- Table View
- List View
Is Nature Ever Evil?: Religion, Science and Value
by Willem B. DreesCan nature be evil, or ugly, or wrong? Can we apply moral value to nature?From a compellingly original premise, under the auspices of major thinkers including Mary Midgley, Philip Hefner, Arnold Benz and Keith Ward, Is Nature Ever Evil? examines the value-structure of our cosmos and of the science that seeks to describe it. Science, says editor Willem B. Drees, claims to leave moral questions to aesthetic and religious theory. But the supposed neutrality of the scientific view masks a host of moral assumptions. How does an ethically transparent science arrive at concepts of a 'hostile' universe or a 'selfish' gene? How do botanists, zoologists, cosmologists and geologists respond to the beauty of the universe they study, reliant as it is upon catastrophe, savagery, power and extinction? Then there are various ways in which science seeks to alter and improve nature. What do prosthetics and gene technology, cyborgs and dairy cows say about our appreciation of nature itself? Surely science, in common with philosophy, magic and religion, can aid our understanding of evil in nature - whether as natural catasrophe, disease, predatory cruelty or mere cosmic indifference?Focusing on the ethical evaluation of nature itself, Is Nature Ever Evil? re-ignites crucial questions of hope, responsibility, and possibility in nature.
Is Nature Ever Evil?: Religion, Science and Value
by Willem B. DreesCan nature be evil, or ugly, or wrong? Can we apply moral value to nature?From a compellingly original premise, under the auspices of major thinkers including Mary Midgley, Philip Hefner, Arnold Benz and Keith Ward, Is Nature Ever Evil? examines the value-structure of our cosmos and of the science that seeks to describe it. Science, says editor Willem B. Drees, claims to leave moral questions to aesthetic and religious theory. But the supposed neutrality of the scientific view masks a host of moral assumptions. How does an ethically transparent science arrive at concepts of a 'hostile' universe or a 'selfish' gene? How do botanists, zoologists, cosmologists and geologists respond to the beauty of the universe they study, reliant as it is upon catastrophe, savagery, power and extinction? Then there are various ways in which science seeks to alter and improve nature. What do prosthetics and gene technology, cyborgs and dairy cows say about our appreciation of nature itself? Surely science, in common with philosophy, magic and religion, can aid our understanding of evil in nature - whether as natural catasrophe, disease, predatory cruelty or mere cosmic indifference?Focusing on the ethical evaluation of nature itself, Is Nature Ever Evil? re-ignites crucial questions of hope, responsibility, and possibility in nature.
Is Nothing Sacred?
by Ben RogersWe call many things sacred, from cows, churches and paintings to flags and burial grounds. Is it still meaningful to talk of things being sacred, or is the idea merely a relic of a bygone religious age? Does everything - and every life - have its price? Is Nothing Sacred? is a stimulating and wide-ranging debate about some of the major moral dilemmas facing us today, such as the value of human life, art, the environment, and personal freedom. Packed with clearly presented controversial issues, we are asked to decide whether we should revere life when someone chooses to die, preserve the giant California redwoods, cherish Vermeer's originals for their own sake, or curtail personal freedom for the greater good. Ronald Dworkin argues that the concept of the scared is essential to any human ethics, and Simon Blackburn explains why he thinks 'a humanist should not feel guilty at the emotions of awe and reverence that can be inspired by great religious works of art. Throughout, the idea of the sacred in a secular age is hotly debated amongst the authors and put to the test: should it be abandoned altogether, or does it still have something to teach us?Is Nothing Sacred? brings together outstanding philosophers and thinkers, including Suzanne Uniacke, Michael Clark, Alan Holland, Simon Blackburn, Richard Dawkins, Richard Norman, Alan Howarth, Nigel Warburton, Matthew Kieran and John Harris.
