Cora Diamond’s discussions of the ethics of our treatment of animals offer a critique of conceptions of morality which regard our ethical responses as founded on reasons which ought to be reasons for anyone. Diamond takes issue with accounts of our treatment of animals based on their possession of capacities which are shared with us. She offers instead a concept of the moral life, as a form of life—inherited, shared and negotiated—only within which can moral reasons count as reasons at (...) all. Our fellow creatures have some share in this life, but one that must be recognized as partial and problematic.In this discussion, we offer an account which is consistent with Diamond’s general perspective. But one which also offers a more generous account of ways in which the discoveries of the ethological sciences dynamically reshape the place of animals in our shared moral life. (shrink)

This book brings together disparate strands of ToM research, lays out historical roots of the idea, and indicates better alternatives.

Professor Ziman's project in his paper 'No man is an island' is to promote the understanding of science as a social enterprise. His main enemy is what he calls 'methodological solipsism' according to which 'the world of things and beings is surveyed and interpreted from the point of view of a single individual', and scientists think of themselves as lone explorers relying only on 'the evidence of their own eyes and their rational inferences concerning the hidden mechanisms by which these (...) personal percepts may be generated'. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Under the Floorboards:Examining the Foundations of Mild Cognitive ImpairmentMichael Bavidge (bio)KeywordsAlzheimer’s disease, culture, dementia, normal aging, science"Building a mystery: Alzheimer disease, mild cognitive impairment, and beyond" (Gaines and Whitehouse 2006) is an absorbing and important case study of how Alzheimer's disease (AD) came to be seen as a disease and how mild cognitive impairment (MCI) has been constructed in recent years as a related incipient condition.The interdisciplinary approach taken (...) in the article produces findings of very different sorts, which are then marshaled to challenge the status of AD and MCI. The factors identified as contributing to the emergence of dementia as a disease include the inconclusive nature of the empirical evidence relating to the causes of dementia, the divergence in the paradigms of the biological sciences, the social pressures resulting from the aging of the population, consumerism in medicine, research funding, the profit motive in the pharmaceutical industries, and our "hypercognitive culture."There is a danger in a short article drawing on detailed work in different disciplines that no single argument is conclusive and the combination of inconclusive arguments remains unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, the picture that emerges is convincing. It is interesting to follow the details of a particular case history to track the intricate interlacing of clinical findings and social decision making that enter into the construction of a disease. The article traces the factors that encouraged the identification of dementia as a widespread, treatable condition and the diagnostic techniques and treatments that determined the delineation of the disease.In the case of AD and MCI, the implications of this process of construction extend beyond taxonomy. They call into question our attitude to aging. Do we see aging as itself a pathology? When Professor Tom Kirkwood writes "from a biological point of view, there is nothing necessary or inevitable about aging" (2001, xi), he does not mean to deny that as the years pass people get older (inevitably); he means that the deteriorations that at present we cannot but see as normal features of aging, are not inevitable. Do we have a spurious ideal of competence based on a time-slice taken from what we like to think of the prime of our lives? Why do we not think of the "cognitive [End Page 75] impairments" of childhood and adolescence as pathological? These are fundamental questions about our experience and understanding of living, aging and dying and they add layers of significance to the topic of the paper (Bavidge 2006).The main focus of the article is to expose the complex process involved in the classification of dementia as "a degenerative, biological, clinical entity" (Gaines and Whitehouse 2006, XX) and to raise doubts about its distinction from normal aging. Not everyone will be happy that so much weight is placed on disease as a dysfunctional clinical entity. Nor will everyone think that so much hangs on the disease status of dementia and MCI. However, on any account, the contrast between disease and normal aging has become less clear because our understanding of both terms of the comparison has become less secure. The question "Is dementia a disease?" is matched by the question "Is aging normal?"Many of the disabilities or degenerations associated with aging are now understood to be conditions that could be avoided, cured, or controlled. So although the article raises doubts about the stability of the category of AD, parallel problems have arisen about normal aging. If important elements of what we classify as dementia should be seen as normal human development, it is equally the case that some aspects of what we accept as part of the normal aging experience should be seen as pathological. The authors assert "we have not argued that there is no 'there' there. Rather, we