Hobbes, Contracts, and Property Rights

Amongst many, though certainly not all, political theorists and economists there is a tendency to believe that in the absence of government, mutually beneficial voluntary economic interactions- and hence property rights- cannot exist, or, if they can, do so only infrequently (see, for instance, Murphy and Nagel (2002); Buchanan (1975); Glaeser et al. (2001); Rand (1967) pp. 329 – 337; Friedman (2002); Epstein (1985) chapter 1; Macpherson (1962)). This view has as its philosophical progenitor Thomas Hobbes, who famously concludes in his masterpiece, Leviathan, that in order to allow for mutually beneficial economic interactions- and thus property rights- a civil authority with the power to create and enforce laws is first necessary. What Hobbes (and by implication most modern political theorists and economists) fails to address adequately is that agents can establish property holdings and facilitate economic transactions in the absence of a government via self-enforcing contracts, particularly given his starting assumptions.

Read Full Post »

To Punish or Not to Punish: A Moral Conflict Between Law & Compassion

Hello Fellow Philosophers!

The inspiration for this post comes from a very weird source: a Russian serial. Unlike here in the US, most Russian movies that are made (and popularly watched) have multiple parts to them, usually running between 40 – 50 minutes per part, and consisting of anywhere from 4 to 24 parts. These are referred to as “serials” (or, at least, that is the translation from Russian), and are shown on TV.

In one of the ones that I finished just recently, there was an interesting moral dilemma that came up that I thought would be nice to post up here.

Read Full Post »

Laudan on the Arkansas Creationism Trial

Here Read it.

Read Full Post »

Different Definitions Of Proof

A discussion of “the difficulty of using cutting-edge science in the courtroom” … here.

Read Full Post »

Defaulting to Democracy: Why?

Hello Fellow Student Philosophers!

The following is something I wrote down a few weeks ago, forgot about, and then, just recently, found on one of my father’s computers in his office. Re-reading this has re-spurred by interest in the topic, so I figured I’d post it here to see what you guys think.

Enjoy!

George (“The Meager Weakling”)

Read Full Post »

Killing a Vegan: Degrees of Subjectivity

Have you ever Stepped on a nail and not felt it–then: Pain Strikes you. You’ve been standing on the nail for a minute, but because you had your mind focused on the hottie walking by, you didn’t notice it. This is revealing. It reveals that pain (the phenomenological pain) is a process of higher order functions. The “I” becomes aware of the of the pain and then it becomes “I-pain”. In psychology, there is a distinction between aversive reactions and physiological response to a stimuli and the phenomenological pain response to a stimuli. Aversive reactions can take place without pain, but are many times accompanied by pain—emotional or physical, which are processed in the same area of the brain (see last months Scientific American). Now, humans and higher order animals can feel pain, but lower order animals may not feel phenomenological pain because they don’t have the “I” concept or the ability the higher order brain functions to process suffering as anything more than a stimuli and response. When we talk about ethics with animals, we should consider degrees of suffering.

Read Full Post »

Kitcher at UWO

Phillip Kitcher was here a few weeks ago and gave two talks on the intersections of science, society, freedom, and democracy. I thought that some of you might like to watch and discuss what was said. Below are the videos:

Read Full Post »

Logic, Fallacies, Antigone, and more

BBC Radio 4 Program: In Our Time

The host, Melvyn Bragg, discusses the history of logic with guests A.C. Grayling, Peter Millican, and Rosanna Keefe.

The Nizkor Project’s Fallacies Section and Fallacy Files

Two sites that offer a decent exposition of informal logical fallacies (Fallacy Files also covers formal fallacies).

Sorites and Philosophers’ Imprint

Two free online journals which cover a wide range of philosophical subjects. Sorites, however, only publishes work in analytic philosophy, while Philosophers’ Imprint publishes, albeit sparingly, on continental topics.

Summer Schools in Logic and Learning

Produced by the University of Canberra, Australia, the School contains a plethora of lectures on computer science, logic, automated reasoning, and many other topics. Of particular interest to me, note the lecture in non-classical logic.

Finally, Flagler College is producing Sophocles’ Antigone. The play may be of some interest to those who are taking Philosophy of Law with Dr. Buchwalter. Amongst other themes, Sophocles addresses the (still vibrant) debate over the nature of law: is there a higher law, a law the supersedes the positive edicts of rulers? Antigone apparently thinks so!