Is Nothing Sacred?
by Ben RogersWe call many things sacred, from cows, churches and paintings to flags and burial grounds. Is it still meaningful to talk of things being sacred, or is the idea merely a relic of a bygone religious age? Does everything - and every life - have its price? Is Nothing Sacred? is a stimulating and wide-ranging debate about some of the major moral dilemmas facing us today, such as the value of human life, art, the environment, and personal freedom. Packed with clearly presented controversial issues, we are asked to decide whether we should revere life when someone chooses to die, preserve the giant California redwoods, cherish Vermeer's originals for their own sake, or curtail personal freedom for the greater good. Ronald Dworkin argues that the concept of the scared is essential to any human ethics, and Simon Blackburn explains why he thinks 'a humanist should not feel guilty at the emotions of awe and reverence that can be inspired by great religious works of art. Throughout, the idea of the sacred in a secular age is hotly debated amongst the authors and put to the test: should it be abandoned altogether, or does it still have something to teach us?Is Nothing Sacred? brings together outstanding philosophers and thinkers, including Suzanne Uniacke, Michael Clark, Alan Holland, Simon Blackburn, Richard Dawkins, Richard Norman, Alan Howarth, Nigel Warburton, Matthew Kieran and John Harris.
The Is-Ought Problem: An Investigation in Philosophical Logic (Trends in Logic #1)
by G. SchurzCan OUGHT be derived from IS? This book presents an investigation of this time-honored problem by means of alethic-deontic predicate logic. New in this study is the leitmotif of relevance: is-ought inferences indeed exist, but they are all irrelevant in a precise logical sense. New proof techniques establish this result for very broad classes of logics. A profound philosophical analysis of is-ought bridge principles supplements the logical study. The final results imply incisive limitations for the justifiability of ethics as opposed to empirical science.
Is Remote Warfare Moral?: Weighing Issues of Life and Death from 7,000 Miles
by Joseph O ChapaAmerica is at an important turning point. Remote warfare is not just a mainstay of post–9/11 wars, it is a harbinger of what lies ahead—a future of high-tech, artificial intelligence–enabled, and autonomous weapons systems that raise a host of new ethical questions. Most fundamentally, is remote warfare moral? And if so, why? Joseph O. Chapa, with unique credentials as Air Force officer, Predator pilot, and doctorate in moral philosophy, serves as our guide to understanding this future, able to engage in both the language of military operations and the language of moral philosophy. Through gripping accounts of remote pilots making life-and-death decisions and analysis of high-profile cases such as the killing of Iranian high government official General Qasem Soleimani, Chapa examines remote warfare within the context of the just war tradition, virtue, moral psychology, and moral responsibility. He develops the principles we should use to evaluate its morality, especially as pilots apply human judgment in morally complex combat situations. Moving on to the bigger picture, he examines how the morality of human decisions in remote war is situated within the broader moral context of US foreign policy and the future of warfare.
Is Science Compatible with Free Will?: Exploring Free Will and Consciousness in the Light of Quantum Physics and Neuroscience
by Antoine Suarez and Peter AdamsAnyone who claims the right ‘to choose how to live their life’ excludes any purely deterministic description of their brain in terms of genes, chemicals or environmental influences. For example, when an author of a text expresses his thoughts, he assumes that, in typing the text, he governs the firing of the neurons in his brain and the movement of his fingers through the exercise of his own free will: what he writes is not completely pre-determined at the beginning of the universe. Yet in the field of neuroscience today, determinism dominates. There is a conflict between the daily life conviction that a human being has free will, and deterministic neuroscience. When faced with this conflict two alternative positions are possible: Either human freedom is an illusion, or deterministic neuroscience is not the last word on the brain and will eventually be superseded by a neuroscience that admits processes not completely determined by the past. This book investigates whether it is possible to have a science in which there is room for human freedom. The book generally concludes that the world and the brain are governed to some extent by non-material agencies, and limited consciousness does not abolish free will and responsibility. The authors present perspectives coming from different disciplines (Neuroscience, Quantumphysics and Philosophy) and range from those focusing on the scientific background, to those highlighting rather more a philosophical analysis. However, all chapters share a common characteristic: they take current scientific observations and data as a basis from which to draw philosophical implications. It is these features that make this volume unique, an exceptional interdisciplinary approach combining scientific strength and philosophical profundity. We are convinced that it will strongly stimulate the debate and contribute to new insights in the mind-brain relationship.
