Conflicts and Cooperation in Act Consequentialism

There are circumstances—involving conjunctive acts at a time or over time or the conjunction of acts of different agents—that threaten act consequentialism with self-defeat. There are also variants of act consequentialism—including consequentialist generalization, generalized act consequentialism, multiple-act consequentialism, cooperative consequentialism, and modally robust act consequentialism—that promise a more plausible treatment of circumstances in which cooperation is important than traditional act consequentialism. Links among these issues are explored. Attention to the nature of the normative conflicts occasioned by consequentialist assessment of actions can help reveal an important and useful variety of forms of, and resources for, act consequentialism. Its structure is not as simple as it may initially seem.

Zasada aglomeracji i dylematy moralne

A Deontic Logic for Normative DilemmasAbstract: Standard deontic logic does not tolerate normative conflicts. If we assume that one ought to do A and ought to do B, but cannot do them both, we get a contradiction within deontic logic. Philosophers who deny that there could be genuine moral dilemmas treat this fact as the proof that dilemmas are logically impossible. At the same time, the advocates of the possibility of moral dilemmas propose to reject or restrict standard deontic principles. What consequences does it have for the resulting logic? Some of them are too strong because they contain the theorem of normative triviality or “deontic explosion,” which says that if there is any case of normative conflict, then everything is obligatory. On the other hand, some of them are too weak, since they are not able to validate more important deontic inferences especially the Smith Argument. Lou Goble introduces three criteria of adequacy that any deontic logic should meet if it is to accommodate normative conflicts successfully. First, I present these conditions and then I introduce a new logic of ought that fully meets all of them.

(Un-)Sicherheit, (In-)Konsistenz und vielerlei Maß

This paper deals with normative statements in interviews concerning the use of languages and varieties in university. A corpus of 123 interviews with teachers, students and administrative staff was used to investigate within an interactional approach the relation between the form of normative statements, the norms they refer to and the interactional situation in the interviews. This article shows by means of three exemplary analyses that the expression of normative expectations / evaluations is highly dependent not only on the validity, salience and effectiveness of the norms in question, but also on the interview situation itself. Seen as a social practice and not just as an instrument of elicitating attitudes and other metalinguistic data, the interview becomes a showcase of the interconnection of normative phenomena (norms, values, attitudes …), normative conflicts and their negotiation.

The Rationally Supererogatory

The notion of supererogation—going above and beyond the call of duty—is typically discussed in a moral context. However, in this paper we argue for the existence of rationally supererogatory actions: that is, actions that go above and beyond the call of rational duty. In order to establish the existence of such actions, we first need to overcome the so-called paradox of supererogation: we need to provide some explanation for why, if some act is rationally optimal, it is not the case that we are rationally required to carry out that act. We argue that a response to this ‘paradox’ can be found by reflecting on normative conflicts: cases where what is best according to some normative domain is different from what is best according to some other normative domain.

The Interplay of Investment Law and International Humanitarian Law

This chapter examines the interplay of investment law and international humanitarian law. It rebuts the popular doctrinal views that the interaction between the two legal regimes is likely to give rise to normative conflicts, with international humanitarian law displacing investment law. By analysing AAPL v Sri Lanka award, it demonstrates how the norms in the respective regimes co-exist and complement each other. In particular, it shows how the duty to exercise due diligence in targeting operations (including the use of precautions and the principle of proportionality) overlaps in different legal frameworks. It thereby highlights the potential of investment tribunals to contribute to more humane conduct in hostilities. It concludes with a systemic overview of methods for minimising normative tensions between different normative systems.

A ANTINOMIA REAL E A POLÊMICA DO DIÁLOGO DAS FONTES

RESUMONeste artigo, apenas, traçaremos considerações científicas ou técnicas sobre a questão dos conflitos normativos e da polêmica criada pela teoria do diálogo das fontes de Erik Jayme, temas que engendram complexidade por não estarem bem estruturados doutrinariamente. Ante a impossibilidade de o legislador conhecer todas as normas existentes no ordenamento jurídico é plausível a edição de normas antinômicas. A existência de conflitos normativos consiste num convite para esclarecer não só os limites e as funções do jurista e do aplicador em prol da solução das antinomias aparentes, e reais, mas também o papel exercido pelo dialogo das fontes na interpretação corretiva.PALAVRAS-CHAVES: Antinomia aparente; Antinomia real; Critérios e metacritérios solucionadores; Diálogo das fontes; Interpretação corretivo; equitativa.ABSTRACTIn this article, we will only draw scientific or technical considerations on the issue of normative conflicts and the controversy created by Erik Jayme's theory about the dialogue of sources, themes that engender complexity because they are not well structured doctrinally. Given the impossibility of the legislator to know all the existing norms in the legal system, it is plausible to issue antinomic norms. The existence of normative conflicts consists of an invitation to clarify not only the limits and functions of the jurist and the applicator in favor of the solution of the apparent and real antinomies but also the role played by the dialogue of sources in the corrective interpretation.KEYWORDS: Apparent antinomy; Real antinomy; Solving criteria and metacriteria; Dialogue of sources; Corrective; equitable interpretation.