Notice: تابع WP_Block_Type_Registry::register به طورنادرست فراخوانی شد. نامهای نوع بلوک نباید حروف بزرگ داشته باشند. لطفاً برای اطلاعات بیشتر، اشکال زدایی در وردپرس را مشاهده کنید. (این پیام در نگارش 5.0.0 افزوده شده است.) in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-includes/functions.php on line 5313
Warning: Use of undefined constant TDC_PATH_LEGACY - assumed 'TDC_PATH_LEGACY' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-content/plugins/td-composer/td-composer.php on line 109
Warning: Use of undefined constant TDSP_THEME_PATH - assumed 'TDSP_THEME_PATH' (this will throw an Error in a future version of PHP) in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-content/plugins/td-composer/td-composer.php on line 113 بایگانیهای 378.1/21 - خانه اخلاق پژوهان جوان Notice: Trying to access array offset on value of type bool in /home/ethicsho/public_html/wp-content/plugins/wp-ulike/inc/general-functions.php on line 807
To be responsible for their acts, agents must both perform those acts voluntarily and in some sense know what they are doing. Of these requirements, the voluntariness condition has been much discussed, but the epistemic condition has received far less attention. In Who Knew? George Sher seeks to rectify that imbalance. The book is divided in two halves, the first of which criticizes a popular but inadequate way of understanding the epistemic condition, while the second seeks to develop a more adequate alternative. It is often assumed that agents are responsible only for what they are aware of doing or bringing about–that their responsibility extends only as far as the searchlight of their consciousness. The book criticizes this “searchlight view” on two main grounds: first, that it is inconsistent with our attributions of responsibility to a broad range of agents who should but do not realize that they are acting wrongly or foolishly, and, second, that the view is not independently defensible. The book’s positive view construes the crucial relation between an agent and his failure to recognize the wrongness or foolishness of what he is doing in causal terms: the agent is responsible when, and because, his failure to respond to his reasons for believing that he is acting wrongly or foolishly has its origins in the same constitutive psychology that generally does render him reason-responsive.
From Bishop Wilberforce in the 1860s to the advocates of “creation science” today, defenders of traditional mores have condemned Darwin’s theory of evolution as a threat to society’s values. Darwin’s defenders, like Stephen Jay Gould, have usually replied that there is no conflict between science and religion–that values and biological facts occupy separate realms. But as James Rachels points out in this thought-provoking study, Darwin himself would disagree with Gould. Darwin, who had once planned on being a clergyman, was convinced that natural selection overthrew our age-old religious beliefs. Created from Animals offers a provocative look at how Darwinian evolution undermines many tenets of traditional philosophy and religion. James Rachels begins by examining Darwin’s own life and work, presenting an astonishingly vivid and compressed biography. We see Darwin’s studies of the psychological links in evolution (such as emotions in dogs, and the “mental powers” of worms), and how he addressed the moral implications of his work, especially in his concern for the welfare of animals. Rachels goes on to present a lively and accessible survey of the controversies that followed in Darwin’s wake, ranging from Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism to Edward O. Wilson’s sociobiology, and discusses how the work of such influential intellects as Descartes, Hume, Kant, T.H. Huxley, Henri Bergson, B.F. Skinner, and Stephen Jay Gould has contributed to–or been overthrown by–evolutionary science. Western philosophy and religion, Rachels argues, have been shaken by the implications of Darwin’s work, most notably the controversial idea that humans are simply a more complex kind of animal. Rachels assesses a number of studies that suggest how closely humans are linked to other primates in behavior, and then goes on to show how this idea undercuts the work of many prominent philosophers. Kant’s famous argument that suicide reduces one to the level of an animal, for instance, is meaningless if humans are, in fact, animals. Indeed, humanity’s membership in the animal kingdom calls into question the classic notions of human dignity and the sacredness of human life. What we need now, Rachels contends, is a philosophy that does not discriminate between different species, one that addresses each being on an individual basis. With this sweeping survey of the arguments, the philosophers, and the deep implications surrounding Darwinism, Rachels lays the foundations for a new view of morality. Vibrantly written and provocatively argued, Created from Animals offers a new perspective on issues ranging from suicide to euthanasia to animal rights.
