Metaethical Internalism: Another Neglected Distinction

‘Internalism’ is used in metaethics for a cluster of claims which bear a family resemblance. They tend to link, in some distinctive way—typically modal, mereological, or causal—different parts of the normative realm, or the normative and the psychological. The thesis of this paper is that much metaethical mischief has resulted from philosophers’ neglect of the distinction between two different features of such claims. The first is the modality of the entire claim. The second is the relation between the items specified in the claim. In part one I explain this distinction and the problems neglecting it may cause. In part two I show that it has been neglected, and has caused those problems, at least with respect to one version of internalism. That is judgment internalism, which claims that moral beliefs are necessarily related to pro- or con-attitudes; e.g., that if you believe you ought to x you must have some motivation to x. The considerations standardly adduced in favor of judgment internalism support only a version which lacks the metaethical implications typically attributed to it, at least so far as anyone has shown. Proponents and opponents of judgment internalism fail to realize this because of their neglect of the modality/relation distinction. I illustrate by considering discussions of judgment internalism by Russ Shafer-Landau, Simon Blackburn, James Dreier, David Brink, and others.

Freedom and Practical Reason

Practical reasons, roughly, are reasons to have our desires and goals, and to do what might secure these goals. I argue for the view that lack of freedom to do otherwise undermines the truth of judgments of practical reason. Thus, assuming that determinism expunges alternative possibilities, determinism undercuts the truth of such judgments. I propose, in addition, that if practical reason is associated with various values in a specified way, then determinism precludes such values owing to determinism's imperiling practical reason.

Human embryonic stem cell research and the discarded embryo argument

Many who believe that human embryos have moral status are convinced that their use in human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research can be morally justified as long as they are discarded embryos left over from fertility treatments. This is one reason why this view about discarded embryos has played such a prominent role in the debate over publicly funding hESC research in the United States and other countries. Many believe that this view offers the best chance of a compromise between the different sides in this debate. This paper focuses on what seems to be the most plausible argument for this view about discarded embryos. It shows that this argument is unsound regardless of how one understands the claim that embryos have moral status. It also discusses the implications of this conclusion for attempts to use this argument as a basis for public policy.

Nano-ethics as NEST-ethics: Patterns of Moral Argumentation About New and Emerging Science and Technology

There might not be a specific nano-ethics, but there definitely is an ethics of new & emerging science and technology (NEST), with characteristic tropes and patterns of moral argumentation. Ethical discussion in and around nanoscience and technology reflects such NEST-ethics. We offer an inventory of the arguments, and show patterns in their evolution, in arenas full of proponents and opponents. We also show that there are some nano-specific issues: in how size matters, and when agency is delegated to smart devices. Our overall approach is a pragmatist ethics, and we conclude that struggle (and learning) might be more productive than models emphasizing consensus.

论道德理论在马克思思想体系中的地位

正确认识马克思的道德理论在其思想体系中的地位,关系到对整个马克思思想及其贡献的理解。针对中外学界对这一问题的种种不同看法和误解,本文认为,伦理道德是马克思一生学术实践所关注的,是马克思思想体系的灵魂,自由与解放则是马克思道德研究及其整个思想体系的主旨。     

从GDP崇拜到GNH关怀的伦理分析

从GDP崇拜到GNH关怀,是两种发展观的转变,其实质就是对幸福的一种崭新诠释和评价标准的转变。GDP崇拜其实质就是唯效率崇拜,促进了经济的发展,但也带来了道德的困惑和系列社会问题,由政府善治,经济增长,文化发展和环境保护四极组成的GNH关怀发展理念,已成为我们党和政府的执政理念和行政理念,具有积极的伦理意义,必须予以高度重视。     

The component awareness and accuracy of dual- and single-jointed actions

The accuracy with which people execute wrist and elbow movements were measured using three main conditions: (i) single-jointed (wrist or elbow) movements to targets, (ii) dual-jointed (wrist and elbow) movements to targets, and (iii) components of dual-jointed movements to targets, when the task for the subject was to perform the elbow or wrist constituent of the action in isolation, without displacing the second joint. Elbow precision was significantly worse under component than dual conditions, which is compatible with the notion that wrist and elbow activity are conjugately, rather than independently, programmed when a dual-jointed action is performed. The pattern of wrist accuracy was divergent, but possible reasons for this were discussed. In all cases, error was measured in terms of deviation from perfect posture; using this index, the hypothesis that incorporating more moving joints into an action serves to increase movement complexity and jeopardise precision was tested, but the results were ambiguous. Discussion also centered on the problems of using performance data to infer changes in motor programming, and the need for rigorous conceptualisation and research in this area.     

Power and social context in superior-subordinate interaction

Power differences are thought to interfere with superiors' interaction with subordinates. However, it is also argued that superiors with considerable power are most supportive of their subordinates. To explore these opposing positions, 90 undergraduates became managers with either high or low power who believed their goals were cooperatively, individualistically, or competitively related to their subordinate. Results support the hypothesis that social context affects how superiors use their power to interact with subordinates. High- and low-power superiors in cooperation had positive expectations, interacted constructively, restated the task, responded to requests for assistance, and developed a positive relationship compared to high- and low-power superiors in individualistic and competitive situations. In addition, only the high-power superiors in cooperation used their expertise to give direct aid to the subordinate. Results indicate that in cooperation superiors are likely to use their power constructively; however, in competitive and individualistic contexts, superiors are apt to fail to use their resources to facilitate subordinate performance. Results were also interpreted as suggesting that it is not so much the extent of superiors' power but the social context that affects their use of power and interaction with subordinates.     

Disentangling behavioral intention and behavioral expectation

Social psychologists have extensively researched behavioral intention and its relation to future behavior, usually within the framework of M. Fishbein and I. Ajzen's (1975, Belief, attitude, intention and behavior: An introduction to theory and research, Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley) theory of reasoned action. However, the field has confounded two separate constructs while investigating intention: behavioral intention (BI) and what P. R. Warshaw, B. H. Sheppard, and J. Hartwick (in press, in R. Bagozzi (Ed.), Advances in marketing communication, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press) have coined behavioral expectation (BE), which is the individual's self-prediction of his or her future behavior. In this paper we define both constructs and explain how they differ in terms of the processes by which they are formed, their roles in determining behavior, and their utilities as behavioral predictors. We propose that behavioral expectation is the more accurate overall predictor since many common behaviors are unreasoned (i.e., mindless or habitual) behaviors, goal-type actions, or behaviors where the individual expects his or her intention to change in a foresseable manner. These are all cases where present intention (BI) is not the direct determinant of behavior but where the individual may be capable of appraising whatever additional determinants exist and of including them within his or her behavioral expectation. A study (N = 197) is reported in which student subjects received either a BE (n = 113) or a BI (n = 84) version of a questionnaire pertaining to their performance of 18 common behaviors. Overall, behavioral expectation was the better predictor of self-reported performance.