract: In Germany, applied ethics is under attack from a diverse coalition of left-wing organisations, disability groups, and some conservative defenders of a strict doctrine of the sanctity of human life. The attack has been pressed to the point of forcing the cancellation of conferences and disrupting lectures or classes so that they cannot take place. This essay describes the extent and nature of the attack, and makes a preliminary assessment of its significance.

17 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors argue that the main question for political and moral philosophers is whether it is possible to find the balance between the obligations to, and the rights of, contemporaries, and their obligations to future people.
Abstract: It is widely recognised that we hold certain moral obligations to future generations. Robert Elliot argues that we can base these obligations on the rights of future people. I accept his argument that future people are moral agents who possess rights. However, I argue that the main question for political and moral philosophers is whether it is possible to find the balance between the obligations to, and the rights of, contemporaries, and the obligations to, and the rights of, future people. By analysing the notions of ‘human rights’and ‘welfare rights’of future people, I argue that this question can be tackled only in terms of welfare rights. But the latter make sense only in the context of community of provision. This implies that we must first examine the ‘trans-generational’community that includes contemporaries and future generations. Thus a theory of justice between generations cannot be purely ‘rights-based’. However, by describing the ‘trans-generational community’I argue that it can serve as the moral grounds for our obligations to future generations.

9 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argued that there is an inevitable tension between political liberalism and the democratic ideal, and that attempts to resolve this tension by showing that democracy is a good thing in its own right, or that it is the inevitable development of liberal aspirations, or even that it are conceptually connected to fundamental liberal ideas, all fail.
Abstract: Political liberalism and the democratic ideal together supply the foundation of almost all contemporary political thinking. This essay explores the relation between them. It argues that, despite common parlance, there is an inevitable tension between the two. Furthermore, attempts to resolve this tension by showing that democracy is a good thing in its own right, or that it is the inevitable development of liberal aspirations, or that it is conceptually connected to fundamental liberal ideas, all fail. The conclusion to be drawn is that liberalism requires a pragmatic rather than a principled approach to democratic aspirations.

9 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the acorn-oak tree argument against the slippery slope on the personhood of the fetus is shown to be valid and Cooney's attack on this argument fails.
Abstract: This paper attempts to show that the acorn–oak tree argument against the slippery slope on the personhood of the fetus is valid and William Cooney's attack on this argument fails. I also argue that the slippery slope argument leads to on undesirable conclusion and should not be used as a valid tool in the debate on the personhood of the fetus.

9 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors examines two standard types of accounts of the social responsibilities of professionals and concludes that the social responsibility of American engineers as defined in the present system of engineering is ambiguous and weak, and indicates how the case for assigning American engineers stronger social responsibilities must be made by starting with the end(s) of engineering.
Abstract: Most American engineers believe that they have a responsibility for the safety and well-being of society, but whence does this responsibility arise? What does it entail? After describing engineering practice in America as compared with the practice of other professions, this paper examines two standard types of accounts of the social responsibilities of professionals. While neither provides a satisfactory account of the social responsibilities of American engineers, several lessons are learned by uncovering their weaknesses. Identifying the framework in which professional rights and responsibilities are justified, I argue that an end or primary good is the starting place for conceptualizing a profession, and justifying its existence and shape. Too little attention has been paid to the end(s) of engineering. The social responsibilities of American engineers as defined in the present system of engineering are ambiguous and weak. I indicate how the case for assigning American engineers stronger social responsibilities must be made by starting with the end(s) of engineering. I argue that, at present, American engineers do not have social responsibilities as engineers, though they do have social responsibilities as persons.

8 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that Singer's pseudo-euthanasia arguments in Practical Ethics are unsatisfactory as approaches to determining the legitimacy of killing, and that these arguments present a total utilitarian improvement policy.
Abstract: This article discusses the nature of euthanasia, and the way in which redevelopment of the concept of euthanasia in some influential recent philosophical writing has led to morally less discriminating killing/letting die/not saving being misdescribed as euthanasia. Peter Singer's defence of non-voluntary ‘euthanasia’of defective infants in his influential book Practical Ethics is critically evaluated. We argue that Singer's pseudo-euthanasia arguments in Practical Ethics are unsatisfactory as approaches to determining the legitimacy of killing, and that these arguments present a total utilitarian improvement policy—not a case for non-voluntary euthanasia.

