Emmanuel Lévinas is unquestionably the philosopher of ethics par excellence. One of the major themes of his thought, or rather the key to understanding his work—work that spans over many fields—is one's responsibility toward the Other. This article attempts to reconsider this determining aspect of his writings from the perspective of contemporary individualism. We argue that Lévinas's ethics of responsibility in no way obliterates “the share of the Ego in the eminence of the Other.” On the contrary, in his approach to otherness, he takes the Self entirely into account. In other words, our interpretation is that the commonly held view that Lévinas's philosophy consists of normative interpretation of the human condition leading to the sacrifice of the self is imputable to a misunderstanding caused by the polysemous and ambivalent character of the concept of individualism.

ABSTRACT: Are individual citizens of imperfect democracies morally responsible for unjust wars waged by their state? Moral responsibility for unjust wars involves both retrospective and social responsibility. Citizens of imperfect democracies are retrospectively responsible when they choose to vote for a leader they know will wage an unjust war. This situation may occur very rarely. For example, US citizens did not have this political option at the outset of the Vietnam and Iraq Wars. However, even when citizens are not retrospectively responsible they have the social responsibility to engage in collective action to address the harms unjust war causes.

Le but de ces quelques pages est de clarifier la manière dont Sartre utilise la notion de «l'être» dans son principal ouvrage, l'Être et le Néant. L'être, nous dit Sartre, est « dévoilé par quelque moyen d'accès immédiat» qu'il nomme « l'ennui», « la nausée » etc. « L'être » dont il est ici question est, nous le verrons, le concept général qui s'applique aux deux catégories d'existents qui, selon Sartre, composent le monde: l'être-en-soi et l'être-pour-soi. On a souvent dit que l'intérêt de cet ouvrage se trouve dans les analyses qu'il nous donne de l'être-pour-soi qui est le nom donné à la « réalité humaine », et non dans ce qu'il nous dit concernant l'être-en-soi. II est vrai que Sartre ne consacre que quelques pages à cette derniére question. Cependant, il me semblc que ce que nous dit Sartre concernant l'être-en-soi est la clef de son ontologie de base, et que le sens de cet « En-soi» éclairera, également, certaines de ses affirmations concernant le « Pour-soi». Les deux concepts sont solidaires, mais le sens de l'En-soi est, en quelque sorte, plus fondamental que le sens du Pour-soi.

The Faces of Reason, though it was mostly written in peaceful surroundings in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, arose in part out of a rather tumultuous debate about Canadian culture, its nature, its background, and its prospects. It also arose partly out of a consideration of philosophy in Canada and its failure, already evident in the 1960s, to deal with questions which seemed obvious to anyone with a grasp of Canadian intellectual history, but which never seemed to occur to the young philosophers from the United States and Britain who manned the growing number of philosophy departments in English Canada.

Derek Parfit is surely right when he says, at the beginning of Reasons and Persons, that many of us want to know what we have most reason to do. Several theories attempt to answer this question, and Parfit begins his discussion with the best-known case: the Self-interest Theory, or S. When applied to actions, S claims that “(S2) What each of us has most reason to do is whatever would be best for himself, and (S3) It is irrational for anyone to do what he believes will be worse for himself” (Parfit 1984, p. 8). Objections to this theory are of many kinds, and in the first part of his book Parfit examines the objection that S is, in various ways, self-defeating. One such objection is that S implies we sometimes cannot avoid acting irrationally, but Parfit claims it is not a good objection to S that it has this implication. I disagree. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the objection in more detail (section 1), and then to argue that each of Parfit's responses to the objection is inadequate (sections 2, 3 and 4).

