Matthew C. Altman

Kant claims that animal suffering only matters if it affects us indirectly by making us more callous toward other persons. This seems inconsistent with Kant’s formal moral theory, and it seems to entail that we are morally better off if we remain willfully ignorant of animal suffering. In defense of Kant’s indirect view, I explain how psychological facts should play a role in the application of the categorical imperative. I then give three responses to the objection that Kant encourages willful ignorance. First, supporting practices of animal exploitation facilitates a system that harms workers. Second, moral ignorance as a habit of mind makes us more likely to ignore morally relevant harm to other persons. Third, remaining intentionally ignorant is not in keeping with our capacity for intellectual self-determination.

Two of the major arguments against performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), appealing to fairness and the protection of athletes’ health, have serious flaws. First, there is no relevant moral distinction between the use of PEDs and the use of other performance enhancers that introduce unfairness and that we accept nonetheless. Second, prohibiting PEDs for athletes’ own good ignores the fact that adult athletes are constantly making tradeoffs to improve performance and pursue excellence, including sacrificing their health. We should not paternalistically impose our values on them. On the other side, arguments to allow ‘safe’ PEDs provide no normative criterion to determine the acceptable level of risk, thus begging the question. The reasonable athlete argument solves both sets of problems: it justifies a ban on some performance-enhancing drugs based on health and fairness, while avoiding paternalism, and it also establishes a non-arbitrary standard to determine which drugs ought to be allowed. First, if unsafe PEDs were allowed, some athletes would refuse to take them out of concern for their health. This is a reasonable decision even though it would put them at a competitive disadvantage against athletes who choose to use unsafe PEDs. It would be unfair for clean athletes to suffer a competitive disadvantage for acting reasonably. Therefore, PEDs that pose significant health risks should be prohibited for all athletes. Second, it would be unreasonable for athletes to refuse, on principle, relatively safe and effective PEDs, so a blanket prohibition is also unjustified. Which drugs and which doses to allow should be determined not by athletes’ actual choices but by the hypothetical choices of the reasonable athlete. The resulting sport-specific drug policy would carve a justifiable middle path between complete prohibition and complete permission.

With some universities closing departments and eliminating the major, philosophers are expected to explain and justify what they do. Does philosophy develop transferable skills that are useful in other professions, train the public to think more critically, help individuals to live more meaningful lives, or lead humanity in progress toward the truth (or all of the above)? Which of these aims is valued often depends on the audience – be they students, administrators, or other philosophers – yet when philosophers try to hold these aims simultaneously, they inevitably come into conflict, which has led to an identity crisis in the profession. In this paper, I argue that academic philosophers should focus their efforts on promoting what Bertrand Russell calls ‘the goods of the mind’. Philosophers should acknowledge students’ need to live more meaningful, distinctively human lives by asking big questions about personal identity, ethics, and justice. By pursuing this aim above the others, philosophers will incidentally also help students to become better workers, better democratic citizens, and better philosophers.

__Kant and Applied Ethics_ makes an important contribution to Kant scholarship, illuminating the vital moral parameters of key ethical debates._ Offers a critical analysis of Kant’s ethics, interrogating the theoretical bases of his theory and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses Examines the controversies surrounding the most important ethical discussions taking place today, including abortion, the death penalty, and same-sex marriage Joins innovative thinkers in contemporary Kantian scholarship, including Christine Korsgaard, Allen Wood, and Barbara Herman, in taking Kant’s philosophy in new and interesting directions Clarifies Kant's legacy for applied ethics, helping us to understand how these debates have been structured historically and providing us with the philosophical tools to address them.

