Chisholm's Grand Move

Abstract: Roderick Chisholm famously held that our knowledge of the world is supported entirely by a foundation of self‐justifying statements, none of which logically implies the existence of any physical object in that world. The only contingent statements to be found in the foundation, he maintained, are those that are “about our own psychological states and the ways we are ‘appeared to’.” It is a view that, as Chisholm was well aware, tallies poorly with our ordinary practice of justifying statements. We are typically happy to justify statements by ultimate appeal to what we have seen or heard; that is, by ultimate appeal to statements that logically imply that certain things in the world are as we take them to be. This essay examines how Chisholm sought to explain away this apparent disconfirmation of foundationalism by ordinary practice—in effect, how Chisholm responded to one of the chief criticisms of foundationalism launched by J. L. Austin. My suggestion will be that, when the dust clears, it is Austin who comes out ahead.     

Inarticulate Forgiveness

Influentially, Pamela Hieronymi has argued that any account of forgiveness must be both articulate and uncompromising. It must articulate the change in judgment that results in the forgiver's loss of resentment without excusing or justifying the misdeed, and without comprising a commitment to the transgressor's responsibility, the wrongness of the action, and the transgressed person's self‐worth. Non‐articulate accounts of forgiveness, which rely on indirect strategies for reducing resentment (for example, reflecting on the transgressor's bad childhood), are said to fail to explain forgiveness. This paper argues that the articulateness condition is not a necessary condition for forgiveness. It responds to numerous objections advanced against non‐articulate accounts, including the claim that the resentment‐mitigating practices they involve amount to excusing. Appealing to P. F. Strawson's distinction between objective and participant attitudes, it argues that forgivers can take transgressors to be detrimentally causally shaped by their past while holding them to be morally responsible.     

Reason,Representation, and Participation

This paper argues that the contrast between direct and representative democracy is less important than that between simple majoritarianism and deliberative i.e., public reason centred, democracy, as only the latter is sufficiently sensitive to the problem of domination. Having explored a range of arguments in favour of direct democracy it is argued that moves in this direction are only warranted when the practice of public reasoning will be enhanced. Both symbolic representation and delegate democracy are rejected in favour of substantive measures to formalise communication between voters and representatives and permit the formal contestation of political decision on the ground that these will provide stronger defences against domination within the political system.     

The original risk: overtheologizing ethics and undertheologizing sin.

The project of articulating a theological ethics on the basis of liturgical anthropology is bound to fail if the necessary consequence is that one has to quit the forum of critical modern rationality. The risk of Engelhardt's approach is to limit rationality to a narrow vision of reason. Sin is not to be understood as the negation of human holiness, but as the negation of divine holiness. The only way to renew theological ethics is to understand sin as the anthropological and ethical expression of the biblical message of the justification by faith only. Sin is therefore a secondary category, which can only by interpreted in light of the positive manifestation of liberation, justification, and grace. The central issue of Christian ethics is not ritual purity or morality, but experience, confession and recognition of our own injustice in our dealing with God and men.     

A Developmental Perspective of Marriage and Family Therapist's Ethical Principles: Support for the Practitioner–Ethics Relationship Model

This study explored therapists' professional ethics by assessing therapist at-risk behaviors as they relate to ethical proficiency in the field of Marriage and Family Therapy. A survey assessing practice behaviors was distributed among marriage and family therapists (MFTs) of varying levels of experience. Data gathered were analyzed using factor analysis, structural equation modeling, and multiple regression. Results indicate a positive relationship between the latent variables of risk and justification, as well as a significant relationship between these variables and years of clinical experience. Findings provide evidence to support the practitioner–ethics relationship model proposed by the authors. Implications of these findings, as well as future directions for research and policy are suggested.     

论道德的本真形态与派生形态

道德的本真形态是“天理”和“良心”,即普遍的、至高无上的实践法则及其在人心中的体现。道德要通过人的理论和实践体现出来,就需要实现道德的学理化和规范化,从而形成道德理论与社会规范两种道德的派生形态。     

Toleration and Cultural Controversies*

Multicultural societies are far more likely than others to include minorities committed to the pursuit of practices that offend the majority, and treating the cultural commitments of all citizens fairly will require some set of guiding principles to distinguish tolerable ‘cultural controversies’ from intolerable ones. This paper does not directly address the moral question at stake here (i.e. demarcating the limits of toleration) but rather seeks to provide a politically justifiable normative argument to explain when tolerant restraint is necessary, permissible or prohibited. This argument emerges from a concern to treat the cultural commitments of all citizens fairly. In turn, the argument indicates a potential reconciliation of the ‘politics of toleration’ with the ‘politics of respect’. *I would like to thank Stephen De Wijze, Hillel Steiner, Thomas Uebel, Peter Jones and Res Publica’s anonymous referees for their very helpful comments. I would also like to thank the ESRC for providing funding.     

Clases lógicas y colectivas: ¿Dos modos de organización jerárquica?

Resumen

Tras analizar los principios estructurales inherentes a las posibles formas de organización jerárquica de lo real, se pasa a comprobar empíricamente las diferencias de ejecución en tareas de inclusión, que se pueden encontrar en nuestros escolares, cuando la naturaleza de las relaciones parte-todo implícitas en las mismas se presenta bajo la forma de colecciones (referentes de nombres colectivos) o de clases (referentes de nombres genéricos). Los resultados no parecen evidenciar diferencias significativas en la resolución de problemas que impliquen jerarquización de relaciones (inclusión).     

An above real time training intervention for sport decision making

ObjectivesA speeded video-based decision-making training intervention was used to assess the impact of above real time training on decision-making skill in sport.Design and methodsThree groups completed pre tests and either five weeks of fast speed video training, normal speed video training or no training, followed by a post test and two retention tests in subsequent weeks. Decision accuracy was measured by awarding three, two, one, or no point(s) based on independent coach ratings of each situation.ResultsResults revealed that those trained in above real time improved performance earlier in the training intervention compared to those trained in normal speed. The above real time group also retained more of the performance improvements. The transfer test for decision accuracy showed improvement following the training intervention for all groups, trends in the data reflected a higher retention rate for the fast speed group choosing the bet option more frequently than normal and control groups.ConclusionsThe results lend support to the general use of video-based decision-making training for team invasion sports. A greater impact is that they provide a new paradigm by adapting above real time training to decision making, to create a more game-like training scenario.     

决策评估中的结果偏差

结果偏差又称结果效应,它是发生在决策评估中的一种偏差式判断,即当决策结果与决策质量不存在实质性联系时,评估者仍根据结果信息评估决策质量.针对这一判断谬误的产生根源,研究者们提出了认知解释和申辩模型.结果偏差的影响因素主要包括动机、情境因素和评估手段等.基于先前研究存在的问题和不足,今后的研究应着眼于改进研究手段,理清与其他现象的关系并提出有效的应对策略.