La parution d'un ouvrage entièrement consacré à la théorie kantienne du sublime mérite d'être saluée avec un certain enthousiasme, a fortiori lorsqu'il provient de la tradition anglo-saxonne, où la question du sublime est généralement considérée comme une «erreur» dont la théorie esthétique de Kant gagnerait à être expurgée. Paul Crowther remarque d'entrée de jeu que le regain d'intérêt pour l'esthétique de Kant qui s'est fait sentir dans le monde anglo-saxon depuis les années soixante-dix s'est concentré presque exclusivement sur les questions de la beauté et de l'art, au détriment du sublime. Paul Guyer avait prétendu fixer les raisons de cet ostracisme: d'abord, le sentiment du sublime est selon lui inconciliable avec l'explication fondamentale que donne Kant de la «réponse esthétique» en général en termes d'harmonie de l'imagination et de l'entendement; ensuite, la discussion du sublime minimiserait l'importance de 1'intersubjectivité esthétique, qui constitue selon lui l'essentiel de la théorie esthétique kantienne comprise comme une théorie du «goût»; et finalement, la discussion kantienne du sublime ne posséderait plus qu'un intérêt historique, qui ne saurait rencontrer nos sensibilités esthétiques modernes, tandis que nous aurions au contraire beaucoup à apprendre de la discussion des jugements sur la beauté (1979, p. 399 sq.). Or, c'est précisément d'une nouvelle sensibilité à l'endroit du sublime, qui se ferait sentir depuis les années quatre-vingt, que se réclame Crowther pour justifier son entreprise théorique (p. 2).

Josiah Royce relates the following story concerning the writing and publication of Johann Gottlieb Fichte's first major work, the Attempt at a Critique of All Revelation.

Fichte … called upon Kant at Königsberg, in July, 1791. The aged, prudent, and … highly economical philosopher regarded this reverent, fiery, but obviously impecunious young disciple with a certain suspicion, and received his confidences coolly. The rebuff only heated Fichte the more. He tarried in Königsberg two months, in order … to write, for presentation to Kant, a work on religious philosophy, which, once finished, proved to be so thoroughly in Kant's spirit that, when in the spring of the next year the book was published anonymously, it was very generally hailed by Kant's admirers as a new production of the master's own genius. Kant himself had to correct this misapprehension, and in doing so named, and now with warm praise, the real author.

In recent years there has been widespread agreement among Bishop Butler's commentators and critics concerning the nature of his “official” position as a moral philosopher. His moral epistemology is a form of moral sensism, its cognitive aspect best described, after Sidgwick, as perceptual intuitionism. His normative theory is strongly deontologistic in character, and as a moral psychologist he is still celebrated as a devastating critic of psychological egoism and hedonism. Understandably enough, there has been a tendency to discount those remarkable passages in Sermons XI and XII in which Butler seems to be defending an almost diametrically opposed position, compounded of a rationalistic epistemology, a hedonistic-utilitarian normative theory, and a form of psychological egoism. Thus G. D. Broad finds flatly inconsistent those passages in which Butler seems to make self-love coordinate with conscience in its moral authority. When Butler asserts that on calm reflection one is unable to justify any course of action contrary to one's own happiness, Broad maintains that in context this statement must be understood not as a presentation of Butler's own view, but as “a hypothetical concession to an imaginary opponent.” Butler, Broad thinks, is merely once again trying to convince people that reasonable self-love and the dictates of conscience do not conflict. Similarly, A. Duncan-Jones argues that the apparent inconsistency in the passage in question is removed once we understand that Butler is only refuting the egoists' contention that self-love and virtuous benevolence are necessarily opposed.

It is sometimes thought that it is part of the notion of morality that moral norms are backed up by sanctions of some special sort. This view is sometimes explicitly argued for, as by T. L. S. Sprigge, and sometimes appears in the background of discussions that are centered around other issues, as in Narveson's The Libertarian Idea. The aim of this paper is to show that difficulties in attempts to analyze the notion of morality by appealing to moral sanctions go much deeper than is usually realized.

