Ex-Ante Prioritarianism Violates Sequential Ex-Ante Pareto

Prioritarianism is a variant of utilitarianism. It differs from utilitarianism in that benefiting individuals matters more the worse off these individuals are. On this view, there are two standard ways of handling risky prospects: Ex-Post Prioritarianism adjusts for prioritizing the worse off in final outcomes and then values prospects by the expectation of the sum total of those adjusted values, whereas Ex-Ante Prioritarianism adjusts for prioritizing the worse off on each individual's expectation and then values prospects by the sum total of those adjusted expectations. A standard objection to Ex-Post Prioritarianism is that it violates Ex-Ante Pareto, that is, it prescribes choices that worsen the expectations for everyone. In this article, I argue that Ex-Ante Prioritarianism suffers from much the same problem: it violates a sequential version of Ex-Ante Pareto, that is, it prescribes sequences of choices that worsen the expectations for everyone.

The Levelling-Down Objection and the additive measure of the badness of inequality

The Levelling-Down Objection is a standard objection to monistic egalitarian theories where equality is the only thing that has intrinsic value. Most egalitarians, however, are value pluralists; they hold that, in addition to equality being intrinsically valuable, the egalitarian currency in which we are equal or unequal is also intrinsically valuable. In this paper, I argue that the Levelling-Down Objection still minimizes the weight that the intrinsic badness of inequality could have in the overall intrinsic evaluation of outcomes, given a certain way of measuring the badness of inequality, namely, the Additive Individual-Complaints Measure.

Freedom as critique: Foucault beyond anarchism

Foucault’s theory of power and subjectification challenges common concepts of freedom in social philosophy and expands them through the concept of ‘freedom as critique’: Freedom can be defined as the capability to critically reflect upon one’s own subjectification, and the conditions of possibility for this critical capacity lie in political and social institutions. The article develops this concept through a critical discussion of the standard response by Foucault interpreters to the standard objection that Foucault’s thinking obscures freedom. The standard response interprets Foucault’s later works, especially The Subject and Power, as a solution to the problem of freedom. It is mistaken, because it conflates different concepts of freedom that are present in Foucault’s work. By differentiating these concepts, this article proposes a new institutionalist approach to solve the problem of freedom that breaks with the partly anarchist underpinnings of Foucault scholarship: As freedom as critique is not given, but itself a result of subjectification, it entails a demand for ‘modal robustness’ and must therefore be institutionalized. This approach helps to draw out the consequences of Foucault’s thinking on freedom for postfoundationalist democratic theory and the general social-philosophical discussion about freedom.

Neurointerventions and Penal Reductions

This chapter considers the possibility of offering reduced prison terms to offenders who accept undergoing some sort of neurointervention. The standard objection has been that such treatment is basically coercive. This objection is discussed. Furthermore, the chapter examines other potential objections; to wit, that treatment-conditioned penal reductions constitute either exploitation of the offender or a sort of morally inappropriate offer. The final part of the chapter deals with an aspect of the discussion which has been almost entirely absent in the controversy on ‘coercive’ treatment, namely, the way in which the ethical assessment of such treatment is contingent on penal theoretical considerations.

Contextualism, Moral Disagreement, and Proposition Clouds

According to contextualist theories in metaethics, when a moral term is used in a context, the context plays an ineliminable part in determining what natural property will be the semantic value of the term. Furthermore, on subjectivist and relativist versions of these views, it is either the speaker’s own moral code or her moral community’s moral code that constitutes the reference-fixing context. One standard objection to views of this type is that they fail to enable disagreement in ordinary conversations. Chapter 3 develops a new response to this objection on the basis of Kai von Fintel and Anthony Gillies’s notion of proposition clouds. It is argued that, because we live in a multicultural society, the conversational contexts we face will fail to disambiguate between all the things we could mean. This is why we can at best put into play proposition clouds when we make moral utterances. All the propositions in such clouds are then available for rejection and acceptance on behalf of our audiences. The norms of conversation then guide us to make informative contributions to the conversation—accept and reject propositions in a way that leads to coordination of action and choice.