Behavioral economics has challenged the notion that people act rationally in maximizing their personal utility. Instead, people systematically misuse heuristics in ways that lead to poor outcomes, even when judged against their own conceptions of the good. Changing the context in which people choose can use those cognitive habits to promote what people themselves value. Nudges have been proposed and used in many areas of healthcare, including clinical and public health spaces. Critics object that nudges may not work and that they fail to respect individual autonomy. However, if nudges are subject to public scrutiny, they are not coercive or manipulative. And behavioral science can get us to a better understanding of people’s true preferences, assisted by digital technology, to minimize the chance that choice architects will intervene in the wrong ways. Libertarian paternalism thus avoids the pitfalls of traditional medical paternalism by both respecting patient autonomy and promoting outcomes that patients themselves value.

This Conclusion identifies three lessons that follow from the chapters in the book. First, we ought to identify and critically reflect on the ideological assumptions that are embodied in new technologies. Second, we ought to design or redesign technologies with an awareness of their impact on people and how the effects vary depending on local circumstances. Third, we ought to draw on bioethics as we develop new medical technologies so that we can challenge common assumptions and appeal to deeply held moral values to inform our decisions.

__Kant and Applied Ethics_ makes an important contribution to Kant scholarship, illuminating the vital moral parameters of key ethical debates._ Offers a critical analysis of Kant’s ethics, interrogating the theoretical bases of his theory and evaluating their strengths and weaknesses Examines the controversies surrounding the most important ethical discussions taking place today, including abortion, the death penalty, and same-sex marriage Joins innovative thinkers in contemporary Kantian scholarship, including Christine Korsgaard, Allen Wood, and Barbara Herman, in taking Kant’s philosophy in new and interesting directions Clarifies Kant's legacy for applied ethics, helping us to understand how these debates have been structured historically and providing us with the philosophical tools to address them.

Two of the major arguments against performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), appealing to fairness and the protection of athletes’ health, have serious flaws. First, there is no relevant moral distinction between the use of PEDs and the use of other performance enhancers that introduce unfairness and that we accept nonetheless. Second, prohibiting PEDs for athletes’ own good ignores the fact that adult athletes are constantly making tradeoffs to improve performance and pursue excellence, including sacrificing their health. We should not paternalistically impose our values on them. On the other side, arguments to allow ‘safe’ PEDs provide no normative criterion to determine the acceptable level of risk, thus begging the question. The reasonable athlete argument solves both sets of problems: it justifies a ban on some performance-enhancing drugs based on health and fairness, while avoiding paternalism, and it also establishes a non-arbitrary standard to determine which drugs ought to be allowed. First, if unsafe PEDs were allowed, some athletes would refuse to take them out of concern for their health. This is a reasonable decision even though it would put them at a competitive disadvantage against athletes who choose to use unsafe PEDs. It would be unfair for clean athletes to suffer a competitive disadvantage for acting reasonably. Therefore, PEDs that pose significant health risks should be prohibited for all athletes. Second, it would be unreasonable for athletes to refuse, on principle, relatively safe and effective PEDs, so a blanket prohibition is also unjustified. Which drugs and which doses to allow should be determined not by athletes’ actual choices but by the hypothetical choices of the reasonable athlete. The resulting sport-specific drug policy would carve a justifiable middle path between complete prohibition and complete permission.

Advances in medical technology—from antibiotics and organ transplantation to gene editing and artificial intelligence—have transformed healthcare and raised new ethical questions about the nature of medicine. These technologies not only alter diagnostic and therapeutic practices but also mediate how humans relate to one another and understand concepts such as health, illness, death, autonomy, and care. Drawing on ethics, law, history, and sociology, this volume offers a multidisciplinary framework for understanding how technological innovation reshapes ethical norms and social practices. As medicine becomes increasingly data-driven and technologically mediated, new frameworks and practices are needed to guide its development toward appropriate human ends.

In this Introduction, Altman surveys some of the most important positions and debates regarding the definition of punishment and its justification. After explaining the so-called “standard definition” of punishment, he poses several questions, including whether any definition can be value-neutral, whether punishments (as opposed to mere penalties) must include an expressive dimension, and whether punishment must intend to cause suffering. Altman then examines the traditional dichotomy between consequentialism and retributivism, and their different versions. Many theories of punishment blur the distinction or resist easy categorization, which has led to alternative classifications. He describes the political turn in punishment theory, how legal punishment has been criticized as a tool of oppression, and the challenge of abolitionism. He also surveys the chapters in the book.

