Ignorance, Humility and Vice

LaFollette argues that the greatest vice is not cruelty, immorality, or selfishness. Rather, it is a failure on our part to ‘engage in frequent, honest and rigorous self-reflection’. It is that failure which, on his view, explains the lion’s share of the wrongdoings we commit towards one another. In this short reply, I raise (in a sympathetic spirit) some questions about the task of identifying the greatest vice, and draw out some of the implications of LaFollette’s account of moral ignorance

The Elaborate Postural Display of Courting Drosophila persimilis Flies Produces Substrate-Borne Vibratory Signals.

Sexual selection has led to the evolution of extraordinary and elaborate male courtship behaviors across taxa, including mammals and birds, as well as some species of flies. Drosophila persimilis flies perform complex courtship behaviors found in most Drosophila species, which consist of visual, air-borne, gustatory and olfactory cues. In addition, Drosophila persimilis courting males also perform an elaborate postural display that is not found in most other Drosophila species. This postural display includes an upwards contortion of their abdomen, specialized movements of the head and forelegs, raising both wings into a "wing-posture" and, most remarkably, the males proffer the female a regurgitated droplet. Here, we use high-resolution imaging, laser vibrometry and air-borne acoustic recordings to analyse this postural display to ask which signals may promote copulation. Surprisingly, we find that no air-borne signals are generated during the display. We show, however, that the abdomen tremulates to generate substrate-borne vibratory signals, which correlate with the female's immobility before she feeds onto the droplet and accepts copulation.This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust Investigator Awards to P. A. Lawrence WT096645MA and WT107060AIA.This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Springer at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10905-016-9579-8

Military Intervention in Interstate Armed Conflicts

Suppose that state A attacks state D without warrant. The ensuing military conflict threatens international peace and security. State D (I assume) has a justification for defending itself by means of military force. But do third parties have a justification for intervening in that conflict by such means? To international public lawyers, the well-rehearsed and obvious answer is ‘yes’: threats to international peace and security provide one of two exceptions to the legal and moral prohibition (as set out in article 2(4) of the UN Charter) on using force as a means for resolving interstate disputes. Just war theorists are not as verdictive. Compared to the ethics of humanitarian intervention and the ethics of national self-defense, the ethics of third-party military involvement in interstate conflicts remains strikingly under-developed in contemporary just war theory. This paper makes a start at filling the gap. It argues that to defend such interventions is tantamount to defending preventive military force, deterrent military force, and the resort to force in more cases than standardly thought. It then provides an account and limited defence of the deterrence argument. It shows that deterrence is morally justified in relatively few cases, and examines two problems with the argument: the problems raised by deterrence failures, and the problems raised by the level of uncertainty under which leaders who use deterrent force operate. It ends by concluding that we should take seriously the possibility that non-intervention, construed as the rejection of the direct use of military force, is the morally correct response to the most serious threats to international peace and security

The Duty to Accept Apologies

The literature on reparative justice focuses for the most part on the grounds and limits of wrongdoers' duties to their victims. An interesting but relatively neglected question is that of what - if anything - victims owe to wrongdoers. In this paper, I argue that victims are under a duty to accept wrongdoers' apologies. To accept an apology is to form the belief that the wrongdoer's apologetic utterance or gesture has the requisite verdictive, commissive and expressive dimensions; to communicate as much to him; and to recognise that his apology changes one's normative status in relation to him, and to comport oneself accordingly. I then offer a Kantian argument for the duty to accept. I then examine cases in which, it might be thought, there is no such duty. I end the paper by addressing the more fundamental objection that victims do not owe it to wrongdoers to engage in any form of reparative encounter

Triggers of the Postural Display of Courtship in Drosophila persimilis Flies.

D. persimilis courtship shows some flexibility and courting males sometimes perform an elaborate postural display in addition to the standard courtship behaviours shared by most Drosophila species. This postural display includes the acrobatic contortion and tremulation of their abdomen, accompanied by the generation of substrate-borne vibrations, and they proffer a nutritional droplet to the female. Here, we use courtship and choice assays to ask what triggers this display and what advantages males may gain from it during courtship. In pair assays, we found no differences in the courtship duration and copulation success between displaying and non-displaying males. In trio assays, however, the female always mated with the male who performed the display. To investigate what promotes the male display, we varied the level of receptivity of the female and studied the impact of a second male. We found that rejection by the female does not induce the male to display, contrary to what was previously suggested. We present evidence that the male display is in fact promoted by the presence of an attentive and sexually receptive female and the absence of male competition, with the greatest exhibition rate obtained if the courted female is starved. These findings provide valuable information about the social ecology of flies, and how internal and external cues influence sexual behaviours and mate choice

Centimeter to decimeter hollow concretions and voids in Gale Crater sediments, Mars