7 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The author suggests that no claim to rights in health care should now be accepted without consideration of related duties and responsibilities.
Abstract: The value of autonomy is generally stated to be of prime importance in relation to health care. Arising out of this, rights of the patient to and in health care have been extensively discussed and stated, and have found expression in law. There have been minimal statements of the rights of others involved in health care, such as caregivers, and minimal discussion of duties and responsibilities in relation to rights claimed and conferred. The author suggests that no claim to rights in health care should now be accepted without consideration of related duties and responsibilities.

7 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that neither Montague nor Teichman has succeeded in providing an adequate justification for killing in self-defence, and propose a quasi-Hobbesian rights-based account of selfdefence.
Abstract: In the standard case of justifiable killing in self-defence one agent without provocation tries to kill a second agent and the second agent's only way to avoid death is to kill his attacker. It is widely accepted that such killings in self-defence are morally justifiable, but it has proved difficult to show why this is so. Recently, Montague has put forward an account in terms of forcing a choice between lives, and Teichman has propounded a quasi-Hobbesian rights-based account of self-defence. I argue that neither Montague nor Teichman has succeeded in providing an adequate justification for killing in self-defence.

5 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is suggested that QALY calcuations are an inadequate measure of the good done by the NHS because they refer only to its effects on what will be defined as the ‘patient community’, and that this sort of quest for efficiency threatens the caring basis of the Welfare State as such.
Abstract: QALY calcuations are currently being considered in the UK as a way of showing how the National Health Service (NHS) can do the most good with its resources. After providing a brief summary of how QALY calculations work and the most common arguments for and against using them to set NHS priorities, I suggest that they are an inadequate measure of the good done by the NHS because they refer only to its effects on what will be defined as the ‘patient community’. The benefit of the NHS to the wider community is best regarded as a public good—everyone benefits from the general belief that the NHS is there to provide care for those who fall into a state of medical need. QALY ideology threatens this belief because it gives efficiency a higher priority than caring in response to need. It is a fallacy that a QALY maximising health service will be a greater good to society, because this sort of quest for efficiency threatens the caring basis of the Welfare State as such.

Journal ArticleDOI
Ken Hanly1
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that this narrowly-based policy represents a classic example of the failure of many welfare economists to consider adequately the ethical implications of their recommendations and also indicate the manner in which Coase's recommendations conflict with intuitively well-established ethical principles.
Abstract: Coase's now famous paper, ‘The Problem of Social Cost’, argues that social harms caused by industry are best addressed through a policy which would be optimal in terms of market efficiency. I argue that this narrowly based policy represents a classic example of the failure of many welfare economists to consider adequately the ethical implications of their recommendations. I also indicate the manner in which Coase's recommendations conflict with intuitively well-established ethical principles. I conclude that only an approach that considers many more features than market efficiency can produce an optimal policy for dealing with the social costs of production.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors concurred with R. Beehler's recent contribution to this journal (for one concept of liberty) in deeming the concept of negative liberty fully adequate for political discourse.
Abstract: The present essay concurs with R. Beehler's recent contribution to this journal (‘For One Concept of Liberty’, (1) 1991) in deeming the concept of negative liberty fully adequate for political discourse. Thus, section 1 indicates a plausible line of reasoning by which the negative concept can be defended against some standard objections. However, sections 2 and 3 argue that, nevertheless, Beehler's traditional conception of negative liberty is inadequate. It does not account correctly for various paradigmatic cases of ‘unfreedom’, for instance, the curtailment of the liberty of the poor by their lack of economic resources. More precisely, Beehler's account will in many such cases fail to identify the correct constraining agents. The present essay suggests how Beehler's aim may be achieved on the basis of a different conception of negative liberty: the ‘responsibility view’.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that Primoratz is wrong to posit a necessary connection between terrorism and terror or intimidation, and argue that terrorism is directed solely against people, and not, for example, property, and that the targets of terrorism proper are "the innocent".
Abstract: In ‘What is Terrorism?’ Igor Primoratz defines terrorism as “the deliberate use of violence, or the threat of its use, against innocent people, with the aim of intimidating them, or other people, into a course of action they would not otherwise take”. In this article I argue that Primoratz is wrong (a) to posit a necessary connection between terrorism and terror or intimidation, (b) to argue that terrorism is directed solely against people, and not, for example, property, and (c) to argue that the targets of terrorism proper are ‘the innocent’.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The main contention of as mentioned in this paper is that "pure" no-fault divorce laws are unjust, or at least they are unjust if marriage involves a genuinely contractual element, and there seems to be very little doubt that it does.
Abstract: This essay advances several interrelated arguments concerning the proper role of the state with regard to marriage and divorce but my main contention is that ‘pure’no-fault divorce laws are unjust—or, at least, they are unjust if marriage involves a genuinely contractual element, and there seems to be very little doubt that it does. Locke, Kant and Hegel are three eminent thinkers who are alike in viewing marriage as a contract (though in the case of Hegel, it is a ‘contract to transcend the standpoint of contract’) and in the first two sections of the essay I consider their views on the role of contract in marriage. Whilst holding (with Hegel) that marriage is more than a contract, I also hold (with Kant) that it is not less than a contract. In section three I consider the implications of this ‘not less than’, the most important one being that ‘pure’no-fault divorce laws are unjust. I shall contend that whilst the irretrievable breakdown of marriage may be regarded as a suitable ground for divorce, it simply cannot, and certainly ought not to, be regarded as a justificatory basis for the laying aside of rights acquired by individuals as a result of their having entered into a marital contract. However minimal one might wish the role of the state to be, or however averse one might be from allowing the state any role at all in purely personal and confidential relationships, yet to allow the expression ‘the irretrievable breakdown of marriage’to be employed as a olanket to cover over the infringement of personal, contractually engendered and civilly recognised rights, is not to exercise commendable restraint but is, rather, to condone what is simply an abnegation by the state of its basic responsibility to ensure that justice prevails.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue for a public law solution, modelled on criminal law, but providing compensation for victims, arguing that persons injured as a result of exposure to toxic or carcinogenic substances are seldom able to recover damages from those who are responsible for the exposure.
Abstract: Persons injured as a result of exposure to toxic or carcinogenic substances are seldom able to recover damages from those who are responsible for the exposure. Tort law requires proof of causation, and causation is often unprovable because of long latency periods, because of the relative infrequency of the injuries and because many of the injuries among the exposed population are the result of other factors. A number of proposals for modifying the legal causation requirement to allow those who create hazardous risks to be held liable for the injuries that materialise are considered and found inadequate. A proposal to treat risk exposure itself as an injury for which compensation under private law is possible is also considered and ultimately found incoherent. The paper concludes by arguing for a public law solution, modelled on criminal law, but providing compensation for victims.

