Pharmacological Moral Enhancement

Joao Fabiano asks us to imagine that in the future humanity makes a major breakthrough, see Practical Ethics. He imagines that society develops a pill which rids our morality of all its faults. Without any side-effects, it vastly increases our ability to cooperate and to think rationally on moral issues, while also enhancing our empathy and our compassion for the whole of humanity. Such a pill would morally enhance us. Fabiano argues the use of such a pill would present us with grave dangers. In this posting I will consider Fabiano’s worries about pharmacological moral enhancement but with some slight modifications my comments might be applied to germline editing using CRISPR.

The pill Fabiano asks us to imagine has two functions. Firstly it enhances our cognitive abilities. Secondly it enhances our capacity for empathy. For the sake of argument I consider two pills, firstly one which enhances our cognitive abilities and secondly one which enhances our capacity for empathy. This separation means it would be possible to gain one of these kinds of enhancement even if the other posed dangers. I will consider the implications of using of each of these pills in turn.

Prima facie it might be assumed that increasing our powers of reason would increase our capacity for morality. If reason allows us to see others as much the same as ourselves then the domain of morality expands. It might be argued this has happened over time. In ancient civilisations such as that of the Greeks moral concern for the most part focussed on citizens of that state. Over time this focus broadened to include women, slaves and even animals. This seems to be the position adopted by Steven Pinker (1). However this ability to see others as much the same as ourselves does not automatically expand the domain of morality. Persson and Savulescu point out that reason and self-interest could tell you to rob and kill an injured stranger in the wilderness rather than help him or to abstain from returning a favour to someone you will not ever see again rather than return it at some cost to yourself (2). Moreover it might seem that a cognitively enhanced sociopath could do much more harm than one who had been un-enhanced. It might be suggested that if a tyrant such as Hitler or Mao had been cognitively enhanced that he could have inflicted even greater suffering. In the light of the above it might be thought I am not in favour of cognitive enhancement for moral reasons.

In fact if a pill became available, which simply cognitively enhanced us without any adverse side effects, I would be in favour of us taking such a pill for moral reasons. Firstly reason as pointed out by Hume reason alone does not give us any reason to act. If reason alone gives us no reason to act then cognitive enhancement will not alter someone’s ends. At this point an objector might point out even if cognitive enhancement does not alter someone’s ends it might enable an evil person achieve his evil ends more effectively. I accept my objectors point but would also point out cognitive enhancement should equally make it easier for a good person to achieve his good ends. In addition I would suggest that because there are more good people rather than evil people we should favour cognitive enhancement. However my objector might now suggest that certain people, such as Hitler or Mao, could cause even greater suffering if they were cognitively enhanced and that this suffering outweighs the more modest good most cognitively enhanced people would be capable of. She might then argue that because of this increased suffering which might be caused by a small minority of cognitively enhanced people we should not favour cognitive enhancement. In response I would doubt whether people such as Hitler or Mao could cause greater suffering provided they were cognitively enhanced. Moral monsters cannot cause great suffering alone. Let us accept my suggestion that most people are good, even if only to some modest degree. It follows if most people were cognitively enhanced that they would be less likely to aid moral monsters such as Hitler or Mao further their ends. It further follows we should favour cognitive enhancement. My second reason for favouring cognitive enhancement is that it is inevitable. Even if it is impossible to cognitively enhance us by pharmacological means we will nonetheless be enhanced by education. We will experience an ever expanding knowledge basis even if the speed at which we process this basis remains constant. It follows if pharmacological means of cognitive enhancement are adopted we are merely speeding up an inevitable process.

Let us consider the implications of using the second pill solely to enhance our capacity for empathy. Fabiano worries whilst such an enhancement might lead to an increase in our individual tendency towards cooperation between individuals it might also lead to an increase in competition between groups, this worry is shared by Paul Bloom (3). He argues that what is important about enhancing morality is increasing cooperation between groups. I accept Fabiano’s argument and find his worry plausible. Evolution designed us to live in small groups and enhancing our empathy might only lead to more social cooperation with people we know. Enhancing our empathy might not lead us to have any more moral concern for those separated by distance and time. It might not lead those of us in the more affluent parts of the world to think more about those of the third world or future generations, see (4). Let us assume our increased capacity for empathy is only for people we know. This increase means we might see the wants and needs of people we know assuming greater importance to us. This increased importance might lead us to exploit those people we don’t know to benefit those we do. For instance enhancing our capacity for empathy for those we know, existing people, might lead us to disregard the needs of future generations to serve the needs of the present one. In the light of the above it appears Fabiano’s worries are justified and that we should not encourage empathic enhancement for moral reasons.

