David P. Schweikard

David Schweikard has written a clear, informative, and sympathetic paper on my book I will here comment on some selected parts of the paper that contain specific criticisms of my book Social Ontology (SO). I largely agree with his general criticism that asks for more realism from my theory concerning especially matters related to the reasons that groups give their members and especially to the conflicts that may arise between such group reasons and the members’ personal (or, as I say, “private”) reasons. In SO I have not gone into all the details that may be needed for a satisfactory discussion of the issues in question, but I believe that my account of group and personal reasons in various kinds of groups and of “stylized” reasoning schemas and other things I consider in the various chapters of the book, e.g. about the role of background knowledge in chapter 5 still serve to indicate how I would go about dealing with problematic cases like the kinds of normative conflicts that Schweikard considers in his paper.

Ausgehend von einem im Februar 2014 ergangenen BGH-Urteil, das die Unterhaltspflicht von erwachsenen Kindern gegenüber ihren Eltern auch im Falle des einseitigen Kontaktabbruchs bejaht, werden in diesem Beitrag Überlegungen zur Struktur und den normativen Implikationen der Eltern-Kind-Beziehung angestellt. Zum einen wird dafür plädiert, die Eltern-Kind-Beziehung als nichtsymmetrisch, d. h. als Komplex aus symmetrischen und asymmetrischen Beziehungen zu verstehen. Zum anderen wird hinsichtlich der normativen Implikationen der Eltern-Kind-Beziehung dafür argumentiert, dass Verpflichtungen innerhalb dieser Beziehung nicht vom bloßen Bestehen, sondern vom Wert der Beziehung abhängig zu machen sind. Aus diesem Argument wird gefolgert, dass die im BGH-Urteil sowie im in der einschlägigen Literatur diskutierten „Past Parental Sacrifices Model“ unterstellte Symmetrie der Eltern-Kind-Beziehung zu einer inadäquaten normativen Analyse führt. Damit wird der Rechtfertigungsstrategie filialer Verpflichtungen, die auf ein Quidproquo bezüglich zurückliegender elterlicher Versorgungsleistungen gestützt ist, eine Absage erteilt.

Social Ontology encompasses a wide variety of inquiries into the nature, structure and perhaps essence of social phenomena, and their role and place in our world. Topics of research in Social Ontology range from small-scale interactions to large-scale institutions, from spontaneous teamwork to the functioning of formal organizations, and from unintended consequences to institutional design. Social Ontology brings together theoretical work from a large number of disciplines. This rapidly evolving field of research has attracted increasing attention over the last couple of decades, and the conceptual tools recent research in Social Ontology has provided have proved to be useful in a large number of domains, such as the study of the evolution of communication, the structure of social norms, social structure, and social change, the nature of collective responsibility, and the status of corporate agents. The Journal of Social Ontology aims to further this research. It provides a forum of exchange between scholars of diverse disciplinary, scholarly, and methodological backgrounds, and invites submissions from all branches of Social Ontology. The Journal of Social Ontology adopts strict standards of selection and relies heavily on its carefully selected referees. In a world in which publication strategies and outlets are changing at a tremendous pace, it is difficult to say what the future of scholarly publication will look like. With a generous grant from the University of Vienna for the start-up phase, the Journal of Social Ontology now appears as an Open Access Journal with De Gruyter, thus combining professional support by an established publisher with unlimited accessibility. In addition, the Journal of Social Ontology has been founded together with the International Social Ontology Society (ISOS) that supports the work of this journal. We wish to express our thanks to our supporters, contributors, and referees; we hope that our joint effort will grant the work published in this journal the impact it deserves.

This article starts from two observations. The first is that some of the most prominent debates in social and political philosophy over the last few decades have been deeply obscured by the confusion of ontological/methodological and normative questions. And the second is that the renewed interest in Hegel's social philosophy has not yet yielded anything like a widely shared view as to whether it should be banned as a totalitarian or reappraised as a liberal account. The aim of this article is first to specify systematically the ontological/methodological and normative dimensions of social philosophy by giving precise definitions of core concepts and paramount positions. Secondly, it is argued that Hegel's social philosophy can be characterized as combining what is called vertical holism with liberal communitarianism. This, thirdly, sheds new light both on the nature of fundamental questions in social philosophy and on the systematic relevance of Hegel's social philosophy

This volume brings together recent work by leading and up-and-coming philosophers on the topic of virtue epistemology. The prospects of virtue-theoretic analyses of knowledge depend crucially on our ability to give some independent account of what epistemic virtues are and what they are _for_. The contributions here ask how epistemic virtues matter apart from any narrow concern with defining knowledge; they show how epistemic virtues figure in accounts of various aspects of our lives, with a special emphasis on our practical lives. In essence, the essays here put epistemic virtues to work.

