The Applied Ethics and Habits of Compassionate Reasoning

Questions are more important than answers, since they open the mind and strengthen the imagination. The mind imagines the lives of others, the lives of strangers, and better societies. Compassionate Reasoning focuses on eliciting open questions, relationship building, active listening, and moral debate. Neuroscience demonstrates the essential role of repetition in the cultivation of prosocial neural pathways and habits. Modern education has failed thus far to invest in habits that generate reasoning in the service of compassion. Training in science and technology is only as useful as the compassionate lifestyle that it sustains. Without lifelong compassion education and training, STEM can create monstrous economics and dangerous technology. Compassionate societies are sustainable, whereas selfish societies often self-destruct. The more you give with compassion, the healthier you become. Compassionate Reasoning is a liberation from a selfish worldview, and it opens up the person to a flourishing life of service, health, and wisdom.

Prudential Normativity, Moral Scepticisms, and Metaethics

In earlier chapters it was argued that prudential value gives agents normative, prudential reasons and that prudential judgements are normative judgements on a par with moral judgements. This chapter spells out some ramifications of these theses by examining four different areas of inquiry about morality and moral discourse, showing how the theses hitherto defended in this book affect them. It begins with the form of moral scepticism found within the ‘why be moral?’ debate. It then examines hermeneutic moral error theory and proposes a companions-in-guilt argument based on the normativity of prudential discourse. Third, it examines arguments given within the literature on revisionary metaethical views, pointing out and questioning their commitment to prudential justifications. Finally, it is shown how the normativity of prudential properties applies to a central debate about thick concepts, that between reductionists and non-reductionists about such concepts.

The Justificatory Argument for Redistribution and Welfare State

There is a dispute between welfare liberals and libertarians about whether redistribution of wealth is a rights violation. Welfare liberals believe that a state should redistribute income and wealth. In contrast, libertarians think redistribution is an intervention and a rights violation to the people who earn money in a free market by their inheritance or gifts. In the debate between Rawls and Nozick, there are two main disagreements about the liberty of whom and to what extent natural talents should be considered a shared asset by a state. MacIntyre thinks that Rawls and Nozick’s moral debate is meaningless since there is conceptual incommensurability of the rival arguments in it. His resolution offers a virtue ethics perspective to be a reconciliation, which fails to provide a universal moral principle in a multicultural world. However, a new way to understand the concept of labor seems to give a justificatory argument for redistribution and welfare state.

‘It was then I knew life’: Political Critique and Moral Debate in Teresa Deevy's Temporal Powers (1932)

This article argues that Teresa Deevy's early plays for the Abbey Theatre deliberately intervened in the cultural politics of the Irish Free State. While the focus here is on Temporal Powers (1932), Deevy's first two Abbey productions, The Reapers (1930) and A Disciple (1931), are also considered. Taken together, this article demonstrates how these plays present a striking critique of the new state under the Cumann na nGaedhael administration. Set in 1927, during the Land Annuities crisis, Temporal Powers meditates on the relationship of poor tenant labourers to the land and society they inhabit. In it, Deevy explores themes such as eviction, homelessness, emigration, justice, religion, grief, and poverty. This article introduces this little-known play, contextualises it, and discusses her treatment of key themes through an examination of characters, Shavian influences, dramatic structure and form.

Fair Trade and the Political Economy of Brandy Smuggling In Early Eighteenth-Century Britain*

Thomas Ellis, merchant of London, never expected he would be prosecuted for participating in one of the largest commercial frauds of his time. So when the Customs seized his brandy in 1731 he fought back. His case would influence parliamentary decision-making and reveal the extensive involvement of merchants in illicit trade. Ellis’s argument that he was merely a ‘fair trader’ also illuminates the moral debate over smuggling during the period as governments sought to legitimize and enforce their trading rules and tariffs. Pressured by competition from professional smugglers and the revenue demands of the state, merchants responded by developing their own rules by which they could fairly compete. Ellis’s story, and the ‘Flemish scheme’ it exposed, thereby shed light on the moral economy of early modern capitalism, the history of smuggling, and the dynamic of market ordering by increasingly assertive states.

Data-Driven Dialogue Models: Applying Formal and Computational Tools to the Study of Financial And Moral Dialogues

This paper proposes two formal models for understanding real-life dialogues, aimed at capturing argumentative structures performatively enacted during conversations. In the course of the investigation, two types of discourse with a high degree of well-structured argumentation were chosen: moral debate and financial communication. The research project found itself confronted by a need to analyse, structure and formally describe large volumes of textual data, where this called for the application of computational tools. It is expected that the results of the proposed research will make a contribution to formal systems modelling and the evaluation of communication from the point of view of argument soundness.