Gabriel Andrade

Xenotransplantation has great potential as an alternative to alleviate the shortage of organs for donation. However, given that the animal most suited for xenotransplantation is the pig, there are concerns that people in Muslim countries may be more hesitant to morally approve of these procedures. In this study, the moral approval of xenotransplantation was assessed in a group of 895 participants in Egypt. The results showed that religiosity itself does not predict moral approval of xenotransplantation, but religious identity does, as Muslims are less likely to approve of xenotransplantation than Christians. However, the strongest predictor of moral approval of xenotransplantation was gender, with women displaying less approval. A partial mediating factor in this association was concern for animal welfare. Based on these results, some implications for public policy are discussed.

Despite progress, discrimination in public health remains a problem. A significant aspect of this problem relates to how medical resources are allocated. The paradigm of quality-adjusted-life-year (QALY) dictates that medical resources should be allocated on the basis of units measured as length of life and quality of life that are expected after the implementation of a treatment. In this article, I discuss some of the ethical shortcomings of QALY, by focusing on some of its flawed moral aspects, as well as the way it relates to discrimination on the basis of age, race, and disability status. I argue that while this approach seeks to maximize efficiency, it does not place sufficient value on the preservation of life itself. Even more concerning is the fact that the use of QALY disproportionately harms minorities. While QALY is a well-intentioned approach to the allocation of scarce healthcare resources, new alternatives must be sought.

Bullfighting debates in Spain are increasingly intense. Defenders of bullfighting as sport and as art, typically argue that many of the country’s most esteemed intellectual and artistic figures were bullfight enthusiasts. This is admittedly true, but by the same token Spain has a long tradition of anti-bullfighting thought. One prominent critic of bullfighting in the eighteenth century was Gaspar Melchor Jovellanos. Often considered the best representative of the Spanish Enlightenment, Jovellanos did not address bullfighting as a central concern. But, in some writings, he did level important criticisms against this sort of spectacle. Defenders of bullfighting frequently argue that Jovellanos’ critique of bullfighting relies mostly on economic arguments. While it is true that Jovellanos offered economic reasons to oppose bullfighting, a closer reading of his works reveals that he had a larger concern with the violent nature of bullfighting, which cohered with his Enlightenment philosophy.

Many dubious disciplines have been removed from academic institutions, but theology is not one of them, as it is still taught in respectable universities. This article argues that theology does not deserve that special treatment. Theology has long pretended to be a science, but it can never be, because ultimately, theology is grounded on faith and authority, two tenets that run counter to the scientific method. Natural theology appeals to evidence and reason, but it also fails in its endeavor. More recent theologians admit that their discipline is not science per se, but still consider it legitimate in its quest for meaning. There are also reasons to doubt this claim, as there is no need to appeal to the supernatural to find meaning.

Projects of radical life extension have been discussed amongst scientists for years. Some bioethicists express reservations about this endeavor. A common objection appeals to demography: if the human lifespan is dramatically expanded, humanity would face an overpopulation problem. In this essay, the authors reply to this objection. They posit that radical life extension is unlikely to lead to overpopulation because overpopulation is determined more by fertility rates than by longevity, and as a result of the advanced phases of industrialization, fertility rates are likely to be reduced, and therefore, population size would become stable. However, they argue that although overpopulation is not a concern for the foreseeable future, it is still important to acknowledge its potential harms. Finally, they argue that even if overpopulation becomes a problem caused by radical life extension, there are plausible ways to solve it.

Shaming is defended by some as a necessary measure of social control. But shaming is unjust to the extent that it is disproportionate, and largely counterproductive. While much progress has been made, people with disabilities are still frequently at the receiving end of shaming. This is manifest in disregard for accommodation requests, condescending attitudes and overall lack of empathy towards people with disabilities. These trends are also manifest in clinical settings. Medical staff and healthcare workers need to seriously consider this state of affairs and embrace attitudinal changes and policies that contribute to a more welcoming atmosphere towards the disabled, and consequently curb the shaming to which they have been traditionally exposed.

This article is a libertarian critique of incest laws. On the basis of the libertarian “harm principle”, one must ask what exactly is the harm that incest brings forth. Traditionally, anthropologists have tried to rationalize the incest taboo in various theories, and lawmakers have used these principles as grounds for the criminalization of incest. These principles are the preservation of family structure, the enhancement of alliances and the avoidance of genetic risks. While I acknowledge that these rationalizations are plausible, I argue that they are still not sufficient grounds for the preservation of incest laws, and consequently, there is an ethical need to reform them.

In 1989, Thomas Donaldson requested the California courts to allow physicians to hasten his death. Donaldson had been diagnosed with brain cancer, and he desired to die in order to cryonically preserve his brain, so as to stop its further deterioration. This case elicits an important question: is this a case of euthanasia? In this article, we examine the traditional criteria of death, and contrast it with the information-theoretic criterion. If this criterion is accepted, we posit that Donaldson’s case would have been cryocide, but not euthanasia. We then examine if cryocide is an ethically feasible alternative to euthanasia. To do so, we rely on the ethical doctrine of double effect.