If we should not encourage empathic enhancement for moral reasons should we only encourage cognitive enhancement for these purposes? Someone might suggest we should enhance our toleration of others. Indeed I would suggest in more connected, multi-racial, multi faith world the capacity for toleration is among most important moral capacities we can possess. Unfortunately at the moment there appears to be no prospect of simply enhancing our toleration by pharmacological means. In the light of the above does this mean we should only attempt to enhance our morality cognitively unless some means is found to enhance our toleration? I will now argue it does not. However even if it is impossible to directly enhance our toleration I would suggest any other type of moral enhancement should be judged by its indirect effects on our toleration.

Let us return to considering enhancing empathy and Fabiano’s worry that enhancing our empathy might lead to more group competition. Basically it might lead to less toleration. I only share Fabiano’s worry provided we only enhance our empathy. However if we can enhance our empathy it seems probable we can also enhance our cognition. It follows that in much the same way doctors use a drug cocktail to treat some diseases such as cancer, we might use a pharmacological cocktail to address our moral shortcomings. It might appear that provided we use a pharmacological cocktail to enhance both our empathy and our cognition that Fabiano’s worry might be misplaced. Let us accept that enhancing our empathy should lead to more social cooperation with people we know. Now it seems to me whether Fabiano’s worry is justified or not depends on what is meant by ‘people we know’. It is certainly justified if we only mean family and friends. It’s also justified if ‘people we know’ means people who share our particular tastes, feelings and prejudices. However ‘people we know’ could just mean the broader recognition of these people simply as people. That is they are capable of love, being hurt and are the sort of creatures that can decide their own future. It might appear that enhancing our cognition might change what we mean by ‘people we know’ from friends and family or people who share our tastes to people in the broader sense outlined above. However the above appearance might be false. It is possible even if we enhance both cognition and empathy that our enhanced empathy simply overwhelms our ability to act rationally. Whether enhanced empathy might overwhelm someone’s cognitive abilities is an empirical question and it should possible to design an experiment to answer this question. Provided it can be shown that enhanced empathy doesn’t overwhelm someone’s cognitive abilities and we adopt dual enhancement we have reason to believe Fabiano’s worry is unwarranted.

In conclusion I want to consider the enhancement of our empathy in more detail. In order to do so we must be clear about what is meant by empathy. Being able to feel empathy roughly means one has the capacity to understand and share the feelings of another. I have suggested above that the ability to feel empathy must initially have a broad basis. We must see others as being capable of love, being hurt and being the sort of creatures who can decide their own future. It follows if I care about someone in a purely empathic way I must care about what she cares about, rather than what I think might be in her best interests. Understanding other people is not always easy. Sometimes we mistake the feelings of another and substitute, what we believe they feel or even what we think they should feel, for their true feelings. We may do this because we are lazy. We simply don’t ask people how they feel. Or we may do this because we simply assume others feel the same way do. We suffer from epistemic arrogance. This substitution means we move from empathic concern to sympathy. It also means we leave the initial broad basis for empathy behind, see caring and empathy. If a pharmacological means became available which enhanced our understanding of others without leaving this initial broad basis I see no reason why such a means should not be adopted. Provided we retain this basis of empathic concern then I see no reason why enhancing our empathy should lead to more group conflict as envisioned by Fabiano.

