Different Sort of Personal Identity:\Ethical\ Identity . Personal Identity: \Ethical\v. \Metaphysical\questions The previous lectures and readings on personal identity were primarily concerned with the metaphysics of personal identity. Question of diachronic identity/unity: Confronted with an individual X at one time and Y at another, what would make it the case that X and Y are (or are parts of) the same person? We've seen that the answer to this question may well depend on what sort of thing you think persons are: are persons bodies? Streams of consciousness?

Moral Luck One of the important themes in the freewill debate is the idea that freedom is necessary for moral responsibility. In effect, if hard determinism is the correct view, then we should not hold ourselves or others morally responsible. Libertarians, in particular, seem to hold that in order to be responsible for an act, we must be its \sole author. Here is the principle at issue: Control Principle: You are only responsible for what you have control over. If you steal an axe from my garage and use it to break into a gas station, there's no point in holding me responsible, I didn't

November 29, 2001 Duty and Famine: Singer Last time we considered Mill's version of Utilitarianism, called Eudaimonistic Utilitarianism characterized by what he calls \the greatest-happiness principle\: You ought always to act so as to maximize happiness, i.e., the right act is the act that results in the greatest amount of happiness overall. The \greatest-happiness principle\, however, just states one version of Utilitarianism. Other versions of

December 10. 2001 (Meta-Ethical Subjectivism(or Non-cognitivism) For the past couple of weeks we have been focusing on the following questions i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform? ii)What makes an action right or wrong? What about the action determines its moral status? Our third question has received less attention

Prof. Sally Haslanger December 2, 2001 Kantian Ethics (and more on famine) So far we've looked at egoist and utilitarian approaches to ethics. The main objection we considered to egoism was that it failed to accommodate the common sense idea that morality involves a kind of impartiality, at the very least it seems that

Particularism and virtue ethics I. Universalism and Particularism We've considered before some basic questions that we would expect a moral theory to answer i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform(understanding the\ought\as a moral

小议“法律语言中的逻辑运用” 所有的逻辑体系,无论东方的或西方的,无论科学还是宗教的,循环的或是 直线的,都发端于对事实的结构方式的解析之中。 约瑟夫皮尔斯《宇宙蛋的裂缝》 法律是评判我们这一社会进程的一个基本方面,一个社会的文明发达程度往往取决于它 的法律的理性和合理程度而法律的理性又在很大程度上取决于它的逻辑思维的合理性

真理是什么呢？亚里士多德认为逻辑与它有关。他的讲义合集《工具论》（O rg a n o n，可 追溯到公元前4世纪）是最早的关于逻辑的详细著作。对于古希腊人而言，逻辑是追寻真理的 过程中用于分析语言的一种手段，因此它被认为是一种哲学。亚里士多德的逻辑学的基础是 三段论。最有名的三段论（它并非是在亚里士多德的著作中发现的）是： (所有的人都是要死的; 苏格拉底是人; 所以,苏格拉底是要死的。)

November 21, 2001 Ethical Egoism Here are three questions (of course there are others)we might want an ethical theory to answer for us: i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform(understandir the\ought\ as moral \ought\)? ii)What makes a particular action right or wrong? What is it about the action that determines its moral status? ii)How do we know what is right and wrong? Remember that according to relativism, whether an action is right or wrong

Utilitarianism Last time we considered three questions one might ask an ethical theory to answer i)Which acts are right and which are wrong? Which acts ought we to perform(understanding the\ought as a moral ii)What makes a particular action right or wrong? What is it about the action that determines its moral status? 111) How do we know what is right and wrong? There are a variety of strategies for answering(iii). One might hold e. g. that moral truths are revealed by god and