scholarly journals Mere Addition and the Separateness of Persons

2015 ◽  
Vol 112 (8) ◽  
pp. 442-455
Author(s):  
Matthew Rendall ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammad Khurram Khan ◽  
Saru Kumari

The authors review the biometrics-based user authentication scheme proposed by An in 2012. The authors show that there exist loopholes in the scheme which are detrimental for its security. Therefore the authors propose an improved scheme eradicating the flaws of An’s scheme. Then a detailed security analysis of the proposed scheme is presented followed by its efficiency comparison. The proposed scheme not only withstands security problems found in An’s scheme but also provides some extra features with mere addition of only two hash operations. The proposed scheme allows user to freely change his password and also provides user anonymity with untraceability.


2013 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 210-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bryan Garsten

In his account of how each of us deliberates about what to do, Aristotle remarks that we do not always trust ourselves on important matters and so sometimes take counsel from others. Taking counsel from others is, in some ways, merely an expansion of the internal activity of deliberation; the suggestions come from other people rather than from our ownminds, but the judgment about them remains our own. In other ways, however, taking counsel is quite different from deliberating with oneself. These differences are the subject matter of the art of rhetoric, as Aristotle understands it. The paper compares the political relationship at work in deliberative rhetoric with slavery, which collapses the separateness of persons, and with friendship, which preserves it. And suggests that the importance of anger in Aristotle’s treatment of rhetoric can be understood as a reflection on the implications of human separateness.


2020 ◽  
pp. 155-175
Author(s):  
Barbara H. Fried

Rawls’s Theory of Justice has had two parallel lives in political theory. The first—the version Rawls wrote—is a response to utilitarianism’s failure to take seriously the separateness of persons. The second—the unwritten version “received” by its general audience—is a response to libertarianism’s failure to take seriously our moral obligations to the well-being of our fellow citizens. This chapter explores how, had he written the second version, Rawls might have dealt with libertarians’ critique of “justice as fairness” as fundamentally illiberal, and how his two principles might have been transformed in the process.


Author(s):  
Albert Weale

Social contract theory arose as a response to the twilight of utilitarianism. For many years utilitarianism had been seen as a political philosophy of human emancipation. Like social contract theory, utilitarianism was a critical and rationalistic morality. However, it was judged incapable of recognizing the separateness of persons, the claim by each person to be treated with justice. Utilitarianism defined the good in terms of pleasure, conceived in a naturalistic way. It regarded pleasure as the guide to choice. It promised to provide an intellectual framework within which everyday intuitive morality could be rendered consistent. And it sought to ground action in practical reasoning about the promotion of the good. However, these distinctive elements came under challenge. With the rise of modern utility theory, pleasure was no longer thought of as the guide to choice. Pleasure was no longer conceived as the sole good. Doubts were raised about the extent to which the principle of utility could explicate the principle of justice. And even utilitarianism had to concede the dualism of practical reason. One response was the rise of intuitionism in the early part of the twentieth century. Another response was the rise of social contract theory, as discussed in this book.


2000 ◽  
Vol 279 (2) ◽  
pp. H702-H708 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Peter Hermann ◽  
Oliver Zeitz ◽  
Boris Keweloh ◽  
Gerd Hasenfuss ◽  
Paul M. L. Janssen

Catecholamines and elevated extracellular Ca2+concentration ([Ca2+]o) augment contractile force by increased Ca2+ influx and subsequent increased sarcoplasmic reticulum (SR) Ca2+ release. We tested the hypothesis that pyruvate potentiates Ca2+ release and inotropic response to isoproterenol and elevated [Ca2+]o, since this might be of potential importance in a clinical setting to circumvent deleterious effects on energy demand during application of catecholamines. Therefore, we investigated isometrically contracting myocardial preparations from rabbit hearts at 37°C, pH 7.4, and a stimulation frequency of 1 Hz. At a [Ca2+]o of 1.25 mM, pyruvate (10 mM) alone increased developed force (Fdev) from 1.89 ± 0.42 to 3.62 ± 0.62 (SE) mN/mm2 ( n = 8, P < 0.05) and isoproterenol (10−6 M) alone increased Fdev from 2.06 ± 0.55 to 25.11 ± 2.1 mN/mm2 ( P < 0.05), whereas the combination of isoproterenol and pyruvate increased Fdevoverproportionally from 1.89 ± 0.42 to 33.31 ± 3.18 mN/mm2 ( P < 0.05). In a separate series of experiments, we assessed SR Ca2+ content by means of rapid cooling contractures and observed that, despite no further increase in Fdev by increasing [Ca2+]o from 8 to 16 mM, 10 mM pyruvate could still increase Fdev from 26.4 ± 6.8 to 29.7 ± 7.1 mN/mm2( P < 0.05, n = 9) as well as the Ca2+ load of the SR. The results show that the positive inotropic effects of pyruvate potentiate the inotropic effects of isoproterenol or Ca2+, because in the presence of pyruvate, Ca2+ and isoproterenol induced larger increases in inotropy than can be calculated by mere addition of the individual effects.


2018 ◽  
Vol 69 (274) ◽  
pp. 142-155
Author(s):  
Shlomi Segall

1989 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yew-Kwang Ng

Parfit's requirements for an ideal Theory X cannot be fully met since the Mere Addition Principle and Non-Antiegalitarianism imply the Repugnant Conclusion: Theory X does not exist. However, since the Repugnant Conclusion is really compelling, the Impersonal Total Principle should be adopted for impartial comparisons concerning future generations. Nevertheless, where our own interests are affected, we may yet choose to be partial, trading off our concern for future (or others') goodness with our self-interests. Theory X' (maximization of number-dampened total utility) meets all Parfit's requirements except the Mere Addition Principle in less compelling cases.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document