John Broome

This chapter attempts to estimate the amount of harm an average American does by her emissions of greenhouse gas, on the basis of recent very detailed statistical analysis being done by a group of economists. It concentrates on the particular harm of shortening people’s lives. The estimate is very tentative, and it varies greatly according to how effectively the world responds to climate change. If the response is very weak, the author estimates that an average American’s emissions shorten lives by six or seven years in total. If the response is moderately strong, the figure is about half a year.

Derek Parfit, as a leader of the ‘reasons first’ movement, says that the concept of a reason is fundamental and indefinable. But his concept of a reason differs from most philosophers’. Most philosophers take a reason to be a fact, whereas Parfit says that reasons are given by facts, not that they are facts. This paper distinguishes Parfit’s concept of a reason, which it calls a ‘given reason’, from the more common one, which it calls a ‘giving reason’. It argues that, whereas the concept of a giving reason is easily defined, the concept of a given reason is not. Parfit is therefore better placed than most philosophers to defend the claim that the concept of a reason is fundamental and indefinable.

In reasoning, you acquire a new conclusion attitude on the basis of premise attitudes. It is commonly thought that an essential feature of reasoning is that you have a linking belief, which is a belief that the premises imply the conclusion. This chapter shows that a linking belief is not essential for reasoning. A genuinely essential feature of reasoning is that you acquire the conclusion attitude by following a rule. A linking belief may be a necessary feature of theoretical reasoning, because it may be a consequence of having the disposition to follow a rule. But it is not essential for reasoning, which is to say that it does not contribute to making the process reasoning. For other sorts of reasoning including practical reasoning, a linking belief is not even necessary.

This chapter discusses that one can accept that ought sentences are true or false because of what he does with them. It explains that ought sentences help man to plan his life in general, and to plan what to do on particular occasions. It notes that the characteristics of truth and falsity of ought sentences explain how humans have the attitudes of belief and disbelief toward them. It explains that one should recognize the ideal planning attitudes of Gibbard as normative beliefs. It discusses that one special feature of Gibbard's contractualism is that he thinks morality requires man to settle on a common goal, which everyone should pursue. It explains that the tangent theorem describes that the goal-scale may depend on the shape of the feasible set, and on where in the feasible set the ideal point is.

ABSTRACT‘Spectrum arguments’ or ‘continuum arguments’ in moral philosophy are sometimes invalid because they commit a particular fallacy I call the ‘Continuum Fallacy’. An important example is an argument in population ethics described by Derek Parfit, which purports to derive a conclusion that he and others find repugnant on the basis of a weak and plausible premise. Parfit treats this as a paradox, and takes up the challenge of resolving it, looking for a way to avoid the Repugnant Conclusion. The solution he offers depends on the existence of imprecision within the relation of betterness among populations of people. Other philosophers have taken up the same challenge, following Parfit's lead, and offered solutions also based on imprecision or incommensurability. I show that actually the Repugnant Conclusion is not implied by Parfit's appealing premise. There is therefore no paradox and no real challenge. Moreover, the explanation of why this is so has nothing to do with imprecision, incompleteness, incommensurability, indeterminacy or vagueness in betterness. It is consistent with a sharp, complete betterness ordering.

Normative requirements are often overlooked, but they are central features of the normative world. Rationality is often thought to consist in acting for reasons, but following normative requirements is also a major part of rationality. In particular, correct reasoning – both theoretical and practical – is governed by normative requirements rather than by reasons. This article explains the nature of normative requirements, and gives examples of their importance. It also describes mistakes that philosophers have made as a result of confusing normative requirements with reasons.

Rationality requires various things of you. For example, it requires you not to have contradictory beliefs, and to intend what you believe is a necessary means to an end that you intend. Suppose rationality requires you to F. Does this fact constitute a reason for you to F? Does it even follow from this fact that you have a reason to F? I examine these questions and reach a sceptical conclusion about them. I can find no satisfactory argument to show that either has the answer ‘yes’. I consider the idea that rationality is normative for instrumental reasons, because it helps you to achieve some of the things you ought to achieve. I also consider the idea that rationality consists in responding correctly to reasons. I reject both.

This study examines teaching and learning economics and entrepreneurship through a student-run Montessori middle school store. By designing and managing a school store, students created a "community of practice" to learn economics concepts in their daily environment. Questions guiding this study were: (a) How do students' social-interactions in a Montessori middle school student-operated business demonstrate economics content knowledge? (b) How do students' social-interactions in a Montessori middle school student-operated business demonstrate economics skills? (c) How do students' business roles in the store develop their understanding of economics principles? Findings indicate that: (1) student activities in the school store promoted learning through social interaction; (2) the type and number of business roles a student assumed created opportunities for economic learning; (3) student entrepreneurs expressed specific knowledge of economics concepts, and, (4) students' decision-making and ownership affected behavior. Additionally, features of Kohlberg's (1985) concept of Just Community supported the learning environment. This study can provide social studies teachers and teacher-educators with a model for learning economics (or social studies) concepts through a curricular-based student-run enterprise. (Contains 5 tables.)