{"title":"Are current AI systems capable of well-being?","authors":"James Fanciullo","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00265-z","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00265-z","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Recently, Simon Goldstein and Cameron Domenico Kirk-Giannini have argued that certain existing AI systems are capable of well-being. They consider the three leading approaches to well-being—hedonism, desire satisfactionism, and the objective list approach—and argue that theories of these kinds plausibly imply that some current AI systems are capable of welfare. In this paper, I argue that the leading versions of each of these theories do not imply this. I conclude that we have strong reason to doubt that current AI systems are capable of well-being.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00265-z.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143621995","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Non-realist cognitivism, partners-in-innocence, and No dilemma","authors":"Evan Jack, Mustafa Khuramy","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00268-w","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00268-w","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Non-Realist Cognitivism is a meta-ethical theory that is supposedly objectionably unclear. Recently, Farbod Akhlaghi (2022) has provided a novel exposition of Parfit’s Non-Realist Cognitivism that employs truthmaker theory to clarify it. He illustrates that such clarification leads the non-realist cognitivist into a dilemma: either the theory has to accept truthmaker maximalism, rendering the theory inconsistent, or it has to let go of truthmaking altogether. He also attempts to undercut a “partners-in-innocence” strategy that the non-realist cognitivist utilizes to motivate the key assumption of Non-Realist Cognitivism: that normative truths are truthmaker gaps. In this paper, we do three things in reply to Akhlaghi. First, we show how most of his attempts to disqualify candidate partners-in-innocence fail, or at best miss the point. Second, we provide a case for a partner-in-innocence Akhlaghi never covers, though inadvertently mentions. Third, we outline how the non-realist cognitivist could reply to Akhlaghi’s dilemma in a way that allows Non-Realist Cognitivism to come out unscathed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00268-w.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143621994","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Précis of Thinking About Statistics","authors":"Jun Otsuka","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00259-x","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00259-x","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This article provides a concise summary of <i>Thinking About Statistics: The Philosophical Foundations</i> (Routledge, 2023), with a focus on the book’s exploration of ontological and epistemological topics.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143594828","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Evidential pluralism, epistemic causality and mixed methods research","authors":"Erik Weber","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00263-1","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00263-1","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>In this essay, I first reflect on the notion of epistemic causality which, according to Shan and Williamson, complements the idea of evidential pluralism. Then, I shift my attention to mixed methods research. While I agree that evidential pluralism provides a strong philosophical foundation for this approach, I argue that there is an alternative, equally strong foundation that focuses on explanation rather than on evidence.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143583490","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Logical empiricism in a historicist framework—something worth caring about?","authors":"Elisabeth Nemeth","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00261-3","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00261-3","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The historicist project that Richardson presents here aims to recover elements of Logical Empiricism that lie not in theorems but in the self-understanding of the actors. The Logical Empiricists had philosophical as well as social and political goals in mind. They were aware that the scientific principles they sought to establish in academic philosophy also influenced the political, social, and cultural spheres. Previous research has worked on the social embedding of Logical Empiricism. By comparison, Richardson proposes the significantly broader framework of “scientific philosophy.” This allows further actors to be taken into account, thus contributing to a better understanding of the self-understanding of the Logical Empiricists. But can this historicist project convince us that Logical Empiricism is “worth caring about”?</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00261-3.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143564406","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Scientific progress: normative, but aimless","authors":"Finnur Dellsén","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00264-0","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00264-0","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Does science have any aim(s)? If not, does it follow that the debate about scientific progress is somehow misguided or problematically non-objective? These are two of the central questions posed in Rowbottom’s Scientific Progress. In this paper, I argue that we should answer both questions in the negative. Science probably has no aims, certainly not a single aim; but it does not follow from this that the debate about scientific progress is somehow misguided or problematically non-objective.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00264-0.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143553934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Replies to critics","authors":"Jun Otsuka","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00260-4","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00260-4","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This is the author’s reply to the critics in the book symposium on <i>Thinking about Statistics: The Philosophical Foundations</i> (Routledge 2023).</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143553935","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Bioconservatism, enhancement counsellors, and love drugs: commentary on Gordon","authors":"Alexandre Erler","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00262-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00262-2","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This commentary on Emma Gordon’s book <i>Human Enhancement and Well-Being</i> explains why, despite my basic agreement with her overall position on the strength of bioconservative objections to enhancement, my thinking differs from hers regarding some aspects of her analysis. I focus in particular on her critique of the hyperagency argument, the authenticity argument, and the inequality argument against enhancement. I then proceed to discuss, in turn, her remarks on enhancement counsellors and on the enhancement of loving relationships, highlighting some issues which I think are worthy of further clarification and exploration. These include the degree to which enhancement counsellors should act as “gatekeepers” when it comes to accessing enhancements, how their role would relate to that of medical professionals, and how exactly some of Gordon’s desiderata should be applied to the enhancement of loving relationships.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s44204-025-00262-2.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143533198","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rule-following, I-we sociality, and solitary language","authors":"Refeng Tang","doi":"10.1007/s44204-025-00254-2","DOIUrl":"10.1007/s44204-025-00254-2","url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>The commentary focuses on McDowell’s understanding of rule-following and language use, to which Cheng is explicitly sympathetic. According to McDowell, Wittgenstein’s discussions of following a rule imply that rule-following is social, that is, dependent upon interaction with other people. But Wittgenstein seems to allow the possibility of solitary rule-following. McDowell’s main reason for insisting on the sociality of rule-following is that following a rule is linguistic and language use is essentially social. But Wittgenstein’s relevant remarks seem to allow the possibility of non-linguistic rule-following, which leaves room for the possibility of non-linguistic solitary rule-following. It can be objected that, despite the possibility of non-linguistic solitary rule-following, linguistic rule-following is essentially social, for the reason that language is essentially social. But there seems to be no further reason to insist on the sociality of language, if the possibility of solitary rule-following is allowed. Moreover, pace McDowell, the Gadamerian conception of <i>I-we</i> sociality seems to be congenial to the possibility of solitary language, which in turn supports the possibility of solitary linguistic rule-following.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":93890,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of philosophy","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143521674","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}