Is Science Progressive? (Synthese Library #177)
by I. NiiniluotoThis collection brings together several essays which have been written between the years 197 5 and 1983. During that period I have been occupied with the attempt to find a satisfactory explicate for the notion of tnithlike ness or verisimilitude. The technical results of this search have partly appeared elsewhere, and I am also working on a systematic presentation of them in a companion volume to this book: Truthlikeness (forthcoming hopefully in 1985). The essays collected in this book are less formal and more philos ophical: they all explore various aspects of the idea that progress in science is associated with an increase in the truthlikeness of its results. Even though they do not exhaust the problem area of scientific change, together they constitute a step in the direction which I find most promising in the defence of critical scientific realism. * Chapter 1 appeared originally in Finnish as the opening article of a new journal Tiede 2000 (no. 1 I 1980) - a Finnish counterpart to journals such as Science and Scientific American. This explains its programmatic character. It tries to give a compact answer to the question 'What is science?', and serves therefore as an introduction to the problem area of the later chapters. Chapter 2 is a revised translation of my inaugural lecture for the chair of Theoretical Philosophy in the University of Helsinki on April 8, 1981. It appeared in Finnish inParnasso 31 (1981), pp.
Is Science Sexist?: And Other Problems in the Biomedical Sciences (The Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science #17)
by M. RusePhilosophy of biology has a long and honourable history. Indeed, like most of the great intellectual achievements of the Western World, it goes back to the Greeks. However, until recently in this century, it was sadly neglected. With a few noteworthy exceptions, someone wishing to delve into the subject had to choose between extremes of insipid vitalism on the one hand, and sterile formalizations of the most elementary biological principles on the other. Whilst philosophy of physics pushed confidently ahead, the philosophy of biology languished. In the past decade, however, things have changed dramatically. A number of energetic and thoughtful young philosophers have made real efforts to master the outlines and details of contemporary biology. They have shown that many stimulating problems emerge when analytic skills are turned towards the life-sciences, particularly if one does not feeI con strained to stay only with theoretical parts of biology, but can range over to more medical parts of the spectrum. At the same time, biology itself has had one of the most fruitful yet turbulent periods in its whole history, and more and more biologists have grown to see that many of the problems they face take them beyond the narrow confines of empiric al science: a broader perspective is needed.
Is Science Value Free?: Values and Scientific Understanding (Philosophical Issues in Science)
by Hugh LaceyExploring the role of values in scientific inquiry, Hugh Lacey examines the nature and meaning of values, and looks at challenges to the view, posed by postmodernists, feminists, radical ecologists, Third-World advocates and religious fundamentalists, that science is value free. He also focuses on discussions of 'development', especially in Third World countries. This paperback edition includes a new preface.
Is Science Value Free?: Values and Scientific Understanding (Philosophical Issues in Science)
by Hugh LaceyExploring the role of values in scientific inquiry, Hugh Lacey examines the nature and meaning of values, and looks at challenges to the view, posed by postmodernists, feminists, radical ecologists, Third-World advocates and religious fundamentalists, that science is value free. He also focuses on discussions of 'development', especially in Third World countries. This paperback edition includes a new preface.
Is Scotland Educated? (Routledge Library Editions: Scotland #21)
by A. S. NeillOriginally published in 1936, and with more than a slightly tongue-in-cheek tone at times, the author of this book declares that Scotland is not educated but merely learned. This book does not deal with education in its narrowest sense: it ranges from the Kirk to Haggis, Tartans and Burns, Whisky and repressed sex in its discussion, proclaiming Calvinism as the root of most of Scotland’s evils. Honest and at times provocative, this volume does give direct access to the emotional roots of Neill’s feelings about Scottish education.