Self-Other Asymmetry

In this paper, I present a non standard objection to moral impartialism. My idea is that moral impartialism is questionable when it is committed to a principle we have reasons to reject: the principle of self-other symmetry. According to the utilitarian version of the principle, the benefits and harms to the agent are exactly as relevant to the global evaluation of the goodness of his action as the benefits and harms to any other agent. But this view sits badly with the “Harm principle” which stresses the difference between harm to others and harm to the self. According to the deontological version, we have moral duties to ourselves which are exactly symmetrical to our duties to others. But there are reasons to believe that the idea of a duty to the self is not coherent.

Utilitarianism and the idea of university: A short ethical analysis

The standard objection to the utilitarian vision of morality is that utilitarian so-called ?Greatest-Happiness Principle? could justify counter-intuitive practices such as punishing and sacrifice of innocents, breaking of promises and manipulation. The underlying presumption is that the greatest cause (general utility, ?happiness?) must be capable of justifying causing suffering of the few. The fact is that, in the upbringing and education of humans (children), some degree of manipulation is needed. Instead, in that process, we use concepts which belong to deontological prescriptions (?obligations,? ?duties?) such as ?Do not lie? or ?Do not steal.? Our question is: Can we imagine the University guided by the simple utility principle. We must remember that a University is for adults, not for children. Why now not be open and at the University say that everything we do we do for the sake of hedonistic ?happiness,? not for the sake of duty. That seems suspicious for several reasons. Maybe the most noteworthy objection is that Mill?s version of the utilitarianism tends to divide humanity into two classes: moral aristocracy, which seeks ?higher pleasures,? and others who do not. Does that mean that utilitarians must organize secret utilitarian universities for moral aristocracy? Does it mean that moral aristocracy, according to the utility principle, should organize ?deontological,? manipulative public universities for lower classes?

Public Justification, Inclusion, and Discursive Equality

The paper challenges the view that public justification sits well with emancipatory and egalitarian intuitions. I engage political liberalism’s view of public justification. A standard objection to this view is that public justification should be more inclusive in scope. This is both plausible and problematic in emancipatory and egalitarian terms. If inclusive public justification allocates discursive standing that has much discursive purchase, as seems desirable in emancipatory terms, it is unable to allocate equal discursive standing within relevant scopes. And, if it must allocate equal discursive standing, discursive equality should be construed in terms that allow for unequal discursive purchase.

Locke on Knowledge of Existence

The standard objection to Locke’s epistemology is that his conception of knowledge inevitably leads to skepticism about external objects. One reason for this complaint is that Locke defines knowledge as the perception of a relation between ideas, but perceiving relations between ideas does not seem like the kind of thing that can give us knowledge that tables and chairs exist. Thus Locke’s general definition of knowledge seems to be woefully inadequate for explaining knowledge of external objects. However, this interpretation and subsequent criticism ignore a special category of knowledge Locke calls ‘real knowledge’, which is Locke’s own account of how we can have knowledge of the real world. Rather than evaluating whether Locke’s definition of knowledge in general can get us knowledge of external objects, we should instead focus our attention on whether Locke’s account of real knowledge can explain how we have knowledge of external objects.

Intuitive Maximin

One standard objection to familiar utilitarian consequentialism queries its troubling commitment to the maximization of overall value irrespective of distribution, for instance among the well and badly off. Call this ‘the objection from distribution.'The simplest and most obvious alternative form of consequentialism deploys some sort of maximin principle. Maximin principles maximize the well-being of the worst off. Lexical maximin rules in particular, which are perhaps the simplest and most obvious subtype, maximize first the well-being of the worst-off, and then in case of ties among the worst-off, maximize the well-being of the second worst-off, and so forth. Maximin principles provide an obvious route to the unification of plausible concerns with maximization and with distributional equity.