Read Full Post »

More on fMRI’s: A Psychopath’s Brain

There’s an interesting couple of posts over at Psych Central about using fMRI techonology to image the brains of psychopaths. Such techonology, if available, brings up interesting questions all around. One ethical question is one that has already been explored in science fiction–if we are able to tell who is (potentially) a psychopath and capable of horrendous behavior, what should we do? Curtail deviant behavior? Let it happen? What about the rights of the patient/participant in a study?

Read Full Post »

Podcast: The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

Here’s an AALS podcast on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This podcast has three speakers, Tim Coulter, Angelique Eaglewoman and G.W. Rice. While listening to the podcast, it’s helpful to look at the UN Declaration, as speakers refer to various articles in their discussions.

Tim Coulter discusses how the Declaration got started, why it was started, and the innovative ideas it brought to international law. Coulter talks about how the first draft of the Declaration developed in the 1970’s: He had been practicing Indian law and realized that, among other things, any victory he might get for a client could be struck down without due process by the federal government. He realized that his native clients didn’t have the legal protections and rights that most American people have. So, he and others sought to change the law; not merely federal law—international law. For the first time, Coulter says, victims of human rights violations got to develop international human rights law.

Read Full Post »

Leiter and Shapiro on Bloggingheads

Brian Leiter (Chicago) and Scott Shapiro (Yale) talk about legal philosophy.

Read Full Post »

Cognitive Disability: A Challenge to Moral Philosophy

It’s a flurry of podcasts! Here’s information about the conference these podcasts come from:

“Cognitive Disability: A Challenge to Moral Philosophy” will explore philosophical questions about three specific populations — people with autism, Alzheimer’s disease, and those labeled “mentally retarded.” We will raise ethical and foundational questions regarding both theoretical and practical matters. The areas to be explored include:

Personhood: Should individuals with cognitive disabilities be excluded from the protections and responsibilities we assign to “persons”? Do the implications of such exclusion force a reconsideration of the concept of personhood?

Justice: Should individuals with cognitive disabilities be excluded from the claims and protections granted to members of a political community? If not, how might their interests be represented and given a political voice?

Read Full Post »

Happy Halloween!

And don’t eat too much candy!

Read Full Post »

Evil Smells like a Fart

Via Eric Schwitzgebel I learn of what is quite possibly the best study ever, simply because it uses fart spray so awesomely. However, this sort of study is interesting for reasons beyond the creative use of fart spray.

As I’ve previously noted, explicit use of disgust-based arguments are often found in popular moral and legal debates, and people sometimes argue that a disgust-response itself shows something is immoral or should be illegal. Martha Nussbaum (U-Chicago), in Hiding from Humanity, has argued that the disgust-response doesn’t reliably track whether something is immoral (or unsafe/hazardous) and disgust should never play a role in making something illegal.

Here’s a snippet from Schwitzgebel (read his entire entry here):

Simone Schnall and co-authors (including the always interesting Jonathan Haidt) set up a table on the Stanford campus, asking passing Stanford students to complete a questionnaire on the immorality or not of marrying one’s first cousin, having consensual sex with a first cousin, driving rather than walking 1 1/2 miles to work, and releasing a documentary over the objections of immigrants who didn’t realize they were being interviewed on film. All respondents completed the questionnaire while standing near a trashbucket. For one group, the bucket was clean and empty; for another it was lightly doused with fart spray so that a mild odor emanated from it; for a third group, the bucket was liberally sprayed and emitted a strong stench. Participants in the odiferous conditions rated all four actions morally worse than in the fart-absent condition.

UPDATE: Speaking of Nussbaum’s Hiding from Humanity, there’s a special issue of the Journal of Applied Philosophy dealing with this book. Find out more at The Brooks Blog.

Read Full Post »

Sweet Deal

Via the wonderful SWIP-L list, I’m informed of a new collection of essays called Global Ethics: Seminal Essays (Eds. Pogge and Horton). Here’s a blurb from the publisher:

In recent decades, there has been an explosion of interest in global ethics — the study of ethical issues with significant global dimensions. This book, a companion volume to Global Justice: Seminal Essays, provides a sample of the best recent work on those issues. Topics treated include whether individuals and governments in rich countries should give more aid to people in poor countries, and what the nature of any such duties might be; the causes of persistent poverty in certain countries; the conditions under which military action aimed at protecting human rights in foreign countries might be morally justified; the moral basis for the right to self-determination; whether attitudes such as patriotism and nationalism are morally justified in today’s world, and if so, what justifies them; what “development” is; whether there could be a genuinely universal consensus on human rights; and what response might be morally required to such global problems as population growth and climate change.