1. Steven Pinker, 2011, The Better Angels of Our Nature, Allen Lane, page 656.
2. Ingar Persson & Julian Savulescu, UNFIT FOR THE FUTURE, Oxford University Press, page 107.
3. Paul Bloom, 2016, Against Empathy, Ecco
4. Michael Slote, 2007, The Ethics of Care and Empathy, Routledge, page 2

Moral Character Enhancement and Moral Status

Intuitively most people seem to believe that provided we could morally enhance people it would be a good thing to do so. After all this is exactly what moral education is trying to do? In the age of Trump and his supporters the question of moral enhancement assumes greater importance. Many people also seem to think that provided this enhancement could be done by pharmaceutical means without any adverse side-effects that it should be attempted. Ingmar Persson and Julian Savulescu support these intuitions and in addition argue there is an urgent need to enhance the moral character of humanity, see Persson and Savulescu. However Nicolas Agar argues that whilst it may be possible to enhance moral status that it would be wrong to do so, see Agar. Moral enhancement has two aspects, the enhancement of moral character and the enhancement of moral status. In this posting I will assume it is possible to enhance the moral character of people. I will firstly examine whether character enhancement need be linked to moral status enhancement. I will secondly examine whether, provided character enhancement is of necessity connected to the enhancement of moral status, any such character enhancement can be justified.

Before commencing my examination I must make an attempt to make some definitions clear. Firstly what is meant by enhancing the moral character of someone and secondly enhancing her moral status? Let us accept without argument that enhancing the moral character of someone means improving the ways she acts with respect those things that have moral status. To Agar for something to have moral status means someone has certain rights which others must respect. It follows to enhance moral status would simply mean to increase her rights. Agar sees these rights as meaning something is entitled to certain forms of beneficial treatment and a reduction in its eligibility for certain forms of harmful treatment. I would question whether Agar’s definition of moral status is a complete one. Of course someone’s moral status contains rights about her entitlement to benefits and her eligibility for harm but might it not also include respect for her knowledge concerning moral questions. I would argue such respect must include understanding. If we respect someone for her moral knowledge then we respect her because she can point us in the right direction. We respect her because she can highlight some of the important features attached to our moral understanding or give us an example which might make things clearer to us. We should not respect someone who simply tells us to do something for moral reasons if after some effort we cannot understand these reasons. To respect someone’s moral status because of her superior moral knowledge means we must be able to understand her moral reasoning even if she has to draw our attention to this reasoning.

There are four questions attached to moral enhancement. Firstly why should we enhance moral character? Secondly how can we enhance moral character? Thirdly why should we enhance moral status? This seems to be the question Agar is concerned with. Lastly how can we enhance moral status? Let us assume for the moment that there is no need to answer the first question for we accept the need for moral education. It appears provided there are no unforeseen adverse consequences that it is always good to enhance moral character. Improving our moral character, like improving our happiness, is always good. Let us also assume there is no need to answer the fourth question provided we accept Agar’s definition of moral status. To increase someone’s moral status we simply increase her rights to certain beneficial treatment and decrease her eligibility for certain forms of harmful treatment. If we accept the Agar’s definition then we are left with two important questions concerning moral enhancement. How can we enhance moral character and why should we enhance moral status? Prima facie the reasons why we should we enhance someone’s moral status seems to be unconnected to how we could enhance her moral character. It appears to follow if we enhance someone’s moral character that this enhancement should not affect her moral status.

Such a conclusion would be premature for it might be the way in which someone’s moral character is enhanced automatically leads to an increase in moral status. If this is so we must be able to justify an increase in moral status if we are to justify character enhancement. There are two ways in which someone’s moral character might be enhanced. Firstly her cognitive abilities might be increased. Secondly her capacity for empathy might be increased. If someone’s cognitive abilities could be increased it might be thought that this increase would increase her ability to understand moral problems and help her to resolve them. I’m doubtful whether cognitive enhancement alone will actually lead to moral character enhancement. For instance someone might simply use her increased cognitive abilities to exploit others. It is only when her increased cognitive abilities are directed at moral problems that this increase might actually lead to moral enhancement. Nonetheless let us put my worries to one side for the moment and assume that cognitive enhancement alone can lead to moral enhancement. Does the moral enhancement of the character, by increasing people’s cognitive abilities automatically increase their moral status? It might do so provided respect for greater moral understanding is part of moral status as I have suggested above. But such an increase in moral status based on respect would not affect the entitlement of any of the things of moral concern to certain forms of beneficial treatment or lead to any reduction in their eligibility for certain forms of harmful treatment. It follows it would not be wrong to enhance someone’s moral character, by increasing her cognitive abilities, provided this increases her moral status based solely on respect.