Is Scotland Educated? (Routledge Library Editions: Scotland #21)
by A. S. NeillOriginally published in 1936, and with more than a slightly tongue-in-cheek tone at times, the author of this book declares that Scotland is not educated but merely learned. This book does not deal with education in its narrowest sense: it ranges from the Kirk to Haggis, Tartans and Burns, Whisky and repressed sex in its discussion, proclaiming Calvinism as the root of most of Scotland’s evils. Honest and at times provocative, this volume does give direct access to the emotional roots of Neill’s feelings about Scottish education.
Is Self-Determination a Dangerous Illusion? (Political Theory Today)
by David MillerClaims to self-determination are rife in world politics today. They range from Scottish and Catalonian campaigns for independence to calls for the devolution of power to regions and cities. But is self-determination meaningful or desirable in the twenty-first century, or merely a dangerous illusion? In this book, David Miller mounts a powerful defence of political self-determination. He explains why it is valuable and argues that geographic proximity alone is not enough for groups to have the capacity for self-determination: group members must also identify with each other. He explores the different political forms that self-determination can take, and he suggests some realistic constraints on how it can be achieved, concluding that people exercising their collective agency is still both feasible and important. Anyone concerned by the theoretical issues raised by the various secessionist and nationalist movements around the world should read this book.
Is Spain Different?: A Comparative Look at the 19th and 20th Centuries (Liverpool Studies in Spanish History)
by Nigel TownsonThe slogan that launched the tourist industry in the 1960s, Spain is different, has come to haunt historians. Much effort and energy have been expended ever since in endeavouring to show that Spain has not been different, but normal. Still, many of the defining features of the country's past -- the civil wars, the weak liberalism, the Franco dictatorship -- are taken as evidence of its distinctiveness. A related problem is that few historians have actually placed Spain's trajectory over the last two centuries within a truly comparative context. This book does so by tackling a number of key themes in modern Spanish history: liberalism, nationalism, anticlericalism, the Second Republic, the Franco dictatorship and the transition to democracy. Is Spain Different? thereby offers a fresh and stimulating perspective on Spain's recent past that is not only of interest to students of Spanish and European history alike, but also sheds new light on the current political debates regarding Spain's place in the world. Contributors to this volume include: José Álvarez Junco (Universidad Complutense, Madrid); María Cruz Romeo (University of Valencia); Edward Malefakis (Columbia University, New York); and Pamela Radcliff (University of California, San Diego).
Is That Mic Off?: More Things Politicians Wish They Hadn't Said
by Phil MasonIf you want to hear something stupid, just listen to the nearest politician. From the authors of Read My Lips and Mission Accomplished!, this completely new collection of politicians' gaffes, slips and brain freezes brings the verbal misstep into the present era of coalition government in Britain, the 2012 presidential election campaign in America and the global phenomenon of Wikileaks. Here is a treasure trove of the finest worst utterings from the men and women whose main skill is meant to be their power of communication. From Bush, Obama and Palin to Brown, Cameron, Clegg and co., the mad, the bad, the stupid and the shameless are all in attendance -watch them shoot from the lip and hit themselves in the foot. If, as they always say, politicians want to be judged by their words, let them be these.
Is There a Duty to die? (Biomedical Ethics Reviews #Vol. 17)
by Robert F. Almeder James M. HumberThe question of whether there might be a duty to die was first raised by Margaret Battin in 1987 in her ground-breaking essay, "Age Distribution and the Just Distribution of Health Care: Is There a Duty to-Die?" In 1997 the issue was reprised when two new articles appeared on the topic written by John Hardwig and the other by former Colorado Governor Richard D. Lamm. Given the renewed interest in the topic, as well as its undeniable importance, Biomedical Ethics Re views sought to initiate an in-depth discussion of the issue by soliciting articles and issuing a general call for papers on the topic "Is There a Duty to Die?" The twelve articles in this volume represent the ultimate fruits of those initiatives. The first seven essays in this text are sympathetic to the claim that there is a duty to die. They argue either: (a) that some form of a duty to die exists, or (b) that arguments that might be offered against the existence of such a duty cannot be sustained. By way of contrast, the last five articles in the text are critical of duty-to-die claims: The authors of the first three of these five articles attempt to cast doubt on the existence of a duty to die, and the writers of the last two essays argue that if such a duty did exist, severe problems would arise when ever we attempted to implement it.
