The Case for the Moral Permissibility of Amnesties: An Argument from Social Moral Epistemology

This paper makes the case for the permissibility of post-conflict amnesties, although not on prudential grounds. It argues that amnesties of a certain scope, targeted to certain categories of perpetrators, and offered in certain contexts are morally permissible because they are an acknowledgment of the difficulty of attributing criminal responsibility in mass violence contexts. Based on this idea, the paper develops the further claim that deciding which amnesties are permissible and which ones are not should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Against what seems to be an increasingly popular assumption of some international actors, just as "blanket" amnesties (i.e. very broad and general amnesties that foreclose criminal prosecution for all kinds of perpetrators and all kinds of wrongdoing) are impermissible, so is an absolutist rejection of all types of amnesties.     

Ilge Interference Patterns In Semantics and Epistemology

The issue as to whether an atomistic or holistic viewof knowledge and meaning is correct relies on the way part/whole relationships is analysed,exactly as the issue as to whether a constructive or realistic view of knowledge and meaningis correct relies on the way internal/external relationships is analysed. Both theprinciple of compositionality and the context principle depend on how finely the constituents,the nature and the size of the context are identified; both the notion of meaning andthe notion of truth depend on the resources of internalisation/externalisation. Thus thespectrum of semantic and epistemological theories varies from (global) atomismto (global) holism, and from minimal to maximal internalisation. Are compositionaltheories necessarily extensional? Does formal semantics necessarily rely on set theory?Does the domain-specific character of the notions of element, part and whole prevent anygeneral, non-trivial account? The aim of the present paper is to provide a negative answerto these questions by exploring some of the features a theory covering the phenomenologyof part and whole should have. This phenomenology will only be sketched through a fewparadigmatic examples, showing how the reference of notions of part and wholevaries and which are the constraints inherentin such variation. Categorytheory provides the tools for fashioning this framework, since it allows describing any coherentcollection of objects (with actions defined over them) and (action preserving) maps betweenthe objects, as well as the variation of such collections in terms of suitablefunctors, coding the ways parts and wholes undergo co-variation. The main thesis is thatthere are interference patterns between the two pairs Local/Global and Internal/External,only in terms of which the above phenomenology can be properly described. Se mai tu diventeraimetá di te stesso, e te l'auguro, ragazzo, capirai cose al di lá della comune intelligenza dei cervelli interi.Avrai perso metá di te e del mondo, ma la realtá rimasta sará mille volte piú profonda e preziosa. E tupure vorrai che tutto sia dimezzato e straziato a tua immagine, perchè bellezza e sapienza e giustizia ci sono soloin ció che é fatto a brani.     

Permissibility and Violable Rules

From a logical point of view, permissibility can be reduced to possibility by introducing demands which can be met. The alleged reduction is circular from a philosophical perspective, however, because demands are fundamentally deontic. This paper solves this problem by replacing demands which can be met with rules which can be satisfied and violated.

Maximalism versus Omnism about Permissibility

Roughly speaking, maximalism is the view that only certain options are to be assessed in terms of whether they have some right‐making property (such as that of producing optimal consequences), whereas omnism is the view that all options are to be assessed in terms of whether they have this property. I argue that maximalism is preferable to omnism because it provides a more plausible solution to what's known as the problem of act versions and is not subject to any significant problems of its own. If I'm right, then most moral theories, which are versions of omnism, need revision.     

Intentions,Permissibility, and Choice

T. M. Scanlon has argued that the intentions with which one acts, or more specifically, one’s reasons for acting, are non-derivatively irrelevant to the moral permissibility of one’s actions. According to one of his arguments in favor of that thesis, it can be permissible to act for one reason rather than another only if one can choose to act for a reason but, since that choice is impossible since believing as will is impossible, one can be permitted to act but one cannot be permitted to act for a reason. This paper aims to show that that argument is unsound. It first argues that the assumption that choosing an action is necessary for it being an object of a moral duty or permission cannot be made consistent with Scanlon’s idea that the same does not hold for an action being an object of blame. It then argues that even if direct control over forming beliefs is impossible, it is not impossible to choose one’s reason for action and, therefore, to be permitted or forbidden to act for it.     