Incest taboos are universal, but it is questionable whether consensual incest should continue to be illegal. The most common argument in favor of the illegalization of consensual incest appeals to genetic risks and the harm to potential offspring. In this article, we examine whether public health concern is a sufficient reason to illegalize consensual incest. We posit that indeed, incest represents a risk, but this is not reason enough to illegalize incest. For, other circumstances of sexual intercourse may lead to similar risks, and yet, such practices are not illegal. While those practices may represent an added risk to public health, to forbid them as a way to improve the genetic pool would be akin to eugenic program, and that is morally objectionable. This does not imply that consensual incest ought to be legal, for there may be other good reasons to illegalize it. But they do not relate to public health and genetic risks, and consequently, medical practitioners and public health officials ought to avoid using their medical authority as a platform to make moral pronouncements.

The purpose of this article is to tackle the way postmodernists have attacked science. Departing from the doctrine of relativism, postmodernists have long claimed that science does not deserve any priority over pseudoscientific or even anti-scientific approaches. Regrettably, in the 20th Century, some philosophers were part of this trend. Claude Levi Strauss’ views on rationality and irrationality, Ludwig Wittgenstein’s notion of “language games”, Paul Feyerabend’s epistemological anarchism, and Thomas Kuhn’s theories about paradigms and their incommensurability, are objects of critique in this article. This article also defends some of Karl Popper’s views on the philosophy of science, and addresses the way some postmodernists have erroneously used Popper’s philosophy to advance their own views.

As it has historically been the case with many pandemics, the Covid-19 experience will induce many philosophers to reconsider the value of medical practice. This should be a good opportunity to critically scrutinize the way medical research and medical interventions are carried out. For much of its history, medicine has been very inefficient. But, even in its contemporary forms, a review of common protocols in medical research and medical interventions reveal many shortcomings, especially related to methodological flaws, and more importantly, conflicts of interests due to profit incentives. In the face of these problems, we propose a program of “gentle medicine”. This term, originally formulated by philosopher Jacob Stegenga, describes a form of medicine in which physicians intervene less than they currently do. As part of this general program, we advance a series of reform recommendations that could be enacted both by medical staff in their everyday practice, but also by public health officials and policymakers.

The problem of evil is very old in philosophy (if God is omnipotent and benevolent, why does he allow evil in the world?), but it has not been sufficiently discussed in the context of sports. This article discusses how athletes and fans in sports relate to it. In sports, there are moral evils, such as cheating, trash talking and unjust retaliation. Theists have traditionally appealed to free will as a way to respond to the challenge of moral evil, but this appeal is not without problems. In sports, there are also natural evils, such as injuries and the unfair distribution of natural talents. Theists also have traditional ways of responding to that, but again, it is not clear that these answers are fully satisfactory.

In continuation with the New Thought movement that arose in the United States in the 19th Century, there is now a massive self-help industry that markets books and seminars. This industry has also extended to healthcare in the form of positive thinking, i.e., the idea that happy thoughts are essential for health. While some of these claims may seem reasonable and commonsensical, they are not free of problems. This article posits that positive thinking has some ethical underpinnings. Extreme positive thinking may promote alternative forms of medicine that ultimately substitute effective treatment, and this is unethical. The emphasis on positive thinking for cancer patients may be too burdensome for them. Likewise, unrestricted positive thinking is not necessarily good for mental health. After considering the ethics of positive thinking, this article proposes a more realistic approach.

Este artículo es un estudio comparativo de la manera en que Aristóteles y Alexis de Tocqueville conciben a la familia dentro del contexto de la democracia antigua y moderna, respectivamente. Se elabora un recorrido por la institución de la familia y el matrimonio en Grecia y Roma, y sus vinculaciones con las ideas políticas de esas civilizaciones. Igualmente, se contrasta el entendimiento antiguo de la democracia con el de Tocqueville, y se analiza la vinculación que éste estableció entre el hogar y la esfera pública en las democracias modernas.Palabras llave: Aristóteles; Alexis de Tocqueville; democracia antigua; democracia moderna; familia.This article is a comparative study of the way Aristotle and Alexis de Tocqueville conceive the institution of the family within the context of ancient and modern democracy, respectively. A survey through the institution of family and marriage in Greece and Rome is made, and their links with the political ideas of those civilizations. In the same manner, the article contrasts the ancient understanding of democracy with Tocqueville’s, and it analyzes the link that Tocqueville established between the domestic home and the public sphere in modern democracies.Palabras llave: Aristotle; Alexis de Tocqueville; ancient democracy; modern democracy; family.

Este ensayo critica la postura del multiculturalismo, movimiento filosófico-político en boga que defiende la igualdad de las culturas, pero ésta no está implicada en la igualdad natural de los hombres, y el relativismo, que defiende la igualdad de las culturas, es problemático desde un punto de vista lógico. La noción misma de igualdad llevaría a la conclusión paradójica de que las sociedades igualitarias son superiores a las sociedades jerárquicas. Igualmente, amerita destacar la singularidad de Occidente respecto a otras culturas. Pero el rechazo a la igualdad de las culturas, no excluye una forma limitada de multiculturalismo posible aún.Palabras llave: Igualdad cultural; multiculturalismo; relativismo cultural.This essay critiques the position of multiculturalism, a philosophico-political movement which is in vogue nowadays and that defends cultural equality, but this equality is not implied in the natural equality of men, and relativism, which defends cultural equality, presents problems from a logical point of view. The notion of equality itself would lead to the paradoxical conclusion that societies which are egalitarian are superior to those hierarchical ones. In the same manner, it is valuable to outline West’s singularity with respect to other cultures. But to reject cultural equality does not exclude a limited form of multiculturalism.Palabras llave: Cultural equality; multiculturalism; cultural relativism.