However let us assume the moral enhancement of someone’s character, by increasing her cognitive abilities, would also enhance her moral status by increasing her entitlement to certain forms of beneficial treatment and further reducing her eligibility for certain forms of harmful treatment. Would such an enhancement of moral status be wrong? Someone might suggest such enhancement would create two kinds of moral status for people. People whose character has been enhanced, which means they are entitled to additional beneficial treatment and a reduction in their eligibility for certain forms of harmful treatment, and those who are not. She might proceed to suggest that the creation of two kinds of moral status for people would be wrong. Let us consider her first suggestion. Will moral character enhancement by increasing cognitive abilities lead to the creation of two kinds of moral status? I am doubtful. Let us assume that cognitive enhancement can be achieved by biomedical means or genetic engineering. If cognitive enhancement is to lead to the creation of two kinds of moral status then these means must not be available to all. However it is far from clear that these artificial means will not be available to all for technology moves at a very fast pace. Moreover even if these means become only available to a few, the fact that these few are cognitively enhanced should mean these means should in time become available to all. My objector might retort that the few who are cognitively enhanced will not spread these means to others and instead will exploit them. In reply I would simply point out we are only concerned with cognitive enhancement connected to the moral enhancement of the character and that because of this, this sort cognitive enhancement should not lead to the exploitation of others. Exploitation is incompatible with moral enhancement. It appears probable that if the cognitive enhancement of character does lead to an increase in moral status that this increased status will eventually apply to all. It further appears that even if enhancement leads to two types of moral status for people that worries about exploitation are unjustified.

Let us assume that the moral enhancement of the character, by increasing someone’s cognitive abilities, does produce two kinds of moral status for persons. My objector assumes this is wrong. What reasons could she advance for this wrongness? Firstly she might suggest that those of increased moral status would have their entitlement to certain forms of beneficial treatment increased and their eligibility for certain forms of harmful treatment reduced, whilst the entitlements of those of lower moral status would remain the same. She might then further suggest that this disparity is unfair. In reply I would question whether those of lower moral status have the right to deny those of higher moral status increased entitlements provided their own entitlements remain the same. Allen Buchanan makes the same point (1) and asks if we would be justified in delaying India’s development in order to allow Ethiopia catch up. Secondly my objector might suggest in a world of scarce resources that those of lower moral status would be given less of these resources; that is their entitlement to certain forms of beneficial treatment would be reduced and their eligibility for certain forms of harmful treatment increased. In reply I would simply reiterate that such a state of affairs would be one of exploitation and that the moral enhancement of character should preclude increasing the exploitation of others.

My objector might now suggest cognitive enhancement cannot simply be tied to the character enhancement as I have assumed above. She might then suggest that cognitive enhancement can be tied to both character enhancement and exploitation. She might proceed to argue what really matters is what someone’s increased cognitive abilities are directed at. I have myself suggested above that the cognitive enhancement of someone’s moral character can only occur if cognitive enhancement is directed at moral problems. It follows I must accept my objector’s suggestion that cognitive enhancement cannot simply be tied to the character enhancement. I must also accept that purely cognitive enhancement might lead to exploitation of the un-enhanced by the enhanced. It also follows that if the cognitive enhancement of moral character is to be justified that any increased cognitive powers must be directed at moral problems in some way. The way to achieve this direction I would suggest is to increase our capacity for empathy.

Let us assume that we can enhance someone’s moral character by increasing her cognitive powers and by directing at least some of this cognitive increase towards moral problems by increasing her capacity for empathy. Let assume such dual enhancement also increases her moral status. Could such a dual enhancement lead to exploitation? Exploitation of the un-enhanced by the enhanced would mean, either that their entitlement to certain forms of beneficial treatment would be reduced and their eligibility for certain forms of harmful treatment increased, or that their entitlement is not increased and their eligibility not reduced even when this is possible. However so doing seems incompatible with an enhanced capacity for empathy. For if the enhanced reduced the entitlement of the un-enhanced to beneficial treatment then we might question if their capacity to feel empathy really had been increased. It follows dual enhancement does not mean that the entitlement of the un-enhanced to beneficial treatment would decrease or their eligibility for harm increase. Indeed dual enhancement might mean their entitlements might increase and their eligibility decrease. The above leads me to tentatively conclude dual enhancement can be justified even if it leads to the un-enhanced people having a lesser moral status than the enhanced.

