Moral Arguments in the Debate over Nanotechnologies: Are We Talking Past Each Other?

How are we to understand the fact that the philosophical debate over nanotechnologies has been reduced to a clash of seemingly preprogrammed arguments and counterarguments that paralyzes all rational discussion of the ultimate ethical question of social acceptability in matters of nanotechnological development? With this issue as its starting point, the study reported on here, intended to further comprehension of the issues rather than provide a cause-and-effect explanation, seeks to achieve a rational grasp of what is being said through the appeals made to this or that principle in the range of arguments put forward in publications on the subject. We present the results of the study’s analyses in two parts. In the first, we lay out the seven categories of argument that emerged from an analysis of the literature: the arguments based on nature, dignity, the good life, utility, equity, autonomy, and rights. In the second part, we present the background moral stances that support each category of argument. Identifying the different categories of argument and the moral stance that underlies each category will enable a better grasp of the reasons for the multiplicity of the arguments that figure in discussions of the acceptability of nanotechnologies and will ultimately contribute to overcoming the tendency towards talking past each other that all too often disfigures the exchange. Clarifying the implications of the moral arguments deployed in the debate over nanotechnologies may make it possible to reduce the confusion observable in these exchanges and contribute to a better grasp of the reasons for their current unproductiveness.     

The Social and Ethical Acceptability of NBICs for Purposes of Human Enhancement: Why Does the Debate Remain Mired in Impasse?

The emergence and development of convergent technologies for the purpose of improving human performance, including nanotechnology, biotechnology, information sciences, and cognitive science (NBICs), open up new horizons in the debates and moral arguments that must be engaged by philosophers who hope to take seriously the question of the ethical and social acceptability of these technologies. This article advances an analysis of the factors that contribute to confusion and discord on the topic, in order to help in understanding why arguments that form a part of the debate between transhumanism and humanism result in a philosophical and ethical impasse: 1. The lack of clarity that emerges from the fact that any given argument deployed (arguments based on nature and human nature, dignity, the good life) can serve as the basis for both the positive and the negative evaluation of NBICs. 2. The impossibility of providing these arguments with foundations that will enable others to deem them acceptable. 3. The difficulty of applying these same arguments to a specific situation. 4. The ineffectiveness of moral argument in a democratic society. The present effort at communication about the difficulties of the argumentation process is intended as a necessary first step towards developing an interdisciplinary response to those difficulties.     

Are cyberbullies less empathic? Adolescents' cyberbullying behavior and empathic responsiveness

Meta-analyses confirm a negative relationship between aggressive behavior and empathy, that is, the ability to understand and share the feelings of others. Based on theoretical considerations, it was, therefore, hypothesized that a lack of empathic responsiveness may be characteristic for cyberbullies in particular. In the present study, 2.070 students of Luxembourg secondary schools completed an online survey that included a cyberbullying questionnaire(4) and a novel empathy short scale. According to the main hypothesis, analyses of variances indicated that cyberbullies demonstrated less empathic responsiveness than non-cyberbullies. In addition, cyberbullies were also more afraid of becoming victims of cyberbullying. The findings confirm and substantially extend the research on the relationship between empathy and aggressive behavior. From an educational point of view, the present findings suggest that training of empathy skills might be an important tool to decrease cyberbullying.     

On Happiness: A Minimalist Perspective on a Complex Neural Circuitry and its Psychosocial Constructs

To the human race, Happiness is surely the most coveted of emotions, yet the science behind it is almost as elusive as how to attain and maintain it. An attempt to understand the basis of happiness and its components, in addition to other positive experiences, including mirth and laughter, is a formidable task. Happiness is a separate entity and is not the absence or the opposite of sadness. It deserves its own field of study. It is impermeable to money and transient pleasurable overshoots. This paper is an open invitation to explore the domain of Happiness, review its neuroanatomical and psychosocial constructs and live in its blissful unawareness.     

Accuracy of Self-Reported Personal History of Cancer in an Outpatient Breast Center

The self-reporting of cancer history is becoming increasingly important, as it frequently guides medical decision-making. We studied the accuracy of personal cancer history using a self-administered questionnaire, comparing the results with the Tumor Registry at our institution. Among 39,662 records, we identified 3614 women with a single cancer in the Tumor Registry who reported none or one cancer on their questionnaire. The sensitivity in self-reporting cancers was 85.7%, ranging from 92.1% for breast cancer to 42.9% for leukemia. The accuracy for breast cancer and Hodgkin's Lymphoma was significantly better than other cancers (p=0.00027, CI: 1.4–3.88). Analysis of patient's characteristics showed that Caucasians reported breast cancer more accurately than Asian/Pacific Islanders (p=0.008), and those with Jewish ancestry more accurately than non-Jewish (p=0.0435). These results will help us to improve data collection and thus improve medical decision-making.     

From negation to “notion”: Cognitive processes and argumentative strategies

Summary This article deals with the role of negation as a language and cognitive operation. Such a topic is treated here within the framework of the argumentative strategies which consist in making certain cognitive landmarks of the discourse flip over with the intent of imposing the necessity to choose between two types of notions, aiming at the transformation of this choice into an implication. The reference here to the Aristotelian logic of Prior Analytics appears to be more efficient than any other contemporary logic and the author intends to give account of the role of negation as contrary coming into play on an operational and cognitive basis in all the argumentative strategies which oscillate reciprocally from universal to particular.