Equality and Value-holism

In this paper, I consider a recent challenge to egalitarianism raised by Michael Huemer. Huemer?s challenge takes the form of a dilemma: egalitarians can either be atomists or holists about equality?s value. If they are atomists, then they must accept that equality in fact does not have intrinsic value; if they are holists, then their view will be inconsistent with an intuitively very plausible form of consequentialism. I show that this dilemma should not trouble egalitarians. Egalitarians can be holists about value and still embrace consequentialism

The Integrity of Religious Believers

According to Cécile Laborde, persons with religious commitments that are incidentally burdened by generally applicable laws should, under certain circumstances, be provided with an exemption from those laws. Labore’s justification for this view is that religious commitments are a type of commitment with which a person must comply if she is to maintain her integrity. I argue that Laborde´s account is insufficiently demanding in terms of the other-regarding attitudes it expects people to have before they can make claims to exemptions based on their integrity. The reason for this is that Laborde’s account rests on what I call a ‘non-moralised’ view of integrity. I raise some criticisms of this view and defend an alternative, ‘moralised’ view of integrity, according to which a religious person’s integrity depends on whether the practice she wishes to perform complies with certain moral constraints

Beyond the conflict: religion in the public sphere and deliberative democracy

Traditionally, liberals have confined religion to the sphere of the ‘private’ or ‘non-political’. However, recent debates over the use of religious symbols in public spaces, state financing of faith schools, and tax relief for religious organisations suggest that this distinction is not particularly useful in easing the tension between liberal ideas of equality among citizens and freedom of religion. This article deals with one aspect of this debate, which concerns whether members of religious communities should receive exemptions from regulations that place a distinctively heavy burden on them. For supporters of exemptions, protection for diverse practices and religious beliefs justifies such a special treatment. For others, this is a form of positive discrimination incompatible with equal citizenship. Drawing on Habermas’ understanding of churches as ‘communities of interpretation’ this article explores possible alternative solutions to both the ‘rule-andexemption’ approach and the ‘neutralist’ approach. Our proposal rests on the idea of mutual learning between secular and religious perspectives. On this interpretation, what is required is, firstly, generation and maintenance of public spaces in which there could be discussion and dialogue about particular cases, and, secondly, evaluation of whether the basic conditions of moral discourse are present in these spaces. Thus deliberation becomes a touchstone for the building of a shared democratic etho

Gaus on Coercion and Welfare-State Capitalism: A Critique

This article examines a novel line of argument in support of welfare-state capitalism proposed by Gerald Gaus. The novelty of Gaus’ argument lies in its contention that welfare-state capitalism can be justified on the basis of the contractualist mode of justification made famous by Rawls. Gaus argues that economic regimes, such as propertyowning democracy, are more coercive than welfare-state capitalism insofar as they require a greater degree of tax-imposed redistribution among citizens. Given the degree of coercion needed by these regimes, he contends that parties to a contract would not agree to them, whereas they would agree to welfare-state capitalism by virtue of the lesser degree of coercion it needs. It is argued in this article that Gaus fails to show that welfare-state capitalism is less coercive than property-owning democracy. Indeed, once one directs one’s attention towards those with the smallest range of valuable opportunities for action, there is reason to worry more about the coercion imposed by welfare-state capitalism than by property-owning democracy

Adoption of an “Open” Envelope Conformation Facilitating CD4 Binding and Structural Remodeling Precedes Coreceptor Switch in R5 SHIV-Infected Macaques

A change in coreceptor preference from CCR5 to CXCR4 towards the end stage disease in some HIV-1 infected individuals has been well documented, but the reasons and mechanisms for this tropism switch remain elusive. It has been suggested that envelope structural constraints in accommodating amino acid changes required for CXCR4 usage is an obstacle to tropism switch, limiting the rate and pathways available for HIV-1 coreceptor switching. The present study was initiated in two R5 SHIVSF162P3N-infected rapid progressor macaques with coreceptor switch to test the hypothesis that an early step in the evolution of tropism switch is the adoption of a less constrained and more “open” envelope conformation for better CD4 usage, allowing greater structural flexibility to accommodate further mutational changes that confer CXCR4 utilization. We show that, prior to the time of coreceptor switch, R5 viruses in both macaques evolved to become increasingly sCD4-sensitive, suggestive of enhanced exposure of the CD4 binding site and an “open” envelope conformation, and this correlated with better gp120 binding to CD4 and with more efficient infection of CD4low cells such as primary macrophages. Moreover, significant changes in neutralization sensitivity to agents and antibodies directed against functional domains of gp120 and gp41 were seen for R5 viruses close to the time of X4 emergence, consistent with global changes in envelope configuration and structural plasticity. These observations in a simian model of R5-to-X4 evolution provide a mechanistic basis for the HIV-1 coreceptor switch

Perceptions of the appropriate response to norm violation in 57 societies

An Author Correction to this article: DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-22955-x.Norm enforcement may be important for resolving conflicts and promoting cooperation. However, little is known about how preferred responses to norm violations vary across cultures and across domains. In a preregistered study of 57 countries (using convenience samples of 22,863 students and non-students), we measured perceptions of the appropriateness of various responses to a violation of a cooperative norm and to atypical social behaviors. Our findings highlight both cultural universals and cultural variation. We find a universal negative relation between appropriateness ratings of norm violations and appropriateness ratings of responses in the form of confrontation, social ostracism and gossip. Moreover, we find the country variation in the appropriateness of sanctions to be consistent across different norm violations but not across different sanctions. Specifically, in those countries where use of physical confrontation and social ostracism is rated as less appropriate, gossip is rated as more appropriate.Peer reviewe