Epistemology, the History of Epistemology, Historical Epistemology

A brief discussion of the ways in which awareness of and sensitivity to the history of philosophy can contribute to epistemology even if epistemology is understood as a distinctively philosophical and not primarily historical enterprise.     

Probabilism Today: Permissibility and Multi-Account Ethics

In ethics, ‘probabilism’ refers to a position defended by a number of Catholic theologians, mainly in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. They held that, when one is uncertain which of a range of actions is the right one to perform, it is permissible to perform any which has a good chance of being the right one—even if there is another which has a better chance. This paper considers the value of this position from the viewpoint of modern ethical philosophy. The unusual nature of probabilism as a theory focusing upon permissibility, rather than right-making properties, is explored and related to some modern attempts to set out ‘satisficing’ and ‘hybrid’ ethical theories. Such theories try to distinguish between what is best and what is permissible, and probabilism can be understood as an alternative way of supplementing a theory of right-making properties by adding to it a theory of permissibility. But a more radical version is also possible, where one abandons any attempt to identify right actions or right-making properties, and instead considers permissibility alone. Accordingly, a ‘multi-account theory’ of permissibility is proposed and defended as a model of how many people actually make moral decisions.     

Intention and Permissibility: Jonathan DancyScanlon's Principles

My first four sections concentrate on the second section of Professor Scanlon's contribution (hereafter IP ), where he lays out his conception of moral principles and of the role they play in theory and practice. I will raise questions on the following issues:
1. Scanlon's initial introduction of the notion of a principle.
2. His rejection of the standard view that principles are concerned with the forbidding, permitting and requiring of actions.
3. His rejection of pro tanto conceptions of principles in favour of a conception of them as conclusive.
4. The resulting account of what it is for a principle to face and survive exceptions.
Scanlon's discussion of these matters here both appeals to and is in some respects more detailed than the relevant section of his recent What We Owe to Each Other (hereafter WWO ). The topic is interesting both for the role played by principles in Scanlon's present discussion of intention and permissibility, and more generally because of his account of wrongness:
an act is wrong iff it is ruled out by principles that nobody could reasonably reject.
The remainder of my contribution is concerned with the ostensible focus of IP , namely the relevance (if any) of agent-intentions to the permissibility of what is done.     

Modal Epistemology

Philosophical Studies -     

Epistemology Factualized: New Contractarian Foundations for Epistemology

Many epistemologists are interested in offering a positive account of how it is that many of our common sense beliefs enjoy one or another positive epistemological status (e.g., how they are warranted, justified, reasonable, or what have you). A number of philosophers, under the influence of Wittgenstein and/or J. L. Austin, have argued that this enterprise is misconceived. The most effective version of this argument is to be found in Mark Kaplan’s paper “Epistemology on Holiday”. After explaining what this criticism amounts to and why it is important, I then respond to it. My response is based upon, and is intended to display the explanatory power of, a contractarian account of our practice of epistemic appraisal.     

Consciousness and the Moral Permissibility of Infanticide1

abstract In this paper, we present a conditional argument for the moral permissibility of some kinds of infanticide. The argument is based on a certain view of consciousness and the claim that there is an intimate connection between consciousness and infanticide. In bare outline, the argument is this: it is impermissible to intentionally kill a creature only if the creature is conscious; it is reasonable to believe that there is some time at which human infants are not conscious; therefore, it is reasonable to believe that it is permissible to intentionally kill some human infants.     

Epistemology Culturalized

The anti-metaphysical intentions of naturalism can be respected without abandoning the project of a normative epistemology. The central assumptions of naturalism imply that (1.) the distinction between action and behaviour is spurious, and (2.) epistemology cannot continue to be a normative project. Difficulties with the second implication have been adressed by Normative Naturalism, but without violating the naturalistic consensus, it can only appreciate means-end-rationality. However, this does not suffice to justify its own implicit normative pretensions. According to our diagnosis, naturalism succumbs to the lure of an absolute observer's stance and thereby neglects the need for participation in communal practice. By contrast, methodical culturalism ties down the concepts of epistemology to the success of such practice. Only from this perspective, the normative force of epistemology can be appreciated. Also, the mind-body problem loosens its hold and the distinction between action and behaviour is reestablished. In the last section, the mutual relation between philosophy andscience is reconsidered. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.