Self-Conceptions and Evolution: A Critical Comment on Philip Kitcher's The Ethical Project

This paper provides a critical comment on Philip Kitcher's as yet unpublished book The Ethical Project. In the first part it explains why Kitcher's position is naturalist as well as pragmatist. In the second part it is argued that the role ethics plays in human history is richer than Kitcher conceives it: Building on his view, this paper suggests that ethics not only provides a mechanism to diminish the risk of social conflict and social instability, but it also enables the emergence of self-conceptions. This reveals according to what processes certain particular changes occurred in the evolution of ethic

Self-conceptions and evolution: a critical comment on Philip Kitcher’s The Ethical Project

This paper provides a critical comment on Philip Kitcher’s as yet unpublished book The Ethical Project. In the first part it explains why Kitcher’s position is naturalist as well as pragmatist. In the second part it is argued that the role ethics plays in human history is richer than Kitcher conceives it: Building on his view, this paper suggests that ethics not only provides a mechanism to diminish the risk of social conflict and social instability, but it also enables the emergence of self-conceptions. This reveals according to what processes certain particular changes occurred in the evolution of ethics

Nachhaltiger Konsum im Rahmen der Gerechtigkeit

Philosophische Gerechtigkeitstheorie kann helfen, Verantwortlichkeiten der Nachhaltigkeit zu definieren und Widersprüche aufzudecken. Nachhaltigkeit nach der Definition des Brundtland Berichts ist ein Konzept der intra- und intergenerationellen Gerechtigkeit. Eines jeden Konsum endet da, wo Grundbedürfnisse anderer beeinträchtigt werden. Die Lösung scheint offensichtlich. Alle, die mehr als nötig konsumieren, sollten ihren Konsum reduzieren müssen. Diese Lösung beinhaltet allerdings mehrere Herausforderungen. Erstens die Definition, was Grundbedürfnisse sind. Zweitens gelten nicht in allen Gesellschaften dieselben Lebensbedingungen als Minimum, um als volles Mitglied an der Gesellschaft teilzuhaben. Drittens ist nicht klar, bis zu welcher zukünftigen Generation die Bedürfnisse berücksichtigt werden müssen. Überdies könnten auch Ansprüche von Tier und Natur geltend gemacht werden. Eine weitere philosophisch-gerechtigkeitstheoretische Analyse könnte für eine bestimmte Art der Lösung argumentieren. Welche Position man auch vertritt, philosophisch-normative Forschung, wie Forschung allgemein, sollte nichts mehr anstreben, als sich Gehör bei der Politik zu verschaffen. Denn so dringlich Nachhaltigkeitsherausforderungen sind, wie diese umgesetzt werden, ist eine Entscheidung, die keine Forschung vorgeben sollte, sondern durch demokratische Prozesse zu bestimmen ist.Cite as: Wallimann-Helmer, Ivo (2023): Nachhaltiger Konsum im Rahmen der Gerechtigkeit, in: Schweizerische Akademie der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaften: Wege zu einem nachhaltigen Konsum | Vers une consommation durable, (Swiss Academies Communications, 18, 5), S. 58-64. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.815620

Caution in Defining the Public for Legitimate Geoengineering Governance

Although I believe that Gardiner and Fragnière are right to claim that geoengineering governance demands participatory structures, I think more caution is needed. First, the public to be considered because it is affected must be differentiated depending on the geoengineering technique at issue and on the severity of its impact. Second, to avoid undermining democratic legitimacy, ethical conditions of legitimacy must be carefully assessed. Even though future generations and nature are very likely to be affected by geoengineering, their representation is not as unproblematic as it might seem at first sight

Justice for climate loss and damage

This paper suggests a way to elaborate the ethical implications of the Warsaw International Mechanism (WIM) as decided at COP 19 from the perspective of justice. It advocates three pro-posals. First, in order to fully understand the responsibilities and liabilities implied in the WIM, adaptation needs to be distinguished from loss and damage (L&D) on the basis of the different goals which should be attributed to adaptation and to L&D approaches. Second, the primary concern of the WIM should be compensatory justice. In case of climate L&D, three aspects of compensatory justice should be kept separate: corrective liability, remedial responsibility, and with regard to the resources available, fair remedy. Third, it is crucial to distinguish between recov-erable damage and irrecoverable or at least not fully recoverable loss. This distinction is crucial because it informs the principles of fair remedy and because damage and loss may differ in their relevance for the stability and functioning of a human system

Lassen sich Quoten für junge Bürgerinnen und Bürger rechtfertigen?

In diesem Beitrag argumentiere ich für die folgenden Schlussfolgerungen: Erstens, Quoten stellen keinen normativen Selbstzweck dar. Sie sind lediglich ein Mittel, um nicht-iskriminierende Auswahlverfahren sicherzustellen. Zweitens, in einer Demokratie sind Quoten vor allem dann plausibel, wenn sie für die Besetzung derjenigen Ämter eingesetzt werden, die den größten Einfluss auf politische Entscheidungen haben. Drittens, Quoten für junge Bürgerinnen und Bürger lassen sich rechtfertigen, weil die Diskurse der Jungen aufgrund der demografischen Entwicklung Gefahr laufen, vernachlässigt zu werden. Dessen ungeachtet bin ich aufgrund der demografischen Entwicklung aber skeptisch, dass die politische Einflussnahme der Jungen durch im Rahmen der Demokratie rechtfertigbare Quoten entscheidend verbessert werden kann

Resilience and Nonideal Justice in Climate Loss and Damage Governance

From a nonideal justice perspective, this article investigates liability and compensation intheir wider theoretical context to better understand the governance of climate loss anddamage under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC). The usual rationale for considering compensation takes a backward-looking understanding of responsibility. It links those causing harm directly to its remedy. Thisarticle shows that, under current political circumstances, it is more reasonable to understandresponsibility as a forward-looking concept and thus to differentiate responsibilitieson grounds of capacity and solidarity. The article argues that loss and damage entitlementsinUNFCCCgovernance should be understood as entitlements to a threshold of capabilitiesfor resilience. While compensation merely means redressing the situation ex ante a threat,entitlements to capabilities for resilience can entail more demanding responsibilities ofsupport. This means that Article 8 of the Paris Agreement has much more demandingimplications than it might at first appea

Challenging Our Thinking About Wild Animals with Common-Sense Ethical Principles

Significant disagreement remains in ethics about the duties we have towards wild animals. This paper aims to mediate those disagreements by exploring how they are supported by, or diverge from, the common-sense ethical principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice popular in medical ethics. We argue that these principles do not clearly justify traditional conservation or a ‘hands-off ’ approach to wild-animal welfare; instead, they support natural negative duties to reduce the harms that we cause as well as natural positive duties to promote the welfare of wild animals