In this chapter, I defend Fichte’s characterization of the Wissenschaftslehre as an extension of Kantian idealism. On Fichte’s view, Kant had not carried his own insights into the subjective conditions for the possibility of experience far enough. Kant showed that the extent of our knowledge is limited to the objects of consciousness and that we cannot make speculative claims beyond those epistemic limits. Fichte argues that Kant goes beyond these limits when he explains appearances by referring to the thing in itself as their cause. For Fichte, the reality of the world, apart from human perception, can, like the reality of God, freedom, and immortality, be established only on practical grounds, as a necessary condition of moral agency. Rather than deny the existence of a mind-independent world, Fichte justifies the belief in its reality in a way that, although it contradicts the letter of Kant’s philosophy, is more consistent with its spirit, specifically Kant’s critique of dogmatic metaphysics.

In this chapter, Altman gives two separate arguments that, in conjunction, support a mixed theory of punishment. First, he shows that consequentialism is insufficient on its own because it cannot capture the condemnatory function of the law as an expression of the community’s resentment. Second, he shows that retributivism is insufficient on its own because any plausible legal arrangement must be committed to some non-retributivist values. He then argues that the institution of punishment is justified by its costs and benefits, and the distribution of punishment—who is punished and how much—is justified by what offenders deserve. This two-tiered model of punishment makes more sense than an alternative scheme, according to which retributivist reasoning informs criminal lawmaking and consequentialist reasoning informs criminal judgments and sentencing.

_The Hackett Introduction to Medical Ethics_ addresses key debates and analyzes prominent ethical perspectives on clinical medicine, healthcare policy, and human experimentation. Using numerous examples and case studies, Altman and Coe apply value theory to contemporary medical practice and trace the repercussions for such philosophical issues as autonomy, death, and justice. The book invites a range of readers to investigate urgent moral questions at the intersection of the body and social institutions._ Free online resources to support _The Hackett Introduction to Medical Ethics_ will be available on the book title page at www.hackettpublishing.com _in early fall 2025. Resources will include PowerPoint lecture slides, a sample syllabus, links to case studies (to help facilitate small group discussion and apply theoretical concepts), and more.

This book provides a comprehensive survey of ethical issues raised by advanced medical technologies. The field’s leading authorities explore how artificial intelligence, telehealth, robot caregivers, genetic therapies and enhancement, stem cell research, neurotechnology, electronic health records, data collection, and digital nudging are reshaping the landscape of medical practice. Organized around core ethical themes, the chapters consider how new and emerging technologies transform personal identity, the provider-patient relationship, privacy and autonomy, and social equity. Contributors clarify the complex values involved in medical innovation and practice, and explore what is at stake in the current ethical debates around these issues. While offering a valuable introduction for advanced students, professional philosophers, medical ethicists, and policymakers, this book also advances the scholarly discussion by presenting original theses and arguments, making it essential reading for specialists.

German Idealism was without doubt one of the most fruitful, influential, and exciting periods in the history of philosophy. The Palgrave Handbook of German Idealism covers this revolutionary philosophical movement in remarkable detail and includes contributions from 36 of the leading scholars in the field, including Paul Guyer, Terry Pinkard, Violetta Waibel, Jason Wirth, and Günter Zöller. In his introduction, Matthew Altman investigates the meaning of idealism and sets the historical context. Ensuing chapters then consider the philosophical importance of the movement’s four most important thinkers (Kant, Fichte, Schelling, and Hegel) and explore the areas of philosophy on which they had their greatest impact. A concluding chapter examines the legacy of German Idealism from the nineteenth century to the present day.

