Jack Madock

Consider the paranoid parent who hires a babysitter and then monitors her via a nanny-cam while out for dinner. Despite what she may say, it is intuitive that she fails to trust the babysitter. Why is this the case? One response has been to propose a constraint against inquiring while trusting. This paper argues that this constraint fails to explain other intuitive instances of a failure of trust owing to epistemic features of the trustor. In light of this, the arguments here suggest the need to adopt an additional constraint. One tempting hypothesis is a constraint against knowing while trusting. This proposal has explanatory advantages but also comes with its problems. This paper will first consider the hypothesis that when one trusts, one cannot know. In responding to objections, it will ultimately argue for a trust-based certainty constraint. The paper thus establishes the need for an additional epistemic condition on trusting and concludes that the trust-based certainty constraint is the most appropriate.

This paper explores and defends sturdiness, that p would be false were one not to believe it (~ Bp→ ~ p), as a plausible necessary condition on knowledge. Sections one and two review previously offered modal accounts of knowledge, namely sensitivity and safety. Section three outlines sturdiness in full and section four tests sturdiness against Gettier-style cases that gave trouble to other modal accounts. Sturdiness is then defended against objections from closure and knowledge of logical truths. Finally, the paper considers whether sturdiness may deliver on intuition in skeptical scenarios. The arguments here show that, given a certain reading, sturdiness is a plausible necessary condition on knowledge and motivates further exploration of the view.

This paper argues against prominent views of the impermissibility of autonomous weapons systems (AWS). It does so by assuming each theory is true and arguing towards contradiction. To arrive at a contradiction two assumptions are necessary. First, the theory of impermissibility in question is assumed. Second, a thought experiment called the ideal warfare scenario is assumed. The paper aims to demonstrate that in theory AWS could be deployed such that they bring about the best of possible warfare. However, even if AWS were deployed in the fairest and safest way, these accounts would still find them to be impermissible. This is deemed to be a failure of these accounts. Finally, this paper discusses the future of artificial intelligence (AI). It explores how AI may be used in the future of warfare and the challenges advanced AI would pose to the ethics of war and the relationship between human soldiers and AWS