This book is recommended for anyone interested in understanding, questioning, articulating, and acting on the basis of their own and others’ perspectives on sexism, racism, and affirmative action in American higher education. –ChoiceWhile equal opportunity for all candidates is widely recognized as a goal within academia, the implementation of specific procedures to achieve equality has resulted in vehement disputes regarding both the means and ends. To encourage a reexamination of this issue, Cahn asked three prominent American social philosophers–Leslie Pickering Francis, Robert L. Simon, and Lawrence C. Becker–who hold divergent views about affirmative action, to write extended essays presenting their views. Twenty-two other philosophers then respond to these three principal essays. While no consensus is reached, the resulting clash of reasoned judgments will serve to revitalize the issues raised by affirmative action.ContentsIntroduction – Steven M. CahnPart I1. In Defense of Affirmative Action – Leslie Pickering Francis2. Affirmative Action and the University: Faculty Appointment and Preferential Treatment – Robert L. Simon3. Affirmative Action and Faculty Appointments – Lawrence C. BeckerPart II4. What Good Am I? – Laurence Thomas5. Who Counts on Campus? – Ann Hartle6. Reflections on Affirmative Action in Academia – Robert G. Turnbull7. The Injustice of Strong Affirmative Action – John Kekes8. Preferential Treatment Versus Purported Meritocratic Rights – Richard J. Arneson9. Faculties as Civil Societies: A Misleading Model for Affirmative Action – Jeffrie G. Murphy10. Facing Facts and Responsibilities – The White Man’s Burden and the Burden of Proof – Karen Hanson11. Affirmative Action: Relevant Knowledge and Relevant Ignorance – Joel J. Kupperman12. Remarks on Affirmative Action – Andrew Oldenquist13. Affirmative Action and the Multicultural Ideal – Philip L. Quinn14. Affirmative Action in the Cultural Wars – Frederick A. Olafson15. Quotas by Any Name: Some Problems of Affirmative Action in Faculty Appointments – Tom L. Beauchamp16. Are Quotas Sometimes Justified? – James Rachels17. Proportional Representation of Women and Minorities – Celia Wolf-Devine18. An Ecological Concept of Diversity – La Verne Shelton19. Careers Open to Talent – Ellen Frankel Paul20. Some Sceptical Doubts – Alasdair MacIntyre21. Affirmative Action and Tenure Decisions – Richard T. De George22. Affirmative Action and the Awarding of Tenure – Peter J. Markie23. The Case for Preferential Treatment – James P. Sterba24. Saying What We Think – Fred Sommers25. Comments on Compromise and Affirmative Action – Alan H. GoldmanAbout the AuthorsIndex About the Author(s)Steven M. Cahn is Professor of Philosophy and former Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He has published numerous other books, including Morality, Responsibility, and the University (Temple).Contributors: Laurence Thomas, Ann Hartle, Robert G. Turnbull, John Kekes, Richard J. Arneson, Jeffrie G. Murphy, Karen Hanson, Joel J. Kupperman, Andrew Oldenquist, Philip L. Quinn, Frederick A. Olafson, Tom L. Beauchamp, James Rachels, Celia Wolf-Devine, La Verne Shelton, Ellen Frankel Paul, Alasdair MacIntyre, Richard T. De George, Peter J. Markie, James P. Sterba, Fred Sommers, Alan H. Goldman, and the editor.
Following extended periods of conflict or repression, political reconciliation is indispensable to the establishment or restoration of democratic relationships and critical to the pursuit of peacemaking globally. In this important new book, Colleen Murphy offers an innovative analysis of the moral problems plaguing political relationships under the strain of civil conflict and repression. Focusing on the unique moral damage that attends the deterioration of political relationships, Murphy identifies the precise kinds of repair and transformation that processes of political reconciliation ought to promote. Building on this analysis, she proposes a normative model of political relationships. A Moral Theory of Political Reconciliation delivers an original account of the failure and restoration of political relationships, which will be of interest to philosophers, social scientists, legal scholars, policy analysts, and all those who are interested in transitional justice, global politics, and democracy.
ما از اخلاق چه انتظاری داریم؟ این سوال شاید تاحدودی برای عموم مردم و یا متخصصان این رشته قابل پاسخ باشد؛ اینکه خوب بودن را به ما بیاموزد و در تنظیم روابط فردی م...
جشن کتاب تهران به ایستگاه سی و یکم رسیده است. حال و احوال نشر کتاب خوب نیست و باید فرهنگدوستان را به خرید و هدیه دادن کتاب ترغیب نمود. خانه اخلاقپژوهان جوان ب...
بنیاد کتابهای اخلاق اسلامی عمدتا پالایش جان از آلودگیها و آراستن آن به زیباییها است. اندیشه محوری این قبیل کتابها آن است که انسان فعلی آنی نیست که باید باشد...
-
0 Comments