Motive and right action

Some philosophers believe that a change in motive alone is sometimes sufficient to bring about a change in the deontic status (rightness or wrongness) of an action. I refer to this position as ‘weak motivism’, and distinguish it from ‘strong’ and ‘partial motivism’. I examine a number of cases where our intuitive judgements appear to support the weak motivist’s thesis, and argue that in each case an alternative explanation can be given for why a change in motive brings about (or, in some cases, appears to bring about) a change in deontic status

The right to an impartial hearing trumps the social imperative of bringing accused to trial even \u27down under\u27

Accused persons who are subjected to a saturation level of negative media coverage may be denied an impartial hearing, which is perhaps the most important aspect of the right to a fair hearing. Despite this, the courts have generally held that the social imperative of prosecuting accused trumps the interests of the accused. The justification for an impartial hearing stems from the repugnance of convicting the innocent. Viewed dispassionately, this imperative is not absolute, given that every legal system condones procedures which result in the conviction of some innocent people. While the importance of guarding against wrongful convictions has been overstated, the imperative to bring to trial all accused has been even more exaggerated. The legal system has displayed a capacity to deal with cases where the guilty walk free. The institutional integrity of the criminal justice system would be significantly compromised by convictions that are tarnished by pre-judgment. Confidence in the criminal justice system is more important than individual criminal accountability. The inability to receive an impartial hearing should result in a permanent stay. The only exception is where the alleged crime has the capacity to cause widespread fear or social unrest. This only applies in relation to serious acts of terrorism. This article focuses on recent legal fair trial developments in Australia, however, the analysis, reasoning and conclusion applies in relation to all jurisdictions where juries determine guilt and innocence. <br /

The Development of Collingwood’s Metaphilosophical Views

Connelly discusses the development of Collingwood’s conception of philosophical methodology and how his early reflections on the role and character of philosophical analysis gradually gave rise to his mature metaphilosophical views. He shows that concerns with second-order questions concerning the nature of philosophy were present from the very beginning and that Collingwood’s later metaphilosophical view gradually evolve from, rather than break away with, his earlier metaphilosophical reflections. The chapter provides a much-needed guide to understanding how Collingwood developed his mature metaphilosophical views concerning the nature of philosophy through his engagement with Oxford realism and logical positivism