Read Full Post »

Nussbaum Interview: Liberty of Conscience

Here’s a link to an interview with Martha Nussbaum about her recent book Liberty of Conscience.

(Hat Tip!)

Read Full Post »

Don’t know much about tribal sovereignty?

Well, read this, then!

Read Full Post »

New Era of Indigenous Rights

Off blog obligations have kept me from writing about the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples here. But fear not, dear readers! I shall not miss the opportunity to pass along this article discussing the new era of indigenous rights.

Here’s a snippet:

Over the past 30 years, indigenous peoples around the world have expressed greater public self-consciousness of their needs for recognition of land, resources and greater political and cultural autonomy. While indigenous peoples have always sought to protect their cultures throughout colonial history, the last three decades mark a dramatic increase in the recognition of indigenous rights and self-expression in local, national and global contexts.

Indigenous peoples are surrounded by nation-states as well as regional and local governments that often do not fully honor or recognize indigenous land, or cultural and political rights. Implementation of the indigenous peoples’ movement’s recent achievement, the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, will make it difficult for world governments to ignore indigenous rights.

Read Full Post »

Article 10

In my most recent writing on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, I looked at Articles 1 and 2. Today, I’m going to jump down a little bit to Article 10 simply because forced relocation has been on my mind lately.

Article 10 is this:

Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the indigenous peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.

In keeping with my American Indian theme, I’ll discuss forced relocation of Indians, although we should keep in mind that indigenous peoples outside of the U.S. have been subject to similar polices.

Read Full Post »

Articles 1 and 2

All of the commentary on the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples I have read says that the Declaration creates no new rights. For now, I’m going to assume that’s true.

What does the Declaration do then, if not create new rights? Well, it affirms that rights that exist elsewhere (like in other UN documents and international law) apply to indigenous peoples and individuals. This is significant because the rights in the Declaration have very often been—and very often are—denied to indigenous peoples and individuals.

There’s a lot to say about each Article and the Declaration itself, but today I thought I’d write a little bit about the first two Articles.

Read Full Post »

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Forced Assimilation

In comments, I mentioned the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples that was adopted by the United Nations this past September. For those unfamiliar with a document of this sort, it is not legally binding but sets a minimum standard that States should aim at and could be the foundation for future law.

The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has been in the works for quite some time and many American Indians were instrumental to its development.

In the next few weeks I’ll be writing about different Articles in the Declaration. I welcome comments from everyone, especially indigenous readers in the United States and elsewhere. Since it is the minimum standard the international community thinks we ought to aim at, it is good for Indians and non-Indians to discuss the Declaration together in, as the Declaration says, a spirit of partnership and mutual respect.

Read Full Post »

Reserved Rights

I know what you’ve been thinking. You’ve been staying up at night tossing and turning, wondering to yourself, “What is a reserved right in a treaty?”

Well, say goodbye to sleepless nights for I shall tell you what a reserved right is. Not only will you then be able to sleep, you will also understand why some Indians can hunt or fish in places, at times or in ways plain old United States citizens cannot, or why some Indians are allowed to hunt, fish or gather off their reserved lands. What’s more, you will be liberated from thinking that Indians are getting unfair special treatment based on their race, which is a common misunderstanding for those who haven’t fully grasped the concept of a reserved right.

Read Full Post »

The Importance of Treaties

Last week I blogged about the Lakota Freedom Delegation’s attempt at treaty withdrawal. This week I thought I’d blog about why treaties are important to native people.

Most people know that treaties are important to American Indians—somehow. Most people also know the stories of how the US has failed throughout the years to honor treaty obligations to native peoples.

Fortunately for those who aren’t exactly sure why treaties are important to Indians or why they are continually relevant, the article excerpt below, with statements from the President of the Rosebud Sioux Tribe and the Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, explains:

Read Full Post »

Martha Nussbaum Interview

While searching for something related to research on Bernard Williams, I got sidetracked by this interview with Martha Nussbaum (from last year, Sept 2006) that I hadn’t seen before. I thought I’d link it here for those who are interested; it has a transcript and webcast.

Read Full Post »

Some Links to Stir Your Thoughts

If you’ve enjoyed the Nietzsche topics this summer Movement of Existence continues the theme: The Madman.

Richard’s most recent post at Philosophy, et cetera ponders “What constitutes ‘progress’ for philosophy as an academic discipline?

Also, don’t miss Brian Leiter’s new blog on Legal Philosophy.

Read Full Post »