Autonomy and the Moral Symmetry Principle: Reply to Frowe and Tooley

Helen Frowe has recently objected to Michael Tooley’s famous Moral Symmetry Principle, which is meant to show that in themselves killing and letting die are morally equivalent. I argue that her objection is not compelling but a more compelling objection is available. Specifically, Tooley’s rebuttal of a proposed counter-example to his Moral Symmetry Principle has two problematic implications. First, it undercuts the very principle itself. If we reject the proposed counter-example, then any instance of the Moral Symmetry Principle will actually demonstrate the moral in-equivalence of killing and letting die. Second, it commits us to the view, which Tooley wishes to avoid, that we are just as obligated to refrain from doing wrong as we are to prevent others from doing the same. I conclude with a brief discussion of a more general concern regarding Tooley’s basic strategy. My focus here is quite narrow. My claims, if plausible, only show that the Moral Symmetry Principle is unsound and thus cannot serve as a basis for the view that killing and letting die are morally equivalent.     

“Now there are diversities of gifts,but the same spirit.” (1Cor 12:4): images of the self and concepts of office of LGBTQ* pastors in Germany

ABSTRACT

After providing background information on the legal status and admission of LGBTIAQ* pastors in Germany, the paper focusses on experiences of LGBTQ* Protestant pastors in the major German Protestant church (Evangelische Kirche in Deutschland) to explore how they include their sexual orientation and/or gender in their pastoral work. LGBTIAQ* pastors face the challenge of managing visibility and discretion, in relation to a heteronormative setting, as well as the specific expectations of LGBTIAQ* Christians. The presumption of shared experiences and knowledge by similarly marginalized people plays a part in their ministry. The paper argues that embracing those experiences and community knowledge as part of pastoral theology can strengthen their reflection on pastoral work.     

Two Concepts of Basic Equality

It has become somewhat a commonplace in recent political philosophy to remark that all plausible political theories must share at least one fundamental premise, ‘that all humans are one another's equals’. One single concept of ‘basic equality’, therefore, is cast as the common touchstone of all contemporary political thought. This paper argues that this claim is false. Virtually all do indeed say that all humans are ‘equals’ in some basic sense. However, this is not the same sense. There are not one but (at least) two concepts of basic equality, and they reflect not a grand unity within political philosophy but a deep and striking division. I call these concepts ‘Equal Worth’ and ‘Equal Authority’. The former means that each individual’s good is of equal moral worth. The latter means that no individual is under the natural authority of anyone else. Whilst these two predicates are not in themselves logically inconsistent, I demonstrate that they are inconsistent foundation stones for political theory. A theory that starts from Equal Worth will find it near impossible to justify Equal Authority. And a theory that starts from Equal Authority will find any fact about the true worth of things, including ourselves, irrelevant to justifying legitimate action. This helps us identify the origin of many of our deepest and seemingly intractable disagreements within political philosophy, and directs our attention to the need for a clear debate about the truth and/or relationship between the two concepts. In short, my call to arms can be summed up in the demand that political philosophers never again be allowed to claim ‘that all human beings are equals’ full stop. They must be clear in what dimension they claim that we are equals—Worth or Authority (or perhaps something else).     

The Choice Architect’s Trilemma

Critics have long dismissed paternalistic choice architecture as conceptually muddled at best and oxymoronic at worst. In this article, I argue that this criticism remains true despite recent replies to the contrary. Further, I suggest that a similar conceptual criticism also applies to non-paternalistic choice architecture. This is due to a three-way tension between the effectiveness, avoidability, and distinctiveness of each nudge. To illustrate this tension, I provide a novel explanation of the mechanics of nudging and a taxonomy of these interventions. I then argue that choice architects who defend the distinctiveness of nudging according to how it guides our behaviour via our unreflective intuitive reasoning encounter a trilemma because the distinctiveness of nudging hinges on interventions being both avoidable and effective. Choice architects cannot achieve this aim without harnessing both our automatic and reflective systems of thought in tandem. However, this diminishes the distinctive character of nudging by bringing it closer to other traditional policy interventions. This establishes the choice architect’s trilemma: a nudge is likely to be either ineffective, effective via some morally unacceptable means, or effective in a manner that is conceptually indistinct from other evidence-based policy interventions.     

