John Gardner

This paper tackles three common misconceptions about responsibility. The first misconception is that it is against our interests to be responsible for our actions. The second is that our responsibility for our actions is fixed at the time when we act. The third is that we can only be responsible to someone in particular, not responsible full stop. The three misconceptions turn out to be related, and disabusing ourselves of them helps us to rediscover the most fundamental point of the courtroom trial

Jeff McMahan rejects the relevance of desert to the morality of self-defense. In Killing in War he restates his rejection and adds to his reasons. We argue that the reasons are not decisive and that the rejection calls for further attention, which we provide. Although we end up agreeing with McMahan that the limits of morally acceptable self-defense are not determined by anyone’s deserts, we try to show that deserts may have some subsidiary roles in the morality of self-defense. We suggest that recognizing this might help McMahan to answer some unanswered questions to which his own position gives rise.

In this article we consider and cast doubt on two doctrines given prominence and prestige by the utilitarian tradition in ethics. According to the interest theory of value, value is realized only in the advancement of people's interests. According to the well-being theory of interests, people's interests are advanced only in the augmentation of their well-being. We argue that it is possible to resist these doctrines without abandoning the value-humanist doctrine that the value of anything has to be explained in terms of its potential to contribute to human lives and their quality. (Published Online November 24 2006).

We report key themes arising from a postgraduate workshop organized by the King's Interdisciplinary Discussion Society (KIDS) held in April 2011. KIDS believe that health is a phenomenon that transcends disciplinary boundaries, and therefore issues relating to health care and medical ethics are best addressed with an interdisciplinary approach. The workshop, entitled ‘Everyday Ethics and Primary Healthcare’, included poster presentations and oral presentations from participants from a range of disciplines and occupational backgrounds which highlighted the challenges faced by primary health-care workers. Three common themes emerged: the impersonal and cumbersome work environment that can result from the encroachment of rationalizing tools; the tension between ‘ethical practice as an ongoing sensibility’ and ‘ethical practice as “box-ticking”’; and the contested nature of what constitutes ‘health’. Participants felt that the interdisciplinary perspective was helpful in elucidating the various ethical issues arising in primary health care