Time to Conceive: a New Argument for the Possibility of Time Travel

<p>Ordinarily, philosophers arguing for the possibility of time travel restrict themselves to defending time travel against allegations of inconsistency and contradiction. These objections are usually based on particular theories about time and causality. I believe, however, that this way of arguing can be turned on its head. By using the conceivability thesis – that is, the thesis that if something is conceivable, then it is also possible – we can put forward a positive argument for the possibility of time travel, and then consider how this should inform our metaphysical views. I do this by assuming the truth of the conceivability thesis and then presenting a simple piece of time travel fiction. I argue for the conceivability of this story and, in doing so, attempt to show that the time travel journey it describes is logically possible. I then develop this argument by considering other more controversial cases of time travel. I make minor alterations to the original time travel story in order to show that there are a number of different kinds of time travel journeys (including cases of both forwards and backwards time travel) which are conceivable and, therefore, logically possible. Finally, I ask how the conceivability of different types of time travel should affect the metaphysical views we choose to adopt. I argue that since the conceivability of time travel entails the logical possibility of journeys to other times, any plausible theory of time must be able to accommodate such journeys. I also explain how the conceivability of time travel entails the logical possibility of two particularly unusual cases of causation. I argue that the conceivability of instantaneous time travel entails the logical possibility of causation at a distance, and that the conceivability of backwards time travel entails the logical possibility of backwards causation. Any plausible theory of causation must therefore be able to account for the possibility of these two types of causation. I consider one particular theory of causation which does not (namely, that put forward by D.H. Mellor), and then attempt to establish where it goes wrong.</p>

Time to Conceive: a New Argument for the Possibility of Time Travel

<p>Ordinarily, philosophers arguing for the possibility of time travel restrict themselves to defending time travel against allegations of inconsistency and contradiction. These objections are usually based on particular theories about time and causality. I believe, however, that this way of arguing can be turned on its head. By using the conceivability thesis – that is, the thesis that if something is conceivable, then it is also possible – we can put forward a positive argument for the possibility of time travel, and then consider how this should inform our metaphysical views. I do this by assuming the truth of the conceivability thesis and then presenting a simple piece of time travel fiction. I argue for the conceivability of this story and, in doing so, attempt to show that the time travel journey it describes is logically possible. I then develop this argument by considering other more controversial cases of time travel. I make minor alterations to the original time travel story in order to show that there are a number of different kinds of time travel journeys (including cases of both forwards and backwards time travel) which are conceivable and, therefore, logically possible. Finally, I ask how the conceivability of different types of time travel should affect the metaphysical views we choose to adopt. I argue that since the conceivability of time travel entails the logical possibility of journeys to other times, any plausible theory of time must be able to accommodate such journeys. I also explain how the conceivability of time travel entails the logical possibility of two particularly unusual cases of causation. I argue that the conceivability of instantaneous time travel entails the logical possibility of causation at a distance, and that the conceivability of backwards time travel entails the logical possibility of backwards causation. Any plausible theory of causation must therefore be able to account for the possibility of these two types of causation. I consider one particular theory of causation which does not (namely, that put forward by D.H. Mellor), and then attempt to establish where it goes wrong.</p>

Medical Ethics: Uncommon Morality and the Implications for Medical Ethics Education

"Common morality has been the touchstone for addressing issues of medical ethics since the publication of Beauchamp and Childress’s Principles of Biomedical Ethics in 1979. In my presentation, I will challenge that reigning view by presenting two arguments. The negative argument shows why common morality cannot be the ethics of medicine. The positive argument explains why medical professions require their own ethics. I will then explain medicine’s distinctive ethics in terms of the trust that society allows to the profession. By distinguishing roles from professions, I will explicate sixteen specific duties that medical professionals undertake when they join the profession. My derivation of medicine’s distinctive ethics begins with a thought experiment demonstrating that trust is at the core of medical practice. Society allows doctors to develop special knowledge and skills and allows them to employ special powers, privileges, and immunities that could be particularly dangerous to members of society. Society, therefore, has to be assured that professional’s use of their remarkable powers and privileges will be constrained to their intended use. Professions’ publically declared codes and oaths go a long way to engender public confidence in medical professionals. Medical education must complete the job by helping our trainees understand their professional obligations and become clinicians who uphold their profession’s ethics. Medical educators therefor have to help our students comprehend and internalize their duty to “seek trust and be deserving of it,” and uphold their fiduciary responsibility to “use medical knowledge, skills, powers and privileges for the benefit of patients and society.” "

Introduction

In the Introduction, the main questions and line of argument of this work are outlined. A summary of the critical part of this work is presented, the focus of which is on improving upon Parfit’s “Divergence Argument” for the thesis that identity is not what matters in survival, but showing that this argument still fails. Second, the positive argument of this work, the “triviality argument,” is outlined. This argument appeals to the idea that the important cannot depend on the trivial. According this argument, identity never matters in survival but neither does any other relation. The result is what I call “survival nihilism.”