suggest that the mystery of the 'there' (i.e., AD, MCI) may not be much different (if at all) from, and probably is, the mystery of the 'everywhere' (i.e., aging)" (Gaines and Whitehouse 2006, 61).The article is an exercise in the sociology of knowledge. This will be enough in itself to raise some hackles. It is interesting how an historical and sociological approach to the sciences has... (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Commentary on “Minds, Memes, and Multiples”Michael Bavidge (bio)Multiple Personality Disorder challenges the idea we have of ourselves—selves whose essential characteristics are simplicity, identity, transparency. Stephen Clark argues that we should look behind the myth of a unitary self to an older tradition which represents personal integration not as a given but as something to be striven for, “a distant, luminous goal,” a “light” over the multiple parts of the (...) human personality, a therapeutic and personal ideal of ourselves as persons separate from the ideas that invade us and the experiences that flow through us.He argues that this notion has a number of advantages. It is compatible with the data of Multiple Personality Disorder. It avoids Cartesian myths while providing a self substantial enough to meet both philosophers’ demands for an explanation of the coherence of experience and clinicians’ requirements for a therapeutic objective.Clark sees Multiple Personality Disorder as an exotic manifestation of the unstable and fractured nature of familiar experience. He points up the complexities of our personalities and the passivity of our normal experience. So our everyday experience comes together with the psychiatric disorder to encourage a looser, more dispersed notion of the self than has been felt necessary since Descartes.The notion of self which we think of as Cartesian (though, Clark suggests, Descartes may never have accepted it), caught on as part of the settlement between the emerging sciences and older wisdom. The basis of the settlement was that the world was to be made amenable to scientific investigation and our innermost selves were to be protected from it. This requires that the self has to be all the things that the rest of the world is not—non-spatial, privately accessible, outside determinist, causal chains, simple and indivisible. The settlement was never stable, and, as contemporary arguments over the cognitive sciences demonstrate, it is as controversial today as ever. Multiple Personality Disorder adds psychiatric considerations to the evidence piling up against the Cartesian self.However, the diagnosis is extremely controversial. A highly critical editorial in the British Journal of Psychiatry in March 1995 suggests that the condition is largely generated within therapy. 1 The diagnosis, as the New Scientist (June 17, 1995) reported, seems excessively subject to trends and fashions. 2 Clark shares these reservations, but he concludes that there is now strong evidence of a “real condition.” Yet he does not discuss what he means by a “real condition.” Certainly he intends to exclude malingering or mere therapist suggestion. Nevertheless, he prefers to interpret the disorder as a matter of one [End Page 29] person having different strategies for dealing with a stressful world, rather than as the emergence of a plurality of persons. Some psychiatrists will think that his acceptance, however qualified, is too much of a concession, while others may feel that he is not allowing the alters, and therefore the condition itself, to be “real” enough.Clark’s philosophical remarks are also circumspect, but ambitious claims are there. He wants a re-appraised, strong theory of the self, though he doubts that the truth of such a theory could ever be established. Nevertheless, for Clark, we need a notion of self as “substance, a real being”; we discover and rediscover it; “it becomes aware of itself in me.”Apart from its philosophical advantages, the notion of self he wishes to revive has therapeutic value. Autonomy is the therapeutic target. Understood in Cartesian terms, Multiple Personality Disorder presents paradoxes of autonomy. Cognitive autonomy is the defining characteristic of the Cartesian self; when we have multiple persons, the question arises: autonomy for whom? The difficulties are softened if our idea of self allows for plurality, opacity and divergence within the one person, so the prospect held out to the patient is the possibility of repossessing the fragmented parts of his or her life.Clark engages in a two-fold maneuver for making sense of Multiple Personality Disorder. He revives a looser philosophical concept of self, and he interprets the disorder as an extension of ordinary experience in which there is a divergence of coping strategies rather than a plurality of egos. One could argue that Clark is too optimistic... (shrink)

ABSTRACT The purpose of this article is to supply a justification in moral philosophy for considering the grossly depraved criminal to be less than a normally responsible agent. Decisions concerning the responsibility of a person depend upon our ability to act and react morally with that person. The argument is that when we reflect on the implications of (1) the moral role that desires play in excusing or condemning actions and (2) the minimum moral requirements of punishment, we realise that (...) a moral community does not exist between us and the grossly depraved. That is, we cannot apply key moral categories simpliciter, including the notion of guilt. (shrink)