In this paper, we set out to inquire into how exactly testimony is and should be placed within the framework of virtue epistemology, and more specifically within Ernest Sosa’s exposition and defense thereof. We begin this inquiry (in Sect. 3.2) by formulating conditions of adequacy that can be extracted from recent criticisms of virtue epistemological approaches more generally. In Sect. 3.3, we reconstruct two branches of Sosa’s treatment of testimony, with respect to which we point out problems of inner coherence and compatibility. We won’t stop there but then go on to see first (in Sect. 3.4) whether and, if so, how the two branches can be balanced out within the architecture of Sosa’s theory of knowledge. And second (in Sect. 3.5), we offer and outline a more comprehensive account that solves not just the problems formulated at the outset, but also a number of problems identified along the way.

Karl Marx ist zweifellos einer der einflussreichsten deutschen Philosophen, zudem Theoretiker der Geschichte, der Ökonomie, der Anthropologie etc. Seine Aktualität ist zumal in Zeiten der Finanzkrise ungebrochen. Nach einem Überblick über die Biographie stellt dieses Handbuch Marx Werke in ihren Hauptthesen vor. Ein umfangreiches Kapitel zu den Begriffen und Kontexten arbeitet die Relevanz des Marxschen Denkens für neuere Theoriediskussionen kritisch heraus. Grundlage auch heutiger Debatten sind z.B. seine Diagnosen zu Verdinglichung und Entfremdung, zu Arbeitswelt und Arbeitsformen (Fließbandarbeit), zum Umgang mit natürlichen Ressourcen (Nachhaltigkeit), zu sozialer Gerechtigkeit (neues Prekariat), zu Weltwirtschaft und Imperialismus (Globalisierung) sowie zu den Paradoxien der finanzmarktwirtschaftlichen Weltwirtschaft. Der Schlussteil verfolgt die Rezeption Marx in verschiedenen Disziplinen von der Philosophie über die Theologie bis zur Ökonomie und wirft zudem einen Blick auf die politische Rezeption der Marx schen Schriften in China, der UdSSR und der DDR. Verkaufsargumente - Marx ist einer der einflussreichsten deutschen Philosophen. - Marx hat heute eine gewaltige Aktualität in Presse, Buchmarkt und Universität. - Das konkurrenzlose Handbuch bietet eine umfassende Darstellung von Leben, Werk und Wirkung. - Die öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit für Marx Werk nimmt stetig zu. - Die Autorinnen und Autoren des Handbuchs vertreten nicht eine Schule in der Marxforschung, sondern bieten einen ausgewogenen Überblick über Marx Werk und dessen Wirkung.k auf die politische Rezeption der Marx schen Schriften in China, der UdSSR und der DDR. Verkaufsargumente - Marx ist einer der einflussreichsten deutschen Philosophen. - Marx hat heute eine gewaltige Aktualität in Presse, Buchmarkt und Universität. - Das konkurrenzlose Handbuch bietet eine umfassende Darstellung von Leben, Werk und Wirkung. - Die öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit für Marx Werk nimmt stetig zu. - Die Autorinnen und Autoren des Handbuchs vertreten nicht eine Schule in der Marxforschung, sondern bieten einen ausgewogenen Überblick über Marx Werk und dessen Wirkung.

This volume documents the 16th Münster Lectures in Philosophy and examines five themes that are prominent in the work of philosopher and political theorist Philip Pettit. These themes are: Epistemology and Semantics, Philosophy of Mind, Consequentialism, Group Agency, and Republicanism. The book provides insight into Pettit's work and demonstrates the central role his work plays in a number of contemporary philosophical debates. Pettit’s contributions to the philosophy of mind and action, rational choice theory, the philosophy of the social sciences, as well as metaethics, normative ethics and political philosophy are main points of reference, and have advanced ongoing and initiated new discussions. The book shows that a striking feature of Pettit's work has been the depth of his analyses and arguments regarding individual topics – ranging from rule-following to free will, from group agency to social ontology and the methodology of the social sciences, from a defense of consequentialism to the revival of the republican tradition in the theory of democracy and to value theory, but also their systematic overall coherence. The book contains Pettit’s lecture "Freedom and Other Robustly Demanding Goods", nine critical papers on Pettit’s philosophy, and a reply article entitled "Self-Defense on Five Fronts: A Reply to My Commentators".

University of Cologne, Germany Joint action and group agency have emerged as focuses of attention in recent social theory and philosophy but they have rarely been connected with one another. The argument of this article is that whereas joint action involves people acting together to achieve any sort of result, group agency requires them to act together for the achievement of one result in particular: the construction of a centre of attitude and agency that satisfies the usual constraints of consistency and rationality in adequate measure. The main discovery in the recent theory of group agency is that this result is not easily achieved; no regular voting procedure will ensure, for example, that a group of individually consistent agents will display consistency in group judgments. Key Words: groups • group agents • collective agents • joint action • joint intention.