Risky prospects and risk aversion tendencies: does competition in the classroom depend on grading practices and knowledge of peer-status?

When students are faced with the decision of whether to assist a peer, they should be sensitive to the potential risks associated with doing so. Two factors associated with risky helping behaviour in the classroom are: (1) the grading practices that are used, and (2) knowledge of a peer’s relative status. Normative (“curved”) grading creates a situation in which peer-interactions are potentially competitive, but it is only those interactions with peers of a similar status that carry the potential for assistance to be costly to oneself. In two studies, we created hypothetical scenarios in which the grading practices (normative or absolute) and peer-status proximity (proximate, distant, or unknown) were manipulated, and asked participants to report their willingness to cooperate with a peer by sharing their notes from an important lecture. We found that when normative grading was used, individuals were less willing to assist a peer when they knew that the peer’s status was proximate to their own. There was also less cooperation when peer status was unknown, under normative grading, which is consistent with a risk-aversion tendency.     

Gender diversity and motivation in collaborative learning groups: the mediating role of group discussion quality

Collaborative learning is often used in higher education to help students develop their teamwork skills and acquire curricular knowledge. In this paper we test a mediation model in which the quality of group discussions mediates the impact of gender diversity and group motivation on collaborative learning effectiveness. Our results show that the proportion of women in groups, and the group level need for cognition and core self-evaluations (within group average) positively predict discussion quality that in turn predicts group (academic) performance. Our results show that discussion quality fully mediates the effects of need for cognition and core self-evaluations on group performance. The effect for gender diversity on group performance is only partly mediated by discussion quality.     

Personality,socio-economic status and education: factors that contribute to the degree of structure in homeschooling

Homeschooling has been expanding in many countries in the western world, especially in the United States and in England. Studies have shown that there are different types of homeschooling, with different influences on the outcome of the educational process. However, the research to date has ignored the effects of parents’ personality and background on the practice of homeschooling, despite extensive evidence of the important role of these factors in shaping the educational orientation of parents. The present study focused on the impact of different aspects of parents’ personality and socioeconomic status on the type of homeschooling they chose. The findings indicated, among other things, that mother’s education correlated positively with more structured homeschooling, and family income and conscientiousness both correlated positively with more structure in daily routine and in homeschooling.     

Basic psychological needs and school engagement: a focus on justice and agency

In this paper, we examine the relationship between basic psychological needs and student engagement in a population of Italian secondary school students. To measure the psychological needs, we have selected a set of indicators that, beyond the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, also include the need for justice, which is crucial in adolescence when the degree of sensitivity to the ways people behave in interpersonal interactions is well developed. To measure student engagement, we have considered the four-dimensional structure of the construct, which has added the factor of agentic engagement to the three conventional dimensions of emotional, behavioural and cognitive engagement. Participants were 640 secondary school Italian students aged 15–17. The results confirm that justice should be considered as an additional basic need in school settings, as it fosters intrinsic student motivation and engagement. Moreover, our findings provide evidence that agency is a dimension that enriches the construct of student engagement. In the conclusion, justice and agency are treated as constructs that deserve to be more deeply considered in future research into learning environments.     

Is two better than one? Comparing children’s narrative competence in an individual versus joint storytelling task

This research looks at the potential of peer interaction practices in improving narrative competence by analyzing the efficacy of peer learning on children’s oral narrative productions. Gains on a macro-level (structure and coherence of the narrative) and a micro-level (cohesion of the narrative) were analyzed. Fifty-six primary school children participated in this study. Each child told a narrative either individually (individual condition) or while interacting with a peer (joint condition). We explored whether children produced longer, more structured, coherent and cohesive narratives in a joint condition rather than individually, and in which condition the joint task was more beneficial for children’s narrative competence in terms of narrative scores in the individual condition, discrepancy between the members of the same pair, and quality of the interaction. The advantage of peer learning does not derive from the direct comparison of the individual versus the joint condition but depends on specific conditions: the joint condition was beneficial for individuals with lower individual competence and for pairs with a high discrepancy between individual scores. Children’s quality of interaction did not seem to influence the efficacy of peer learning on their narrative competence.