Muzzly Martin

Bertrand Russell abandoned the notion of acquaintance in July 1918. What changes does this force in his account of the mind? This paper focuses on one puzzle of interpretation about this. In 1913, Russell offered an account of ‘egocentric particulars’, his term for indexicals and demonstratives. He argued that the fundamental objection to neutral monism was that it could not provide an adequate theory of these terms. In 1918, Russell now embraces a form of neutral monism, but he does not return to the problem of indexicals until 1940 in his William James lectures. Is the account given in 1940 significantly different from the one given in 1913? What was the argument against neutral monism in 1913? Does Russell offer a new solution in 1940 or reject his earlier view as mistaken? The answers offered here are used to draw more general morals about the current debate concerning relational theories of sense perception.

This chapter looks at moral justifications for funding welfare benefits through general taxation rather than seeking to support it through charitable giving. That is, the parties to the debate are assumed to accept the moral imperative to support the destitute, and the political question is whether there is any requirement to do so through taxation. The chapter explores parallels between begging and the raising of charitable donations, highlighting not only the costs of begging on supplicants, but those that fall as well on the would-be donors. In the light of this, the chapter offers a justification for using taxation as a preferred way of raising resources for the provision of welfare benefits which has echoes of, but contrasts with, a famous proposal by Thomas Nagel.

In 1918 G. E. Moore questioned the assumptions behind traditional sense-datum theories and offered the Multiple Relational Theory of Appearing, which he said could not be ruled out as a possible alternative. In 1953, Moore eventually came to reject the alternative and recommend endorsement of the traditional sense-datum theory again. This chapter explores what Moore’s reservations in 1918 were, what the correct interpretation of the Multiple Relation Theory should be, and why it made sense for him ultimately to reject it. Moore’s paper throws light both on the nature of the argument from illusion as used in the sense-datum tradition, but also as it has been appealed to in more recent discussions of intentional theories of perception.

It is unknown whether hospital-based medical professionals in Spain educate patients about advance directives. The objective of this research was to determine the frequency of hospital-based physicians’ and nurses’ engagement in AD discussions in the hospital and which patient populations merit such efforts. A short question-and-answer-based survey of physicians and nurses taking care of inpatients was conducted at a university hospital in Madrid, Spain. In total, 283 surveys were collected from medical professionals, of whom 71 per cent were female, with an average age of thirty-four years. Eighty-four per cent had never educated patients about ADs because of lack of perceived responsibility, time, or general knowledge of ADs. Patient populations that warranted AD discussions included those with terminal illnesses, chronic diseases, and elderly patients. Regarding degree of AD understanding in medical professionals: 57 per cent of medical professionals claimed sufficient general knowledge of ADs, 19 per cent understood particulars regarding AD document creation, and 16 per cent were aware of AD regulatory policies. Engagement in AD discussions was considered important by 83 per cent of medical professionals, with 79 per cent interested in participating in such discussions themselves. The majority of hospital physicians and nurses do not educate their patients about ADs, despite acknowledging their importance. Patient populations of highest priority included those with terminal diseases or chronic illness or who are of advanced age.

Institutions, if unjust, ought to be reformed or even abolished. This radical Rawlsian thought leads to the question of whether the family ought to be abolished, given its negative impact on the very possibility of delivering equality of life chances. In this article, we address questions regarding the justice of the family, and of marriage, and reflect on rights, equality, and the provision of social goods by institutions. There is a temptation to justify our social institutions in terms which highlight their universal accessibility and benefits. But we may best understand the claim of some of our most important institutions where we recognize that they are forms of social good which may legitimately benefit some without having to benefit all. Their abolition is unjustified where there is sufficient value in them given our collective needs that it is unreasonable for some to refuse the means to maintain and promote these goods.

A long-standing theme in discussion of perception and thought has been that our primary cognitive contact with individual objects and events in the world derives from our perceptual contact with them. When I look at a duck in front of me, I am not merely presented with the fact that there is at least one duck in the area, rather I seem to be presented withthisthing (as one might put it from my perspective) in front of me, which looks to me to be a duck. Furthermore, such a perception would seem to put me in a position not merely to make the existential judgment that there is some duck or other present, but rather to make a singular, demonstrative judgment, that that is a duck. My grounds for an existential judgment in this case derives from my apprehension of the demonstrative thought and not vice versa.

Estamos siendo testigos de grandes avances tecnológicos y, a la vez, de grandes desastres naturales y sociales que nos impulsan a plantearnos cuáles son las causas últimas de la degradación natural ecológica. El abuso en el uso de los recursos tal vez pueda tener relación con el abuso en el uso de la tecnología; incluso ser causa de la gran desigualdad social en el acceso a bienes necesarios para llevar una vida digna, raíz de muchos conflictos sociales. La ecología es una disciplina científica, pero cada vez es más habitual ampararse en este término para lanzar opiniones o generar un debate de ideologías de índole catastrofista que no hacen más que generar malestar social sin visos de solución práctica. Las reflexiones sobre la ecología nos parece que deben plantearse de una forma interdisciplinar, pero no de cualquier manera, sino respetando el estatuto epistemológico de cada área del saber. Cuidar el método científico, en el ámbito científico; el filosófico, en el suyo propio; e incluso el teológico. El tema de nuestra relación con la naturaleza nos afecta tan íntimamente que casi todas las áreas del conocimiento pueden decir algo al respecto. En el presente trabajo comenzamos ese diálogo y presentamos las ideas básicas desde las que se podría plantear un modo de actuar humano respetuoso para con los demás hombres y los demás seres de la naturaleza, que mejore nuestro modo de vivir y evite más daños y perjuicios. A esto nos referimos cuando hablamos de “ética ambiental”. La ecología nos toca de cerca porque tiene que ver con el modo de habitar nuestro mundo y las relaciones que tenemos con los demás seres vivos y no vivos. A fin de poder delinear las líneas principales de una ética orientada al medioambiente es preciso, en primer lugar, conocer los datos científicos sobre el tema; en segundo lugar, analizar los problemas graves que se están detectando y comprender que muchas de sus causas todavía son desconocidas y precisan de un estudio más detenido; finalmente, es conveniente revisar las alternativas de solución que nos orienten a llevar una vida mejor, donde se sugieran modos de obrar que no nos cierren el camino hacia ese destino común que tenemos como seres humanos, y que integre al resto de criaturas porque no somos los únicos seres vivientes del planeta. La propuesta de una “ética ambiental” apunta a considerar un verdadero “ecologismo solidario”.

In this paper I discuss Hume’s theory of pride and the ‘remarkable mechanism’ of sympathy. In the first part of the paper I outline the ways in which Hume’s theory can accommodate the sense in which the passions are directed on things or possess intentionality while still holding to his view that passions are simple feelings. In the second part of the paper I consider a problem internal to Hume’s account of pride which arises in his discussion of the love of fame and the functioning of sympathy; I explain how the tensions can be reconciled by recognising that Hume’s theory of sympathy is more nuanced than has commonly been recognized. In the third part I turn back to the evaluation of Hume’s theory of pride and argue that while it is unfair to complain that Hume does not make self-evaluation a central component of pride, Hume’s treatment of the idea of self in his theory of the passions is inadequate because he can make no proper room for the phenomenon of vicarious pride.