PHILOSOPHY最新文献_第8页

Respect for Nature, Respect for Persons, Respect for Value 尊重自然，尊重人，尊重价值

IF 1 2区哲学

PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-07-01 DOI: 10.1017/S0031819122000237

Jeffrey Seidman

引用次数: 0

Being Evil by Luke Russell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020). 卢克·拉塞尔的《邪恶》（牛津：牛津大学出版社，2020）。

IF 1 2区哲学

PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-06-24 DOI: 10.1017/S0031819122000134

Diane Jeske

{"title":"Being Evil by Luke Russell (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020).","authors":"Diane Jeske","doi":"10.1017/S0031819122000134","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0031819122000134","url":null,"abstract":"Luke Russell’s Being Evil is an extraordinarily clear and succinct presentation of the leading accounts of the nature of evil action. Russell surveys these theories, offering concise criticisms of each, thereby paving the way for a defense of his own view according to which evil actions are just extreme cases of certain types of wrongdoing. The clarity and range of Russell’s discussion, in conjunction with the brevity of the book – the text itself is only 127 short pages –make it an excellent choice for someone wanting a quick overview of the field with some critical content, an accompaniment to an undergraduate course on the topic, or as a unit in amorewide-ranging ethics course. Russell notes that there are some who think that we should get rid of the concept of evil because it is a ‘myth’ requiring supernatural commitments to some sort of demonic entities. Thus, he says, ‘those...whowant to defend this concept are required to give a plausible and informative definition of evil, and to show that this definition accurately describes some things in the real world’ (p. 45). Beginning in Chapter 2 he surveys accounts of evil which see it as qualitatively different from ‘ordinary wrong-doing,’ accounts which attempt to locate that qualitative difference in either (i) our reactions to the action, (ii) the psychology of the agent, or (iii) the nature of the harm caused by the action (p. 45). In responding to each of these appeals to some special feature that marks off evil actions from non-evil wrongdoing, Russell progresses through several versions, refining them until he reaches a final version. I will discuss his general objections to appeals to each of the three features that have been suggested as possible candidates for what makes a qualitative difference between evil and ordinary wrong-doing. Chapter 2 discusses ‘response-dependent’ accounts of evil action, i.e. accounts which hold ‘that the qualitative difference that marks out evil actions is a distinctive response from victims or third-party observers’ (p. 43). Such a response might be emotive (horror or","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"97 1","pages":"545 - 548"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45678074","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

The Women Are up to Something: How Elizabeth Anscombe, Philippa Foot, Mary Midgley, and Iris Murdoch Revolutionized Ethics by Benjamin Lipscomb (New York: Oxford University Press, 2021). 本杰明·利普斯科姆（Benjamin Lipscomb）著《女人在做什么：伊丽莎白·安斯科姆、菲利帕·富特、玛丽·米德利和艾瑞斯·默多克如何革命道德》（The Women Are to Something:How Elizabeth Anscombe，Philippa Foot，Mary Midgley，and Iris Murdoch Revolutiond Ethics）（纽约：牛津大学出版社。

IF 1 2区哲学

PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-06-16 DOI: 10.1017/s0031819122000122

Cathy Mason

引用次数: 0

Spinoza's Religion: A New Reading of the Ethics by Clare Carlisle (Princeton University Press, 2021). 斯宾诺莎的宗教:克莱尔·卡莱尔的伦理学新解读(普林斯顿大学出版社，2021年)。

IF 1 2区哲学

PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-06-15 DOI: 10.1017/S0031819122000171

B. Lord

引用次数: 0

A Reformed Division of Labor for the Science of Well-Being 福利科学改革后的劳动分工

IF 1 2区哲学

PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-05-06 DOI: 10.1017/S0031819122000092

Roberto Fumagalli

引用次数: 3

Confronting Leviathan: A History of Ideas by David Runciman (London: Profile Books). 面对利维坦:大卫·朗西曼的思想史(伦敦:Profile Books)。

IF 1 2区哲学

PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-04-26 DOI: 10.1017/s0031819122000109

James Alexander

引用次数: 1

PHI volume 97 issue 2 Cover and Front matter PHI卷97第2期封面和前面的问题

IF 1 2区哲学

PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI: 10.1017/s0031819122000079

引用次数: 0

PHI volume 97 issue 2 Cover and Back matter PHI第97卷第2期封面和封底

IF 1 2区哲学

PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-04-01 DOI: 10.1017/s0031819122000080

引用次数: 0

In reply. 在回答。

IF 1 2区哲学

PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-03-18 DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0045