At this point someone might suggest that because of the dangers of exploitation we should only attempt to enhance our capacity for empathy. I would reject such a suggestion. Consider a paedophile who uses some artificial means to increase his capacity for empathy. This increased capacity for empathy does not rid him of his urges but it does allow him to resist most of them. Indeed this increased capacity for empathy might be regarded as a form of moral enhancement. However let us consider the unlikely possibility that the abuse of this paedophile commits does not physically harm a child. Let us further assume he comes into contact with a child who is a willing participant and even enjoys the encounter. It would seem in this case he has no reason not to abuse the child. It follows that moral character enhancement based solely on empathy is compatible with this abuse. Increasing someone’s cognitive abilities allows him to better understand the concepts of autonomy and consent and would help prevent such abuse. It follows the enhancement of someone’s cognition and empathy is preferable to moral enhancement based solely on increasing someone’s capacity for empathy.

1. Allen Buchanan, 2011, Beyond Humanity, Oxford University Press, page 53.

Decreasing Violence

Steven Pinker argues in (The Better Angels of our Nature, 2011, Viking) that in the more advanced countries of the world our propensity for violence is decreasing. He gives various reasons to support his argument. One of the main reasons he gives is that since the enlightenment we have become more rational. John Gray writes that Pinker’s conclusion is nonsense; see (Prospect October 2011). Gray believes “the idea that humans can shape their lives by the use of reason is an inheritance from rationalist philosophy that does not sit easily with what we know of the evolution of our mammalian brain”. In this posting I will suggest our increasing ability to use reason effectively provides some limited support for Pinker’s thesis.

Before proceeding I want to make two points clear. Firstly reason is not simply some product of the evolution of our brain. Of course I accept that the capacity to reason is the product of our brain’s evolution nevertheless I still believe reason is not simply a product of the brain. Reason is something our brain’s increasing capacity allowed us to discover. AI does not depend on simply building bigger more intelligent machines. AI depends on the idea that we might build a machine with the capacity to become intelligent by reacting with some environment that is independent of the machine itself. Secondly I accept Hume’s point that reason is the slave of the passions. I would however distinguish between higher and lower passions. For instance fear might be seen as a simple physiological fact whilst resentment would seem to include a cognitive element.

If it is accepted that Hume is correct how can our increasing reason support Pinker’s thesis? Surely our goals are determined by our passions and reason is only instrumental in achieving these goals. Two responses are possible to the above. Firstly a great deal of violence is caused by nations and religions and it might be questioned whether either nations or religions have passions. They may of course encourage passions but this is not the same as actually having passions. Secondly I have suggested there is a difference between higher and lower passions. Higher passions seem to include a cognitive element, include reason. I would further suggest a great deal of large scale violence such as wars and repression is not caused by lower passions such as anger but by higher passions. If my suggestions are accepted then it seems possible that an increase in reason may indeed lower the scale of violence because higher passions contain a cognitive element. Increasing reason may of course do little to reduce domestic violence.

Someone might object the above is just a house of cards. She might point out there is no evidence for our increasing reason. I accept her point. I certainly don’t believe I am any more rational than Plato or that people in general are today more rational than for instance the population of ancient Athens. However my argument does not simply depend on our increased rationality. My argument depends on our increased ability to use reason effectively. This increase is not due to any increase in our brain capacity. As I suggested above simply increasing a computer’s capacity to compute will not make it intelligent. My increased ability is based on an increase in knowledge, on what I take to be true. I am not naturally more rational than Plato however I live in more knowledgeable times enabling me to use the rationality I possess better. I simply know more than Plato.