Journal ArticleDOI
David Archard1
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors defend the use of rights-talk and conclude that it does not misrepresent the moral problem in question, and assess the status and character of the natural facts Midgley adduces in criticism of my case.
Abstract: Mary Midgley asserts that my argument concerning the problem of child-abuse was inappropriately framed in the language of rights, and neglected certain pertinent natural facts. I defend the view that the use of rights-talk was both apposite and did not misrepresent the moral problem in question. I assess the status and character of the natural facts Midgley adduces in criticism of my case, concluding that they do not obviously establish the conclusions she believes they do. Finally I briefly respond to the charge that my suggestions were illiberal.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors propose a neo-Aristotelian account of individuals wherein some entities, often precluded from those deserving of moral consideration, are deemed proper subjects of such treatment.
Abstract: I argue for a broader understanding of the morally considerable. I propose a neo-Aristotelian account of individuals wherein some entities, often precluded from those deserving of moral consideration, are deemed proper subjects of such treatment. The criterion suggested is, roughly, that of self-regulatory development, a teleological notion, that I argue should not be viewed as archaic and useless. Not only do many non-human animals then become legitimate subjects of moral concern, but objects outside the animal kingdom, such as plants and trees, also are to be included in our ethical arena.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This paper argued that Oakeshott's views constitute a via media between Popperian rationalism and Hayekian anti-rationalism, and that the latter view cannot be specified independently of agents' forms of life.
Abstract: Popper's attitude to traditions is fundamentally rationalistic. He analyses traditions, along with other institutions and practices, in terms of their efficiency in promoting goals which can be specified independently of the traditions themselves. Hayek, by contrast, looks at traditions in terms of their contributions to the survival of the culture in which they are embedded, something whose evaluation may be opaque even to people within the culture. Both these approaches are flawed compared to Oakeshott's insistence that traditions are not goal-oriented, and that goals cannot be specified independently of agents’forms of life. Oakeshott's views constitute a via media between Popperian rationalism and Hayekian anti-rationalism.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The authors argue that the selection of examples drawn from literature, history and common-life experiences offers the following advantages: (1) such examples better serve the purpose of illustration; (2) they function as projects for moral inquiry; (3) they better connect both reader and author to the moral issues being discussed; and (4) they help prevent the dichotomisation of moral philosophy into meta-ethics and applied ethics.
Abstract: There is a growing trend in moral philosophy that reflects a return to a more ancient perspective of the subject matter wherein moral theory and moral practice are thought to converge. Like their Greek and Hellenistic predecessors, contemporary moral philosophers are again analysing virtues and character traits, drawing normative conclusions at the end of arguments, and testing their theories against examples from common life. Unfortunately, this literature is still cluttered with abstract, general, unlikely, and cleverly-constructed examples that are more apt to draw both reader and author away from the various moral issues under consideration. This paper argues that the selection of examples drawn from literature, history and common-life experiences offers the following advantages: (1) such examples better serve the purpose of illustration; (2) they function as projects for moral inquiry; (3) they better connect both reader and author to the moral issues being discussed; (4) they help prevent the dichotomisation of moral philosophy into meta-ethics and applied ethics; and (5) they help make it possible again for moral philosophy to have the relevance and importance it once enjoyed in previous periods of history. Selection criteria are outlined, and examples are provided that satisfy them.