During the coronavirus pandemic, communities have faced shortages of important healthcare resources such as COVID-19 vaccines, medical staff, ICU beds and ventilators. Public health officials in the U.S. have had to make decisions about two major issues: which infected patients should be treated first, and which people who are at risk of infection should be inoculated first. Following Beauchamp and Childress’s principlism, adopted guidelines have tended to value both whole lives and life-years. This process of collective moral reasoning has revealed our common commitment to both Kantian and utilitarian principles. For Kant, respecting people’s rights entails that we ought to value whole lives equally. Therefore we ought to allocate resources so as to maximise the number of patients who survive to discharge. By contrast, the principle of utility has us maximise life-years so that people can satisfy more of their considered preferences. Although people are treated impartially in the utilitarian calculus, it does not recognise their equal worth. Subjecting Kantian ethics and utilitarianism to the process of reflective equilibrium lends support to the idea that we need a pluralistic approach that would accommodate our moral intuitions regarding both the equal value of whole lives and the additive value of life-years.

"This book argues for a mixed view of punishment that balances consequentialism and retributivism. He has published extensively on philosophy and applied ethics. A central question in the philosophy of law is why the state's punishment of its own citizens is justified. Traditionally, two theories of punishment have dominated the field: consequentialism and retributivism. According to consequentialism, punishment is justified when it maximizes positive outcomes. According to retributivism, criminals should be punished because they deserve it. This book defends a mixed view that recognizes the strength of both of these intuitions. By this account, the legislature should develop institutional policies and statutory penalties that maintain the social order, that is, consequentialism. It establishes punishment policies to deter criminal activity. By contrast, the criminal judiciary should give individual defendants what they deserve, that is, retributivism and thus expressing the community's appropriate sense of resentment at being wronged. The book justifies the two-tiered model by showing how it accords with our moral intuitions, our assumptions about how what we know affects our moral obligations, and a commonly held theory of freedom. This approach is developed by engaging classic and contemporary work in the philosophy of law, and shows its advantages over competing approaches from contemporary retributivists and other mixed theorists. The work also defends consequentialism against a longstanding objection that the social sciences give us little guidance regarding which policies to adopt. It draws on cutting-edge criminological research to show how punishment theory can help us to address some of our most pressing social issues, including the death penalty, drug laws, and mass incarceration. The book will also be of interest to legal philosophers, social scientists, especially criminologists, sociologists, economists, and political scientists"--

Immanuel Kant's groundbreaking Critique of Pure Reason inaugurated a new way of understanding the world that continues to impact philosophy to the present day. With clear explanations and numerous examples, A Companion to Kant's Critique of Pure Reason takes students step by step through the book in a way that captures their interest without sacrificing depth or intellectual rigor. Although it is informed by recent Anglo-American scholarship, the Companion focuses on Kant's own arguments rather than secondary texts and scholarly debates that may otherwise distract from what Kant himself is attempting. The Companion first places the Critique in its historical and philosophical context before addressing the three main parts of the book in order: the Transcendental Aesthetic, the Transcendental Analytic, and the Transcendental Dialectic. The Companion also briefly explains how Kant continues his investigation into God, freedom, and immortality in the Critique of Practical Reason, and it concludes with an assessment of Kant's importance in the history of modern philosophy. Key features include a glossary of technical terms, with succinct definitions and cross-references, as well as an annotated bibliography of the most important English-language secondary sources on Kant's theoretical philosophy.

This Handbook provides a comprehensive survey of major topics in the philosophy of punishment from many of the field’s leading scholars. Key features Presents a history of punishment theory from ancient times to the present. Evaluates the main proposed justifications of punishment, including retributivism, general and specific deterrence theories, mixed theories, expressivism, societal-defense theory, fair play theory, rights forfeiture theory, and the public health-quarantine model. Discusses sentencing, proportionality, policing, prosecution, and the role punishment plays in the context of the state. Examines advances in neuroscience and debates about whether free will skepticism undermines the justifiability of punishment. Considers forgiveness, restorative justice, and calls to abolish punishment. Addresses pressing social issues such as mass incarceration, juvenile justice, punitive torture, the death penalty, and “cruel and unusual” punishment. · With its unmatched breadth and depth, this book is essential reading for scholars who want to keep abreast of the field and for advanced students wishing to explore the frontiers of the subject.