Might our increasing when reasoning effectively support Pinker’s thesis? It appears that Stephen Hawking would not. He has suggested if aliens are anything like us they are likely to be aggressive and either exterminate us or pillage our resources. It seems safe to assume any aliens, who can cross interstellar space, would have at least as great an ability to reason as us, see my posting of 25/05/10. In that posting I suggested any intelligent creature must feel some empathy. I then argued increasing knowledge naturally leads to increasing empathy because this knowledge forces us to see other people or intelligent creatures as entities that care about things in the same way as we do. I further argued this increasing empathy increases the domain of our empathic concern. If my arguments are accepted it would seem increasing our ability to reason effectively will reduce violence because it increases the domain of our empathic concern. A second reason might be advanced to support Pinker’s thesis. Let it be accepted Hume is correct and that our goals are determined by our emotions. However our increasing knowledge might tell us some goals are unattainable and that we would not appreciate some other goals even if we attained them. It might then be even if our goals are solely determined by our emotions that nevertheless reason determines which of our emotions determine goals. It is then plausible that our increasing ability to reason effectively rules some emotions, which would produce violence, as reasons to act.

Aliens and Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking recently stated on the Discovery channel that alien life forms probably exists somewhere in the Universe and that we should try to avoid contact with them. He suggested that if aliens come into contact with us they might be liable to act as the first Europeans acted on discovering America. He further suggested if they are anything like us they are likely to be aggressive and either exterminate us or pillage our resources. However it seems to me there is a major objection to Hawking’s suggestion. His suggestion seems to depend on the assumption that any alien morality will be much the same as that of the first colonisers of the Americas. I find such an assumption hard to accept because it seems to me, however slow and lagging behind science, there is some moral progress. As evidence of this progress I would argue modern Europeans would not behave in a similar way to their compatriots of Columbus’ time on discovering a further new world. To support this argument I need only draw attention to the fact that most Europeans in Columbus’ times were all quite happy to deal in African slaves. The idea of moral progress is dealt with by Guy Kahane at what intelligent alien life can tell us about morality. . In what follows I will assume moral progress is real. I will argue moral progress consists at least in part in the expansion of the domain of our moral concern. I will further argue any advanced aliens are likely to share this expansion.

Shaun Nichols uses investigations into child development and moral pathology to conclude that all morality includes an affective element including utilitarianism (1). In what follows I am going to assume Nichols view is correct for it seems to me to be highly improbable that any grouping consisting mainly of sociopaths could possibly form a stable or moral society. I am also going to assume the domain of creatures we feel sympathy for defines the domain of our moral concern.

I have assumed above some natural sympathy is necessary for any system of morality. Initially it seems safe to assume this empathy was limited to the people we were close to, our family for instance. With time the domain of our empathy has expanded to include our tribe, country, people who share our culture and more recently animals. How can we explain this expansion in the domain of our sympathy? Firstly it might be explained by physiological changes which increase our capacity to feel empathy. However I would be very doubtful about accepting any such explanation. The reason for my doubts being the expansion that has occurred seems to be too rapid to be explained in purely evolutionary terms. A second explanation might depend on a change in our understanding of other people or creatures. But how could a change in our understanding of others lead to a change in our capacity to feel sympathy as it might be argued we simply feel emotions? I would suggest the emotions we experience depend on both our physiological and psychological states. I would further suggest our psychological state depends to some extent on the beliefs we hold, our understanding. It seems clear sympathy is generated in response to some particular situation. I would still further suggest we naturally feel sympathy for some creature in some particular situation if we believe, we understand, the creature to be capable of experiencing the situation in much the same way we would. Accepting the above means a change in our understanding of other people or creatures might alter the domain of our sympathy. As I have assumed the domain of our sympathy defines the domain of our moral concern. It follows a change in our understanding can alter the domain of our moral concern. It further follows if we come to see some creatures, which we previously believed did not experience some situation as we do does, that there is an expansion in the domain of creatures we believe merit moral concern.

It might be doubted by some, even if they accept the domain of morality naturally expands, that we have nothing to fear from alien contact. I will now examine some of these doubts. Firstly some might question whether aliens need have a system of morality at all. Accepting the above means even if it is agreed the domain of morality naturally expands this fact is irrelevant in any of our considerations about what to do in the case of alien contact. However it seems inconceivable that any group of creatures could expand throughout the universe without some form of co-operation among themselves. Such co-operation would be a form of morality. An objector might suggest that aliens might possess only an alien form of morality. Aliens they might argue just don’t have an affective form of morality like us. I find his suggestion difficult to accept. First I find it difficult to imagine either how any group of creatures who don’t care about anything could possibly want to expand throughout the universe. And secondly as I will now argue I believe any creatures that care about each must have an affective system of morality.