Voids and hollow spheroids between ∼1 and 23 cm in diameter occur at several locations along the traverse of the Curiosity rover in Gale crater, Mars. These hollow spherical features are significantly different from anything observed in previous landed missions. The voids appear in dark-toned, rough-textured outcrops, most notably at Point Lake (sols 302-305) and Twin Cairns Island (sol 343). Point Lake displays both voids and cemented spheroids in close proximity; other locations show one or the other form. The spheroids have 1-4 mm thick walls and appear relatively dark-toned in all cases, some with a reddish hue. Only one hollow spheroid (Winnipesaukee, sol 653) was analyzed for composition, appearing mafic (Fe-rich), in contrast to the relatively felsic host rock. The interior surface of the spheroid appears to have a similar composition to the exterior with the possible exceptions of being more hydrated and slightly depleted in Fe and K. Origins of the spheroids as Martian tektites or volcanic bombs appear unlikely due to their hollow and relatively fragile nature and the absence of in-place clearly igneous rocks. A more likely explanation to both the voids and the hollow spheroids is reaction of reduced iron with oxidizing groundwater followed by some re-precipitation as cemented rind concretions at a chemical reaction front. Although some terrestrial concretion analogs are produced from a precursor siderite or pyrite, diagenetic minerals could also be direct precipitates for other terrestrial concretions. The Gale sediments differ from terrestrial sandstones in their high initial iron content, perhaps facilitating a higher occurrence of such diagenetic reactions

Microstructure and electrical properties of (Ba0.6Sr0.4)0.85Bi0.1TiO3 ceramics prepared by single-step, liquid-phase, solid-state reactive sintering

(Ba0.6Sr0.4)0.85Bi0.1TiO3 ceramics have been obtained by single-step, liquid-phase, solid-state reactive sintering in the temperature range 1250–1350 °C using stoichiometric amounts of BaTiO3, SrTiO3 and Bi4Ti3O12. Their microstructure and electrical properties have been studied by X-Ray diffraction and fluorescence, scanning and transmission electron microscopy and impedance spectroscopy. The relative density, Dr, relative permittivity, ε′r, and dissipation factor, tan δ, at room temperature and the bulk and grain boundary resistivity, Rb and Rgb, and activation energies, Eba and Egba, are approximately independent of the sintering temperature with values around e.g. Dr ~97.5 %, ε′r ~1790, tan δ ~0.06 %, R500oCb ~26 kΩ cm, Egba ~1.03 eV, R500oCgb ~217 kΩ cm and Egba ~1.41 eV. By contrast, the temperature coefficient of capacitance, TCC, increases linearly from ~10 ppm oC−1 to ~21 ppm oC−1 on increasing sintering temperature. Comments on the influence of the sintering temperature on the chemical composition of the ceramics are made

An ethical framework for global vaccine allocation

In this article, we propose the Fair Priority Model for COVID-19 vaccine distribution, and emphasize three fundamental values we believe should be considered when distributing a COVID-19 vaccine among countries: Benefiting people and limiting harm, prioritizing the disadvantaged, and equal moral concern for all individuals. The Priority Model addresses these values by focusing on mitigating three types of harms caused by COVID-19: death and permanent organ damage, indirect health consequences, such as health care system strain and stress, as well as economic destruction. It proposes proceeding in three phases: the first addresses premature death, the second long-term health issues and economic harms, and the third aims to contain viral transmission fully and restore pre-pandemic activity. To those who may deem an ethical framework irrelevant because of the belief that many countries will pursue "vaccine nationalism," we argue such a framework still has broad relevance. Reasonable national partiality would permit countries to focus on vaccine distribution within their borders up until the rate of transmission is below 1, at which point there would not be sufficient vaccine-preventable harm to justify retaining a vaccine. When a government reaches the limit of national partiality, it should release vaccines for other countries. We also argue against two other recent proposals. Distributing a vaccine proportional to a country's population mistakenly assumes that equality requires treating differently situated countries identically. Prioritizing countries according to the number of front-line health care workers, the proportion of the population over 65, and the number of people with comorbidities within each country may exacerbate disadvantage and end up giving the vaccine in large part to wealthy nations

What are the obligations of pharmaceutical companies in a global health emergency?

All parties involved in researching, developing, manufacturing, and distributing COVID-19 vaccines need guidance on their ethical obligations. We focus on pharmaceutical companies' obligations because their capacities to research, develop, manufacture, and distribute vaccines make them uniquely placed for stemming the pandemic. We argue that an ethical approach to COVID-19 vaccine production and distribution should satisfy four uncontroversial principles: optimising vaccine production, including development, testing, and manufacturing; fair distribution; sustainability; and accountability. All parties' obligations should be coordinated and mutually consistent. For instance, companies should not be obligated to provide host countries with additional booster shots at the expense of fulfilling bilateral contracts with countries in which there are surges. Finally, any satisfactory approach should include mechanisms for assurance that all parties are honouring their obligations. This assurance enables countries, pharmaceutical companies, global organisations, and others to verify compliance with the chosen approach and protect ethically compliant stakeholders from being unfairly exploited by unethical behaviour of others