Thomson on events and the causal criterion

1981 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 319-322
Author(s):  
Karl Pfeifer
Keyword(s):  
Causal Criterion

scholarly journals The Discussion on the Principle of Universalizability in Moral Philosophy in the 1970s and 1980s: An Analysis

2018 ◽  
pp. 65-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. V. Loginov
Keyword(s):  
Moral Philosophy ◽  
Categorical Imperative ◽  
Ordinary Language ◽  
Ordinary Language Philosophy ◽  
Language Philosophy ◽  
Moral Principles ◽  
Causal Criterion ◽  
The Difference ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Better Than

In this paper, I analyzed the discussion on the principle of universalizability which took place in moral philosophy in 1970–1980s. In short, I see two main problems that attracted more attention than others. The first problem is an opposition of universalizability and generalization. M.G. Singer argued for generalization argument, and R.M. Hare defended universalizability thesis. Hare tried to refute Singer’s position, using methods of ordinary language philosophy, and claimed that in ethics generalization is useless and misleading. I have examined Singer’s defense and concluded that he was right and Hare was mistaken. Consequently, generalization argument is better in clarification of the relationship between universality and morality than Hare’s doctrine of universalizability, and hence the universality of moral principles is not incompatible with the existence of exclusions. The second problem is the substantiation of the application of categorical imperative in the theory of relevant act descriptions and accurate understanding of the difference between maxims and non-maxims. In Generalization in Ethics, Singer drew attention to this theme and philosophers have proposed some suggestions to solve this problem. I describe ideas of H.J. Paton, H. Potter, O. O’Neill and M. Timmons. Paton coined the teleological-law theory. According to Potter, the best criterion for the relevant act descriptions is causal one. O’N eill suggested the inconsistency-of-intention theory. Timmons defended the causal-law theory. My claim is that the teleological-law theory and the causal-law theory fail to solve the relevant act descriptions problem and the causal criterion and the inconsistency-of-intention theory have their limits. From this, I conclude that these approaches cannot be the basis for clarifying the connection between universality and morality, in contrast to Singer’s approach, which, therefore, is better than others to clarify the nature of universality in morality.

Can the Eleatic Principle be Justified?

1998 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Colyvan
Keyword(s):  
Causal Power ◽  
Hartry Field ◽  
Intuitive Appeal ◽  
Causal Criterion ◽  
The World ◽  
David Armstrong

The Eleatic Principle or causal criterion is a causal test that entities must pass in order to gain admission to some philosophers’ ontology. This principle justifies belief in only those entities to which causal power can be attributed, that is, to those entities which can bring about changes in the world. The idea of such a test is rather important in modem ontology, since it is neither without intuitive appeal nor without influential supporters. Its supporters have included David Armstrong (1978, Vol2, 5), Brian Ellis (1990, 22) and Hartry Field (1989, 68) to name but a few.Clearly though, if such a principle is to be anything more than just a statement of a certain version of physicalism, it must be argued for. In this paper I will look at the arguments that have been put forward for the principle and suggest some problems for each of these.

Of brains and planets: on a causal criterion for mind-brain identities

Synthese ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 193 (4) ◽  
pp. 1177-1189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Hoffmann-Kolss
Keyword(s):  
Causal Criterion

scholarly journals Some Concerning Questions About Assessment and Disclosure of Subject Matter Jurisdiction of Civil and Commercial Courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina // Neka sporna pitanja u vezi ocjene i razgraničenja stvarne nadležnosti građanskih i privrednih sudova u Bosni i Hercegovini

2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (7) ◽  
pp. 73
Author(s):  
Slobodan Stanišić
Keyword(s):  
Bosnia And Herzegovina ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Causal Criterion ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Commercial Courts ◽  
Commercial Disputes

When assessing jurisdiction in civil and commercial disputes, a considerable number of courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina is based solely of personal criteria (competentia ratione personae), by basing its decision only on the circumstances that led to a concrete dispute between specific categories of subjects of law, neglecting the causal criterion (competentia ratione causa), which is prescribed by the legislature, without which can not properly assess and delineate the subject matter jurisdiction of civil and commercial courts in each case.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document