Journal ArticleDOI
Bill Warren1
TL;DR: In this paper, a response to a well-intentioned and genuinely naive question concerning the nature of "applied philosophy" is given, where the notion of enquiring activist is used to encapsulate this attitude as a valuable goal of applied philosophy.
Abstract: This paper is an account of a response to a well-intentioned and genuinely naive question concerning the nature of ‘applied philosophy’. It indicates differing points of view concerning the nature of philosophy and what one might or might not expect from it. It tries to synthesise these points of view into a position that sees philosophy as continuous with that attitude of mind that was epitomised by Socrates, an attitude of mind which is directed to every aspect or dimension of human life. The notion of the enquiring activist is borrowed to encapsulate this attitude as a valuable goal of ‘applied philosophy’.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this article, Wolff argued that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the distinguishing mark of every state, viz. supreme authority over all its citizens, and the primary obligation of rational beings to act autonomously by taking moral responsibility for all of their actions.
Abstract: R. P. Wolff has argued that there is an irreconcilable conflict between the distinguishing mark of every state, viz. supreme authority over all its citizens, and the primary obligation of rational beings, viz. to act autonomously by taking moral responsibility for all of their actions. Utilitarian and consent theories which seek to justify the state's claim to possess a monopoly of the rightful use of force are shown to fail and the concept of a ‘legitimate state’to be morally incoherent. However, Wolff's version of individualist anarchism does not follow. Human beings are by no means equally rational or homogeneously autonomous. There are ‘states’which have a contingent and variable right to enforce obedience over an indefinitely large number of their ‘subjects’, although not over those who are autonomous because rational in high degree.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In this paper, Hartshornian theories of temporal relations are criticised, one of which provides the basis for opposition to abortion, a theory wherein one is internally related both to one's past and to the future.
Abstract: In this article I freely use the thought of Charles Hartshorne to defend the ethical permissibility of abortion in the early stages of pregnancy. In the later stages of pregnancy the fetus has an ethical status similar to that of a sentient yet non-rational animal, a status which should generate in us considerable ethical respect. The distinctiveness of this Hartshornian approach lies in the effort to bring metaphysics to bear on a controversial issue in applied ethics. In particular, the metaphysical issue of temporal relations is crucial to consider in the effort to ascertain the ethical status of the fetus. Two symmetrical (immoderate) theories of temporal relations are criticised, one of which provides the basis for opposition to abortion, a theory wherein one is internally related both to one's past and to one's future. An asymmetrical (moderate) theory of temporal relations is defended, a theory wherein one is internally related to one's past yet externally related to the future. This latter theory would permit abortion in the early stages of pregnancy.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Ethical problems that arise in the course of a pathologist's receiving, investigating, and reporting and advising on, a patient's specimen are examined on the basis of the above principles: an attempt is made to offer guidance on the problems.
Abstract: The much discussed ethical problems of clinicians, who have direct care of patients, are mainly within their responsibilities to the ‘index’patient with whom they are immediately concerned. When pathologists are practising clinical pathology they are responsible for performing and interpreting tests on specimens from patients at the request of clinicians, and advising on these tests. Their ethical problems, as they do not have direct care of patients, mainly lie between their obligations to the requesting clinician, to the index patient under investigation in the laboratory, and also to other patients, and to their staff. These problems are largely ignored in the literature both of medical ethics and of pathology. The ethical principles of: (1) respect for autonomy; (2) non-maleficence; (3) beneficence; and (4) justice are discussed with particular reference to the work of clinical pathologists: possible applications of virtue ethics are also considered. Ethical problems that arise in the course of a pathologist's receiving, investigating, and reporting and advising on, a patient's specimen are examined on the basis of the above principles: an attempt is made to offer guidance on the problems.