Immorality and Bu Daode, Unculturedness and Bu Wenming

In contemporary Western moral philosophy literature that discusses the Chinese ethical tradition, it is a commonplace practice to use the Chinese term daode 道德 as a technical translation of the English term moral. The present study provides some empirical evidence showing a discrepancy between the terms moral and daode. There is a much more pronounced difference between prototypically immoral and prototypically uncultured behaviors in English (USA) than between prototypically bu daode 不道德 and prototypically bu wenming 不文明 behaviors in Mandarin Chinese (Mainland China). If the Western concept of immorality is defined in contraposition to things that are matters of etiquette or conventional norms and thus tied to a more or less tangible moral / conventional distinction, then we are dealing with a different structure in Mandarin Chinese – the prototypically bu daode and bu wenming behaviors seem to largely overlap. We also discuss whether bu lunli 不倫理 and bu hefa 不合法 can be considered adequate candidates for translation of immorality and we answer in the negative

Minds, brains, and hearts : an empirical study on pluralism concerning death determination

Copyright: This record is sourced from MEDLINE/PubMed, a database of the U.S. National Library of MedicineSeveral authors in bioethics literature have expressed the view that a whole brain conception of death is philosophically indefensible. If they are right, what are the alternatives? Some authors have suggested that we should go back to the old cardiopulmonary criterion of death and abandon the so-called Dead Donor Rule. Others argue for a pluralist solution. For example, Robert Veatch has defended a view that competent persons should be free to decide which criterion of death should be used to determine their death. However, there is very little data on people's preferences about death determination criteria. We conducted online vignette-based survey with Latvian participants (N = 1416). The data suggest that the pluralist solution fits best with the way our study participants think about death determination-widely differing preferences concerning death determination criteria were observed. Namely, most participants choose one of the three criteria discussed in the literature: whole brain, higher brain, and cardiopulmonary. Interestingly, our data also indicate that study participants tend to prefer less restrictive criteria for determination of their own deaths than for determination of deaths of their closest relatives. Finally, the preferences observed in our sample are largely in accord with the Dead Donor Rule for organ procurement for transplantation.publishersversionPeer reviewe

In defense of a pluralistic policy on the determination of death

Publisher Copyright: © 2018 E-flow Walter de Gruyter. All rights reserved.In his paper “The challenge of brain death for the sanctity of life ethic”, Peter Singer advocates two options for dealing with death criteria in a way that is compatible with efficient organ transplantation policy. He suggests that we should either (a) redefine death as cortical death or (b) go back to the old cardiopulmonary criterion and scrap the Dead Donor Rule. We welcome Singer’s line of argument but raise some concerns about the practicability of the two alternatives advocated by him. We propose adding a third alternative that also – as the two previous alternatives – preserves and extends the possibility of organ transplantation without using anyone without their consent. Namely, we would like to draw readers’ attention to a proposal by Robert Veatch, formulated 42 years ago in his 1976 book “Death, dying, and the biological revolution” and developed further in his later publications. Veatch argues for a conscience clause for the definition of death that would permit people to pick from a reasonable range of definitional options. This autonomy-based option, we believe, is more likely to be practicable than the two options advocated by Singer. Furthermore, we present data from a study with Lithuanian participants that suggest that there is quite pronounced variation of preferences concerning death determination.publishersversionPeer reviewe

STUDENTŲ VASAROS VERTIMO SEMINARAS

Summer Workshop on TranslationVilius Dranseik

VEIKSMŲ ATPAŽINIMAS KAIP VIRTUS DORMITIVA

Straipsnyje siūlomos konceptualios priemonės, leidžiančios formuluoti tvirtinimą, kad tose socialinių mokslų filosofijos teorijose, kuriose veiksmų atpažinimas yra laikomas metodologiniu socialinio aiškinimo pagrindu, jis yra traktuojamas kaip „virtus dormitiva“. Tuomet veiksmų atpažinimas gali būti suprantamas kaip tiesioginė veiksmų tipų įžvalga elgsenoje arba neapibrėžta, holistinė veiksmų interpretavimo procedūra. Abiem atvejais susiduriama su neskaidrios ir toliau neaiškinamos pažįstančiojo episteminės galios postulavimu. „Virtus dormitiva“ problema tampa ypač aštri, jei pripažįstame veiksmo atpažinimo problemos metodologinį pirmumą prieš veiksmo aiškinimo problemą1.Pagrindiniai žodžiai: veiksmų atpažinimas, veiksmų aiškinimas, veiksmų tipai ir atvejai, socialinių mokslų filosofija.Action Recognition as Virtus DormitivaVilius Dranseika SummaryIn this paper, I propose the conceptual means that allow for the formulation of the claim that in the theories of philosophy of social science that take action recognition as the methodological basis of social explanation, action recognition is treated as a virtus dormitiva. Here action recognition may be understood either as a direct perception of action-types in behaviour or as an indeterminate holistic procedure of action interpretation. In both cases we encounter positing of nontransparent and further unexplainable epistemic power. The problem of virtus dormitiva becomes especially pressing if we recognize the methodological primacy of the problem of action recognition over the problem of action explanation.Keywords: action recognition, explanation of actions, action types and act tokens, philosophy of social sciences