In recent years, scholars have documented the racial disparities of mass incarceration. In this paper we argue that, although retributivism and deterrence theory appear to be race-neutral, in the contemporary U.S. context these seemingly contrary theories function jointly to rationalize racial inequities in the criminal justice system. When people of color are culturally associated with criminality, they are perceived as both irresponsible and hyperresponsible, a paradox that reflects their status as what Charles Mills calls subpersons. Following from this paradox, criminality is understood as an atemporal characteristic of people of color, such that they are conceived as pre-criminals, criminals, or post-criminals. In Frantz Fanon’s account, overdetermination expresses this exclusion of people of color from full agency by capturing them within a rigid, immutable essence, which then controls the social meaning of their actions. The backward-looking quality of retribution and the forward-looking quality of deterrence then treat people of color as more deserving of punishment (and more severe punishment) and as threats to the social order who have to be restrained. We should read the racialization of mass incarceration as a symptom of how precariously people of color participate in the social contract and as reflections of how theories of punishment have been racially deployed.

Most ethics guidelines for distributing scarce medical resources during the coronavirus pandemic seek to save the most lives and the most life‐years. A patient’s prognosis is determined using a SOFA or MSOFA score to measure likelihood of survival to discharge, as well as a consideration of relevant comorbidities and their effects on likelihood of survival up to one or five years. Although some guidelines use age as a tiebreaker when two patients’ prognoses are identical, others refuse to consider age for fear of discriminating against the elderly. In this paper, I argue that age is directly relevant for maximizing health benefits, so current ethics guidelines are wrongly excluding or deemphasizing life‐stage in their triage algorithms. Research on COVID‐19 has shown that age is a risk factor in adverse outcomes, independent of comorbidities. And limiting a consideration of life‐years to only one or five years past discharge does not maximize health benefits. Therefore, based on their own stated values, triage algorithms for coronavirus patients ought to include life‐stage as a primary consideration, along with the SOFA score and comorbidities, rather than excluding it or using it merely as a tiebreaker. This is not discriminatory because patients ought to have equal opportunity to experience life‐stages. The equitable enforcement of that right justifies unequal treatment based on age in cases when there is a scarcity of life‐saving resources. A consideration of life‐stage would thus allow healthcare workers to responsibly steward public resources in order to maximize lives and life‐years saved.

Kantian defenders of suicide for the soon-to-be demented claim that killing oneself would protect rather than violate a person’s inherent worth. The loss of cognitive functions reduces someone to a lower moral status, so they believe that suicide is a way of preserving or preventing the loss of dignity. I argue that they misinterpret Kant’s examples and fail to appreciate the reasons behind his absolute prohibition on suicide. Although Kant says that one may have to sacrifice one’s life to fulfill a moral duty, suicide is not morally equivalent to self-sacrifice because it involves treating oneself merely as a means. Furthermore, people facing the onset of dementia would not protect their dignity by killing themselves while they are still rational and would not avoid a demeaning existence.

In his theoretical philosophy, Immanuel Kant argues that experience comes from two sources that are radically different but equally necessary: the rule-governed activity of thinking and the givenness of sensations. He supposes that both could be traced to some common root but concludes that whatever it is, is in principle unknowable. Kant's idealist successors, J.G. Fichte and F.W.J. Schelling, each attempt to provide a unified account of experience by identifying the ultimate basis of subject and object—Fichte by referring to the I's activity and Schelling by referring to the Absolute. Because we can know only appearances, an implication of Kant's transcendental inquiry, Fichte and Schelling have difficulty...