Bernward Gesang

When an individual’s action is only one among a large number of similar actions and does not seem to make any difference to the bad collective outcome, can it nonetheless be condemned by act utilitarianism? This question has currently regained interest with papers, e.g., by Shelly Kagan, Julia Nefsky, and Felix Pinkert. Christopher Morgan-Knapp and Charles Goodman answer the question in the affirmative for miniscule emissions in the context of climate change. They use expected utility analysis as Kagan did in consumer ethics. The assumptions about the impact of emissions vary according to some underlying empirical scenarios, all of which are possible. Individual actions might be relevant in the sense of contributing to a mere linear accumulation of emissions; or they might be relevant by leading to an accumulation in the form of crossing thresholds, be it one or several, Finally, such actions might not be relevant at all. To give an answer that solves the problem and that is based solely on expected utility analysis is impossible. Therefore, the view of Morgan-Knapp and Goodman must be rejected.

In diesem Aufsatz werden die Interpretationen des Begriffs Menschenwürde vorgestellt, die in den aktuellen ethischen Debatten die am häufigsten diskutierten sind. Dabei handelt es sich um die traditionelle und die Kantische Theorie sowie um die Demütigungs- und die Achtungstheorie. Zudem werden zwei Ansätze präsentiert, die Menschenwürde über Relationen zu Menschenrechten erklären. Es soll ermittelt werden, ob einer der Kandidaten das Potenzial hat, einen begründbaren, gehaltvollen, präzisen und gegenüber dem Common-Sense Gebrauch nicht völlig revisionären Begriff der Menschenwürde zu liefern. Die hier verteidigte These wird lauten, dass Menschenwürde als Bezeichnung dafür verwendet werden kann, dass die fundamentalen Menschenrechte einer menschlichen Person in substantieller Weise erfüllt sind.This essay discusses the most debated theories of the concept of human dignity in contemporary ethical discourses. The essay will explore if one of these theories is capable of delivering a justifiable, substantial and precise concept of human dignity that does not demand an entire revision of the concept in respect of its ordinary usage. The according thesis that will be defended is that human dignity is given if the fundamental human rights of a human person are realised.

A legitimate moral justification has to be given by justifying a norm to everyone. Achieving unanimity about norms is a moral correctness criterion for certain contract theories. What exactly is meant by unanimity? Most contract theorists quickly agree that unanimity, understood as the explicit factual agreement of everyone to a norm candidate, is de facto impossible to achieve. It is stated that the following types of consent can replace de facto unanimous consent: a) majority consent; b) rational consent, c) consent based on self-interest, d) consent based on transcendental interests and e) consent based on undisputed moral principles. I want to show that unanimous consent cannot be achieved in any of these ways, and if you claim that moral norms are based on unanimity or that there are no moral norms, then you have to dismiss morality.

Sollen Menschen ihre "normalen" Eigenschaften verbessern und so die menschliche Natur neu gestalten? Die Forschung sucht etwa nach Präparaten, die das Gedächtnis verbessern, das Leben verlängern und Gefühle verändern können. Tierversuche sind bereits erfolgreich. Führt die Befreiung von allen Grenzen von Körper und Geist in eine Katastrophe oder erwarten uns neue Chancen? Das Buch soll die Perfektionierung des Menschen leicht verständlich und philosophisch anspruchsvoll hinterfragen. Dabei werden soziale Folgen von "Enhancement" ebenso thematisiert wie die Gefahren für das Individuum. Droht uns eine Zwei-Klassen-Gesellschaft ungeahnten Ausmaßes oder kann Enhancement gerade dazu dienen, Ungleichheiten der natürlichen Lotterie auszugleichen? Können autonome Individuen durch die Wahl von Verbesserungen ihre Interessen realisieren oder muss man sie paternalistisch schützen? Neben diesen Fragen widmet sich das Buch der Untersuchung der menschlichen Natur: Worin besteht sie und kann sie Grenzen für die Technik diktieren? Abschließend werden die im Buch behandelten Aspekte in der Frage fokussiert, ob es wünschenswert ist, die maximale Lebensspanne des Menschen zu vergrößern.

In diesem Aufsatz geht es vorrangig darum, moralische Divergenzen zu diskutieren. Realistische Argumente zur Erklärung von den durch Mackies „Relativitätsargument“ ins Spiel gebrachten Divergenzen werden verworfen, was bestimmte Formen des Relativismus erhärtet. So lässt sich z.B. selbst unter weitgehend idealen Diskursbedingungen in einem Seminar über Ethik kein Konsens erzielen, ob deontologische oder utilitaristische Meinungen richtig sind. Dies lässt die realistische Verteidigung unplausibel werden, dass Reflexion auf der Ebene der Moraltheorie die meisten Divergenzen auflöse. Zudem werden einige z.B. sprachliche „Phänomene“, die Realisten gern für sich in Anspruch nehmen, kritisch diskutiert. Der Aufsatz soll Evidenzen für den Realismus erschüttern und zumindest eine Variante des Relativismus, den „pessimistischen, deskriptiven Relativismus“ stützen

In this paper I examine the question of whether ethicists are moral experts. I call people moral experts if their moral judgments are correct with high probability and for the right reasons. I defend three theses, while developing a version of the coherence theory of moral justification based on the differences between moral and nonmoral experience: The answer to the question of whether there are moral experts depends on the answer to the question of how to justify moral judgments. Deductivism and the coherence theory both provide some support for the opinion that moral experts exist in some way. I maintain – within the framework of a certain kind of coherence theory – that moral philosophers are 'semi-experts'.

In order to discuss the normative aspects of euthanasia one has to clarify what is meant by active and passive euthanasia. Many philosophers deny the possibility of distinguishing the two by purely descriptive means, e.g. on the basis of theories of action or the differences between acting and omitting to act. Against this, such a purely descriptive distinction will be defended in this paper by discussing and refining the theory developed by Dieter Birnbacher in his “Tun und Unterlassen”. On this basis I will suggest a new definition of active and passive euthanasia

Definition of the problem: In order to discuss the normative aspects of euthanasia one has to clarify what is meant by active and passive euthanasia. Arguments and conclusion: Many theoreticians deny the possibility of distinguishing between the two by purely descriptive means, e.g. on the basis of theories of action or the differences between acting and omitting. On the contrary, such a purely descriptive distinction will be defended in this paper by summarizing and refining the theory of Dieter Birnbacher, which he developed in his book Tun und Unterlassen. I will suggest a new definition of active and passive euthanasia

The question of the moral relevance of the individual demand is fundamental to many purchase decisions of daily consumer life. Can a single purchase make a difference for the better or worse? Each individual consumer could argue that companies are unlikely to adjust their production due to one single item more or less being sold. He might therefore decide not to change his consumption behavior but instead to rely on the effort of others, a pattern commonly referred to as collective action problem. In this article, we study collective action problems with regard to everyday purchase situations. We base our discussion on Shelly Kagan’s famous article “Do I make a difference?” and critically discuss a central assumption of his model: the symmetric relationship between supply and demand. We find that Kagan’s solution to collective action problems is not true a priori but has to be evaluated in certain empirical surroundings. We therefore discuss the approach in the context of the European meat market and demonstrate that Kagan’s argument does not provide a universal solution to cases of meat purchasing. We conclude with an outlook regarding the role of consumer ethics.