R. Hackenberg, K. Welle

{"title":"In reply.","authors":"R. Hackenberg, K. Welle","doi":"10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0045","url":null,"abstract":"coronary syndromes (VIP trial) and high-risk PTCA (COURT trial), the latter not quoted by the authors. Both studies showed that there was no difference in terms of major cardiac events (VIP trial) or even a 45% reduction with a non-ionic contrast medium (iodixanol) when compared to an ionic medium (ioxaglate) in the COURT trial. These discrepancies could result from some methodological flaws noted in the study of Scheller et al. Actually, in the Scheller study, the randomization process was not really adequately performed. It mentioned that one angio-lab was working with one contrast medium when the other lab used the alternative agent. Even if both angio-labs have the same equipment, we cannot be sure that one is not older than the other, that the more seriously ill patients were treated in the new, better laboratory, or that the most skilled, experienced operators were working in only one of the two angiolabs. Thus, we cannot trust this ‘pseudo-randomization’. As a result, there was an important heterogeneity in the two arms of the study population, and more seriously ill patients (ACS+CCS Class IV patients) were in the non-ionic arm. In addition, it is stated that diagnostic coronary angiography was performed with non-ionic contrast media. However, in the interventional procedure, the patients received either non-ionic or ioxaglate, depending on the daily availability in the allocated room. Thus, taking into account the current practice of ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention, this means that half the patients initially received ionic contrast medium followed by non-ionic contrast medium . . . How can we seriously compare the results in those conditions? Furthermore, the ionic contrast medium was compared to six different non-ionic agents: the respective administration of these agents ranged from 5 to 39% respectively. Finally, the authors mentioned that in contrast to the VIP study, iodixanol had the highest rate of subacute stent occlusion (5%), but only 5% (i.e. 90 patients) received this agent. This means that only four of them had subacute occlusion and, again, is it possible to draw any conclusions from these limited data? There are, as listed, several flaws in the concept and design of Scheller et al.’s paper. This study cannot challenge properly conducted, randomized studies, such as the VIP and COURT trials.","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"119 11 1","pages":"199-200"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69554020","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Reasoning is too narrowly focused. 推理过于狭隘。

IF 1 2区哲学

PHILOSOPHY Pub Date : 2022-03-18 DOI: 10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0046

J. D. Süss, M. Gawenda

{"title":"Reasoning is too narrowly focused.","authors":"J. D. Süss, M. Gawenda","doi":"10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0046","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.m2022.0046","url":null,"abstract":"The assertion by Takayama et al. (1) that their study ‘‘strongly supports’’ saccharin’s lack of carcinogenicity in nonhuman primates is incorrect. The study actually presents results from four small groups of rhesus, cynomolgus, African green, and rhesuscynomolgus hybrid monkeys (total, n 4 20 animals), the latter two groups having no controls. Study insensitivity from small numbers of animals (at a minimum, six of the 20 animals would have had to have been positive for the results to be significant) is compounded by the low dose of saccharin that was employed—17.9 mg/kg body weight per day, averaged over 1 week. That level of saccharin approximates what many Americans consumed. For instance, the 1977–78 90th-percentiles of saccharin consumption in adults and 3to 5-yearold children were 10.5 mg/kg body weight per day and 19.7 mg/kg body weight per day, respectively(2). Per capita consumption has increased slightly since then(3). Thus, the study’s results provide no assurance of safety. While Takayama et al. assert their study indicates that saccharin is not carcinogenic, we note that three of the treated monkeys, but none of the controls, had tumors. Only better-designed studies could determine if saccharin can cause tumors in primates. Takayama et al., and the accompanying editorial by Zurlo and Squire(4), present as established fact a theory as to how saccharin might cause bladder tumors in male rats, but not in humans. The theory proposes a concatenation of events triggered by high doses of sodium saccharin that lead to amorphous precipitates that irritate epithelial cells and cause tumors. That mechanism is far from proven. Furthermore, saccharin causes bladder tumors not only in male rats but also in females, albeit less frequently, but the mechanism by which saccharin causes tumors in females has been poorly investigated. The mechanism also does not explain saccharin’s promoter activity. Even if that theory were proven for bladder tumors in male rats, saccharin may cause tumors by more than one mechanism. Moreover, it has caused tumors in other organs and in other species [reviewed in(5)]. In rats, saccharin has caused tumors of the ovaries, uterus, forestomach, skin, and at all sites (other than bladder). In mice, saccharin has caused tumors of the vascular system, lung, uterus, and other sites. The authors fail to report that saccharin causes dominant-lethal mutations in mice, strongly suggesting potential carcinogenicity(6). Takayama et al. state that epidemiologic studies ‘‘failed to show any effect’’ on bladder tumor incidences, and Zurlo and Squire note the ‘‘absence of any conclusive epidemiologic data’’ that saccharin is associated with bladder tumors. Those statements ignore findings from the most sensitive studies. By far the largest study(7), conducted by the National Cancer Institute, found associations between consumption of artificial sweetener and bladder cancer in high-risk males, low-risk females, and males and females comb","PeriodicalId":54197,"journal":{"name":"PHILOSOPHY","volume":"119 11 1","pages":"197"},"PeriodicalIF":1.0,"publicationDate":"2022-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69554044","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0