Is There a God?: A Debate (Little Debates about Big Questions)
by Graham Oppy Kenneth L. PearceBertrand Russell famously quipped that he didn’t believe in God for the same reason that he didn’t believe in a teapot in orbit between the earth and Mars: it is a bizarre assertion for which no evidence can be provided. Is belief in God really like belief in Russell’s teapot? Kenneth L. Pearce argues that God is no teapot. God is a real answer to the deepest question of all: why is there something rather than nothing? Graham Oppy argues that we should believe that there are none but natural causal entities with none but natural causal properties—and hence should believe that there are no gods. Beginning from this basic disagreement, the authors proceed to discuss and debate a wide range of philosophical questions, including questions about explanation, necessity, rationality, religious experience, mathematical objects, the foundations of ethics, and the methodology of philosophy. Each author first presents his own side, and then they interact through two rounds of objections and replies. Pedagogical features include standard form arguments, section summaries, bolded key terms and principles, a glossary, and annotated reading lists. In the volume foreword, Helen De Cruz calls the debate "both edifying and a joy," and sums up what’s at stake: "Here you have two carefully formulated positive proposals for worldviews that explain all that is: classical theism, or naturalistic atheism. You can follow along with the authors and deliberate: which one do you find more plausible?" Though written with beginning students in mind, this debate will be of interest to philosophers at all levels and to anyone who values careful, rational thought about the nature of reality and our place in it.
Is There a God?: A Debate (Little Debates about Big Questions)
by Graham Oppy Kenneth L. PearceBertrand Russell famously quipped that he didn’t believe in God for the same reason that he didn’t believe in a teapot in orbit between the earth and Mars: it is a bizarre assertion for which no evidence can be provided. Is belief in God really like belief in Russell’s teapot? Kenneth L. Pearce argues that God is no teapot. God is a real answer to the deepest question of all: why is there something rather than nothing? Graham Oppy argues that we should believe that there are none but natural causal entities with none but natural causal properties—and hence should believe that there are no gods. Beginning from this basic disagreement, the authors proceed to discuss and debate a wide range of philosophical questions, including questions about explanation, necessity, rationality, religious experience, mathematical objects, the foundations of ethics, and the methodology of philosophy. Each author first presents his own side, and then they interact through two rounds of objections and replies. Pedagogical features include standard form arguments, section summaries, bolded key terms and principles, a glossary, and annotated reading lists. In the volume foreword, Helen De Cruz calls the debate "both edifying and a joy," and sums up what’s at stake: "Here you have two carefully formulated positive proposals for worldviews that explain all that is: classical theism, or naturalistic atheism. You can follow along with the authors and deliberate: which one do you find more plausible?" Though written with beginning students in mind, this debate will be of interest to philosophers at all levels and to anyone who values careful, rational thought about the nature of reality and our place in it.
Is There a Jewish Philosophy?: Rethinking Fundamentals (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization)
by Leon RothLeon Roth (1896–1963) was the first Professor of Philosophy at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He saw it as his purpose to encourage his students to think, and to think about their Judaism. Typical of his approach is the question with which this selection of essays opens: in what sense, asks Roth, can we talk about Jewish philosophy, and what can we expect to find if we look for it? Defining philosophy as ‘the search, through thought, for the permanent’, Roth argues that in order to say whether there is a truly Jewish philosophy one has to ‘rethink fundamentals’ those elements in our lives, in history, in nature which appear to be not incidental and trivial but basic. The twelve elegantly written essays published here represent a selection of Roth’s explorations of various aspects of his theme. The title essay ends with the contention that Judaism must be seen as the classic expression of monotheism; as the antithesis of myth; and as the essence of ethics and morality. The emphasis that Roth placed on ethics as the essence of Judaism was not merely theoretical: in 1951 he resigned from the Hebrew University and left Israel in response to what he perceived as the betrayal of Jewish ethics by the rulers of the newly established State of Israel. Edward Ullendorff's Foreword, based on long years of personal acquaintance, is an appreciation of Roth’s singular personality, grace, and moral stature, and of his devotion to an interpretation of Judaism that is rational and humane. A complete bibliography of Roth's writings, compiled by Raphael Loewe, rounds out the picture of the man and his achievements.
