Mark Walker

RésuméÉtant donné un ensemble de données D, les tenants de l'unicité épistémique soutiennent qu'une seule réponse doxastique est rationnelle, tandis que les tenants du permissivisme épistémique soutiennent que plusieurs réponses doxastiques peuvent être rationnelles. Comme certains auteurs l'ont signalé, l'un des attraits de la position permissiviste est qu'elle nous permet de comprendre le désaccord philosophique comme un désaccord dans lequel aucune des parties ne commet de faute rationnelle, et donc de respecter le statut épistémique de chacune d'elles. Je soutiens au contraire que la position permissiviste ne parvient pas à offrir un tel avantage dans de nombreux désaccords philosophiques.

Happy-People-Pills for All explores current theories of happiness while demonstrating the need to develop advanced pharmacological agents for the enhancement of our capacity for happiness and wellbeing. Presents the first detailed exploration of the enhancement of happiness A controversial yet rigorous argument that demonstrates the moral imperative for the development and mass distribution of ‘happy-pills’, to promote the wellbeing of the individual and society Brings together the philosophy, psychology and biology of happiness Maps the development of the next generation of positive mood pharmacology Offers a corrective to contemporary accounts of happiness.

The chapter aims to provide at least a partial analysis of the word ‘happiness’ as it is used in everyday language. The author tries to make clear exactly what we are looking for in a theory of happiness and then goes on to argue for a particular theory. The theory that the author endorses is a composite of affective and cognitive elements. The chapter looks at four monistic theories of happiness before showing why each is insufficient. It considers two affective accounts of happiness: sensory hedonism and emotional state theory. The chapter then discusses two cognitive accounts. It shows that whole life satisfaction is not a constituent of superlative happiness, though whole life satisfaction is perhaps the most common understanding of happiness in both social science and philosophical literature. The author argues for a composite view of happiness that includes sensory pleasure, positive emotional states, and positive propositional attitudes.

This chapter examines some of the social science data concerning the relationship between happiness and achievement. The chapter explores further the idea that there are causal links between happiness and achievement, focusing on what common sense has to say about these matters. Reflective common sense supports a bidirectional model of causation: good moods often cause achievement and achievement often causes good moods. Before looking at the studies in support of the claim that happiness promotes achievement, the chapter considers the notion of ‘effect size’. The question of whether positive affect causes achievement can be addressed by two sorts of studies. One type is longitudinal studies; the other is laboratory studies. Correlation, longitudinal, and experimental studies converge to show that positive moods and emotions cause achievement. Social science research suggests that those who are happier than average will be doubly blessed: they are happier and, on average, they will achieve more.

This paper argues: Canadian “Hate Speech Laws”, and similar laws in other jurisdictions, are instances of ‘unilateral censorship’, the suppression of a single political viewpoint. Unilateral censorship infringes upon the democratic commitment to free and fair elections. The legislated exclusion of some from the political process through the control of speech means that Canadian governance is best described as ‘logocratic’. It may be possible to mount a new “Charter Challenge” to Hate Speech laws invoking Section 3 of the Charter, based on the idea that unilateral censorship infringes upon Section 3 guarantees of free and fair elections, and eligibility to run for Canadian legislative bodies. The envisioned challenge differs significantly from previous Charter Challenges because what is at issue are not the liberty rights of citizens in a democracy, but the democratic process itself

Approximately one in six persons in the U.S. lacks medical insurance. Legislation permits only physicians to prescribe many common medicines. This state of affairs is unjust. A just society cannot have it both ways: legislation cannot say that the expertise of physicians is so precious that only they can prescribe medicine and that not everyone is guaranteed reasonable access to their services. If there is no guarantee of reasonable access, then physicians should not have a monopoly on writing prescriptions, and if there is a monopoly on writing prescriptions then people should have reasonable access to their services. To remedy this situation we must ensure that all citizens have reasonable access to medical services, or allow the uninsured to self-medicate