In part II of Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion Cleanthes maintains that the similarities between the works of nature and those of human contrivance, namely, the presence of means to ends relations and a coherence of parts, are sufficient to enable us to reason analogically to the conclusion that the cause of the design of the world resembles human intelligence. Philo objects to this on a number of grounds. The basis of his objections is to be found in his claim that the world does not bear a 'specific resemblance' to machines of human contrivance, i.e., there are not enough similarities between the world and machines to enable us to classify the world as a machine of a certain type, and therefore we are unable to proceed analogically to a similarity in the causes of the design of the world and machines. According to Philo, without such a specific resemblance, to establish the origin of the design of the world from intelligence requires seeing God and his product constantly conjoined (Hume's official account of how we learn what causes what); since we have never seen ‘worlds formed under our eyes’ we are unable to rule out alternative principles of design – both those whose effects we have observed on earth, and others whose influence is not found within the world itself. In short, Philo's criticisms of Cleanthes' argument show that he has misgivings about the evidence which the argument utilizes: he holds that more is needed besides the mere presence of means to ends relations and a coherence of parts before we are justified in postulating intelligence as the cause of design.

In his paper published in this issue, Ishtiyaque Haji argues that the challenge to compatibilism from luck is not novel. Rather, the challenge is identical to that from manipulation cases, and compatibilists already have responses to that challenge. In response, I distinguish two different luck problems for compatibilism. One challenge is seen in manipulation cases, but the challenge he identifies is different from the challenge from manipulation. The luck problem is therefore novel, and the existing solutions to the challenge from manipulation fail to address it.

Pour ceux qui entreprennent de parler de la liberté, la conception grecque constitue une référence quasi inévitable. Mais si les uns l'invo-quent avec nostalgie comme un modèle, d'autres s'efforcent au contraire d'en exposer les limites ou la spécificité. C'est que la notion elle-même de «liberté grecque» continue à être l'objet de controverses; et il n'est pas étonnant que les interprétations proprement philosophiques des doctrines s'en ressentent directement. On peut sans doute trouver à ces divergences plusieurs explications: la difficulté intrinsèque du sujet et les passions qu'il suscite presque immédiatement, la diversité des domaines et des auteurs concernés, les choix philosophiques des interprètes, notamment.

ABSTRACT: Meno’s Thesis—the idea that knowing something is better than merely having a true belief about it—is incompatible with the joint claims that (a) believing the truth is the sole source of the value of knowledge and (b) true belief and knowledge are equally successful in believing the truth. Recent answers to that so-called “swamping” problem reject either (a) or (b). This paper rejects Meno’s Thesis instead, as relying on a confusion between expected value and value proper. The proposed solution relies on an externalist view of rationality, which is presented.

Various philosophical accounts of function attributions have taken the following form: f is a function of a structure X in a system S if and only if X does f in S and f causally contributes to G. While sharing this form, these accounts disagree over how “G” is to be specified. Specifications of “G” range from the fairly determinate (e.g., “the reproductive capacity of S”, or “the survival of S”) to the less determinate (e.g., “some goal of S” or “some good of S”). Although much of the debate over functions has been concerned with the proper characterization of “G”, it has become apparent that theories which fit this schema are subject to now-standard counterexamples in which f does in fact causally contribute to the realization of G, but f fails to be a function of X in that f's contribution is accidental in nature. Consider, for example, goal-state theory according to which f is a function of X in S just in case f contributes to the realization of some goal of S. Imagine that Jones has a silver dollar in his shirt pocket which deflects a bullet meant for his chest. Assuming that the coin is in Jones's pocket for reasons unrelated to his goal of continued existence, although the coin contributes to this goal, it does not have the function of “bullet deflector” since its contribution is merely accidental. We can easily generate similar counter-examples for other theories which fit this schema but differ in how “G” is specified. I will call this the problem of “accidental G-generating effects”. Counterexamples of this type have put pressure on theorists to modify this schema or at least to add additional conditions in order to rule out “accidental functions”. In this paper I will first examine various modifications which have been suggested for avoiding this type of counterexample, and then develop a new approach to the question of “accidental functions”.

Extant accounts, both old and new, of the wrongfulness of lying are all inadequate. The common problem with each consists in its unitary structure. Such analyses presuppose that all lies are wrongful in the same way, for the same unifying reason. This assumption, however, does not do justice to the phenomena of lying. This is because lying can be morally objectionable in diverse ways. Thus, I argue for a dialectical shift towards a pluralist approach to the wrongfulness of lying. We should not force unity upon the moral structure of lying when there is actually diversity.