The Logic of Showing Possibility Claims: A Positive Argument for Inclusive Legal Positivism and Moral Grounds of Law / trans. from English V. V. Ogleznev, D. V. Shvedov

In this essay, I argue for a view that inclusive positivists share with Ronald Dworkin. According to the Moral Incorporation Thesis (MIT), it is logically possible for a legal system to incorporate moral criteria of legality (or ‘grounds of law’, as Dworkin puts it). Up to this point, the debate has taken the shape of attacks on the coherence of MIT with the defender of MIT merely attempting to refute the attacking argument. I give a positive argument for MIT. I begin with an explanation of the logic of establishing possibility claims, such as MIT. At the outset, it is worth noting that the logic of establishing possibility claims is very different from the logic of establishing contingent descriptive claims or necessary claims. For this reason, some explication of the relevant features of the semantics of modal logic will be necessary here. Once the structural framework is adequately developed, the argument for MIT will be grounded on the strength of a thought experiment of a surprisingly simple kind. Indeed, the argument is inspired by a Razian argument for the possibility of a legal system without coercive enforcement machinery; on his view, a society of angels could still have a system of law without any coercive machinery. My argument will possess two theoretically important qualities that are also possessed by Raz’s powerfully simple, but ultimately unsuccessful, argument.

Nothing to be ashamed of: sex robots for older adults with disabilities

This paper spotlights ways in which sexual capacities relate to central human capabilities, such as the ability to generate a personally meaningful story of one’s life; be physically, mentally and emotionally healthy; experience bodily integrity; affiliate and bond with others; feel and express a range of human emotions; and choose a plan of life. It sets forth a dignity-based argument for affording older people access to sex robots as part of reasonable efforts to support their central human capabilities at a floor level. The argument develops stepwise: (1) first, I dispel ageism and negative stereotypes about later-life sexuality, showing their deep historical roots in medicine and science; (2) second, I set forth a positive argument, grounded in capability accounts of justice, for deploying sex robots for older people with disabilities; (3) finally, after responding to objections, I conclude that sex robots are a reasonable way to support later-life sexuality for persons with disabilities. While often depicted as a product for younger, able-bodied people, this paper is a bid for reimagining sex robots as a product for older, disabled people.

Maximizing Expected Choiceworthiness

In this chapter we argue that, in conditions of interval-scale measurability and unit-comparability, one should maximize expected choice worthiness. Though this position has often been suggested in the literature and is often taken to be the ‘default’ view, it has so far received little in the way of positive argument in its favour. We start, in section I, by providing new arguments against two rival theories that have been proposed in the literature—the accounts which we call My Favourite Theory and My Favourite Option. Then we give a novel argument for the view that, under moral uncertainty, one should take into account both probabilities of different theories and magnitudes of choice-worthiness. Finally, we argue in favour of maximizing expected choice-worthiness (MEC).

Introduction

Hope presents a duality where it creates both sustaining promise for the future and vulnerability to those acting on this promise. There is a need to understand how hope can be taken advantage of or exploited while still acknowledging the power and importance of sustained hope. This introduction provides background on the concept of exploitation and outlines the structure of the book. It surveys various accounts of the wrongness of exploitation, grounded both in interpretations of Marx’s concept of exploitation and contemporary authors. Exploitation can be understood as a form of unfairness in specific transactions and exchanges, unfairness stemming from unjust background conditions, or a failure to express appropriate respect for others. While these accounts each capture dimensions of exploitation, this introduction makes the positive argument that exploitation – including the exploitation of hope – consists most fully of a form of disrespect for others, namely taking advantage of a partial entrustment of another person’s well-being.

Medical Ethics: Common or Uncommon Morality?

This paper challenges the long-standing and widely accepted view that medical ethics is nothing more than common morality applied to clinical matters. It argues against Tom Beauchamp and James Childress’s four principles; Bernard Gert, K. Danner Clouser and Charles Culver’s ten rules; and Albert Jonsen, Mark Siegler, and William Winslade’s four topics approaches to medical ethics. First, a negative argument shows that common morality does not provide an account of medical ethics and then a positive argument demonstrates why the medical profession requires its own distinctive ethics. The paper also provides a way to distinguish roles and professions and an account of the distinctive duties of medical ethics. It concludes by emphasizing ways in which the uncommon morality approach to medical ethics is markedly different from the common morality approach.

Kenelm Digby on Quantity as Divisibility

Kenelm Digby’s Two Treatises, of the Nature of Bodies and of the Nature of Mans Soule (1644) defends quite an idiosyncratic approach to mind-body dualism. In his use of the divisibility argument to prove that the human soul cannot be a material substance, Digby takes an uncompromising stand for merely potential material parts. In his Treatise of Bodies the present article focuses on the mode of construction of the definition of quantity as divisibility and on its links to two distinct fundamental arguments against the actual material parts doctrine. The first, positive, argument consists of a semantic reason drawn from Digby’s general doctrine of meaning, whereas the second, negative, argument, addresses the traditional question of the composition of the continuum. The latter, the author contends, does not build on the medieval controversy itself, but on Digby’s opposition to Galileo’s claim of indivisibilism in his Dialogues Concerning Two Sciences (1638).