Is there an Object Oriented Architecture?: Engaging Graham Harman (Architecture Exchange: Engagements with Contemporary Theory and Philosophy)
by Joseph BedfordBringing Graham Harman's philosophy into direct confrontation with contemporary architectural theory in new and creative ways, Is There an Object-Oriented Architecture? provides a dialogue between Harman and six of the world's leading architectural thinkers, Adam Sharr, Lorens Holm, Jonathan Hale, Peg Rawes, Patrick Lynch and Peter Carl. Harman's object-oriented philosophy is one that sees the universe as a carnival of equal “objects” with no hierarchy between humans and nonhumans. In his model, unicorns, triangles, bicycles, neutrons, and humans are all things with enduring essences that outlast their partial transformations. It is a strikingly democratic vision of the universe that knocks humans off their ontological pedestal as arbiters of what is real. It also radically challenges the very precepts of architectural theory, the structure of which remains stubbornly human-centric as it seeks to give form to the human being's place at the centre of the cosmos. In this new book, each thinker develops the implications of Harman's philosophy for the future of architecture by entering into a direct exchange with the philosopher and his thinking, both questioning him and questioning with him.
Is there an Object Oriented Architecture?: Engaging Graham Harman (Architecture Exchange: Engagements with Contemporary Theory and Philosophy)
Bringing Graham Harman's philosophy into direct confrontation with contemporary architectural theory in new and creative ways, Is There an Object-Oriented Architecture? provides a dialogue between Harman and six of the world's leading architectural thinkers, Adam Sharr, Lorens Holm, Jonathan Hale, Peg Rawes, Patrick Lynch and Peter Carl. Harman's object-oriented philosophy is one that sees the universe as a carnival of equal “objects” with no hierarchy between humans and nonhumans. In his model, unicorns, triangles, bicycles, neutrons, and humans are all things with enduring essences that outlast their partial transformations. It is a strikingly democratic vision of the universe that knocks humans off their ontological pedestal as arbiters of what is real. It also radically challenges the very precepts of architectural theory, the structure of which remains stubbornly human-centric as it seeks to give form to the human being's place at the centre of the cosmos. In this new book, each thinker develops the implications of Harman's philosophy for the future of architecture by entering into a direct exchange with the philosopher and his thinking, both questioning him and questioning with him.
Is This God's Country?: Religion and Democracy in America
by Robert AudiCan religion coexist in harmony with the American ideal of separation of church and state? Philosopher Robert Audi here explores this perennial and topical question. The notion of a religion is complex and elastic; the notion of democracy is complex and contested. Audi explores both notions in the context of American founding documents, American ideals of religious liberty and social justice, and contemporary American social problems in public education, business, and healthcare--all of which are beset by the culture wars--from perceived hostility to religion in schools, to vaccine resistance, to refusals to provide religiously objectionable services, to abortion. Is This God's Country? reflects Audi's decades of work on religion and politics, ethics, and philosophy of religion. He accessibly explains why America separates church and state, how this can benefit both religious and secular citizens, why there is nevertheless controversy about what this means, and how opposed religious and secular people can peaceably resolve their differences. With the generous use of examples, Audi proposes standards for discussing and resolving those differences in education, business, and medical care. His final chapter addresses the question whether, within those standards, America can be Christian--or religious at all--in a way that integrates religious liberty with democratic law-making and expands the common ground we need to overcome the cultural fragmentation that besets America.