Markus Stepanians

This book collects major original essays developed from lectures given at the award of the Lauener Prize 2016 to T. M. Scanlon for his outstanding oeuvre in Analytical philosophy. In "Contractualism and Justification," Scanlon identifies some difficulties in his theory and explores possible ways to deal with them. In "Improving Scanlon’s Contractualism," D. Parfit recommends revisions and extensions of Scanlon’s theory, while R. Forst suggests in "Justification Fundamentalism" that Scanlon may want to replace reason with justification as his foundational concept. T. Nagel raises fundamental questions concerning "Moral Reality and Moral Progress," and S. Mantel offers in "On How to Explain Rational Motivation" a critical discussion of Scanlon’s cognitivist theory of motivation. Z. Stemplowska does the same for Scanlon’s conception of responsibility in "Substantive Responsibility and the Causal Thesis," and S. Olsaretti suggests in "Equality of Opportunity and Justified Inequalities" an alternative to Scanlon’s arguments against economic inequalities. All contributors receive extensive replies by Scanlon. For anyone interested in Scanlon’s seminal work in moral and political philosophy, the present volume is utterly indispensable.

Kapitel XV von Über Annahmen beginnt mit einigen bitteren Bemerkungen über den Mangel an Einsicht unter Logikern und Philosophen über das Wesen logischen Schließens. Meinong beklagt, daß man sich mit der Klassifizierung von Schlußformen aufgehalten habe, ohne den Versuch einer Analyse des Folgerungsbegriffs zu unternehmen. Es überrascht wenig, daß Meinong auch bei der Analyse des Folgerungsbegriffs der Annahme eine Schlüsselrolle zuweist. Seine Diskussion führt ihn dabei zu einer UntersuChung des Verhältnisses von Schlüssen aus Urteilen, hypothetischen Urteilen und „Annahmeschlüssen", d.h. Argumenten, deren Prämissen Annahmen sind.Meinongs These, daß es so etwas wie Annahmeschlüsse gibt, erscheint selbstverständlich genug. Die Einführung von Annahmen als Prämissen ist heutzutage nicht nur in Kalkülen natürlichen Schließens eine Standardprozedur, die keiner Rechtfertigung bedarf. Umso mehr muß es daher überraschen, daß Russell in seiner ansonsten enthusiastischen Rezension in Mind vorgibt, für Schlüsse aus Annahmen nichts übrig zu haben: „I cannot understand how the notion of assumptive inference ... can be maintained." Daß es hier in der Tat nicht um einen bloßen Streit um Worte oder ein Mißverständnis geht, wird spätestens dadurch offenkundig, daß auch Frege in diesem Punkt mit Russell vollkommen übereinstimmt. Wie sich jedoch herausstellt, ist der eigentliche Streitpunkt das korrekte Verständnis hypothetischer Urteile: Nach Meinong sind hypothetische Urteile keine Urteile, sondern verkappte Annahmeschlüsse, während Russell genau umgekehrt Annahmeschlüsse als verkappte hypothetische Urteile auffassen

Frege’s so-called “Regress Argument” is closely examined and it is argued that Dummett’s reconstruction of it is not satisfactory. Contra Dummett, the argument does not involve a regress, is not a reductio and not even a strictly deductive argument. Rather, what Frege tries to show is that any attempt to define truth fails to be epistemically fruitful and thus misses the very point of analytic definitions of concepts. The cause of this epistemic sterility is an inherent circularity, and it is in view of this defect that Frege suggests that truth is very likely so simple that it cannot be defined at all. This circularity, in turn, is due to the fact that Frege takes the sense of “true” to be a constitutive part of the content of acts of thinking a complete thought. Finally, I trace Frege‘s belief in this omnipresence of the sense of the word “true” in thought to his conception of judgment and suggest that it may very well be false

Due to its scope and depth, Moore's Causation and Responsibility is probably the most important publication in the philosophy of law since the publication of Hart's and Honoré's Causation in the Law in 1959. This volume offers, for the first time, a detailed exchange between legal and philosophical scholars over Moore's most recent work. In particular, it pioneers the dialogue between English-speaking and German philosophy of law on a broad range of pressing foundational questions concerning causation in the law. It thereby fulfills the need for a comprehensive, international and critical discussion of Moore's influential arguments. The 15 contributors to the proposed volume span the whole interdisciplinary field from law and morals to metaphysics, and the authors include distinguished criminal and tort lawyers, as well as prominent theoretical and practical philosophers from four nations. In addition, young researchers take brand-new approaches in the field. The collection is essential reading for anyone interested in legal and moral theory.