I concur with Frankfurt’s belief that if some creature cares about something that it must identify itself with what it cares about and as a result make itself vulnerable to any losses connected to this caring (2). It is important to be clear Frankfurt does not connect this vulnerability to the emotions. Frankfurt connects this vulnerability directly to an absence of satisfaction with a state of affairs connected to whatever the creature identifies with. Frankfurt further holds that an absence of satisfaction with a state of affairs of whatever the creature cares about is sufficient to motivate it to act. I would agree with Frankfurt that an absence of satisfaction or dissatisfaction motivates us to act. However I, unlike Frankfurt, would argue an absence of satisfaction or dissatisfaction about the affairs of something we care about naturally leads to certain emotions, albeit faint emotions. I would suggest it is these emotions that give us reason to act. Accepting this suggestion means any advanced alien must care about something and this caring about means it must have some sort of emotions. It might be objected that the fact that an alien has emotions is not a sufficient condition for it being moral creature or for that matter even being capable of being a moral creature. After all sociopaths do have some emotions but these are not the sort of emotions needed for morality. Sociopaths live in our society, our civilization, and I am doubtful if a civilization of only sociopaths is possible. If we accept the above then any civilization, alien or not, might contain sociopaths but it can't be a civilization of sociopaths. It follows any aliens capable of expanding throughout the universe must have some form of morality  and that this morality must have an affective basis based on sympathy. 

I have argued aliens capable of travelling across space must have some sort of civilization and this means that they must feel some sort of sympathy. The fact that aliens feel sympathy by itself of course does not guarantee they will feel any sympathy towards us. Perhaps they might only feel empathy towards other aliens. I suggested above we naturally feel sympathy for some creature in some particular situation provided we believe, we understand, the creature to be capable of experiencing the situation in much the same way as we would. It appears to follow that any aliens will only naturally care about other aliens and closely related species which they believe to experience the world in much the same way as they do. I have argued above that if we come to understand others as experiencing the world as we do our domain of sympathy naturally expands. I have also argued above that aliens must “care about”, love, something as I believe persons must also do. It therefore seems probable if aliens come to understand us as at least partly experiencing the world as they do by “caring about” that the domain of their sympathy must naturally expand to include some sympathy towards us. In the light of the above it might be concluded Hawking’s suggestion that aliens are likely to be aggressive and either exterminate us or pillage our resources seems to be highly improbable.

It might be objected the way Europeans conquered and colonised the Americas is evidence that the above conclusion is unsound. It might be pointed out to me that these Europeans had a natural empathy together with a reasonable understanding of the world yet they still behaved dreadfully towards the Native Americans. I accept these Europeans had a natural sympathy but would argue their understanding of others did not encourage an expansion of the domain of their sympathy as far as ours. I have assumed moral progress in expansion of our natural sympathy is real. However, even if the expansion of natural empathy is real it is still feasible that aliens might contact us at an early stage in this expansion and behave as the European colonisers did in the Americas. Hawking’s believes the following scary scenario is possible,

“We only have to look at ourselves to see how intelligent life might develop into something we wouldn’t want to meet. I imagine they might exist in massive ships, having used up all the resources from their home planet. Such advanced aliens would perhaps become nomads, looking to conquer and colonise whatever planets they can reach.”

This scenario is indeed a theoretical possibility. The film Independence Day  depicts such a scenario. I would argue in practice such a scenario is extremely unlikely. It is hard to see how creatures, which are capable of the understanding needed to build massive ships capable of crossing the vast distances of interstellar space, failing to sufficiently understand other caring creatures to permit a natural expansion in the domain of creatures they feel some sympathy for. A more likely scenario seems to be one in which advanced aliens are at worst indifferent towards us as depicted in Arthur Clarke’s  Rendezvous with Rama  . If we accept the above then we have little reason to fear aliens even if some caution is advisable. Perhaps the real reason we feel threatened by aliens is fear feeling inferior. Lastly it seems to me many of my comments here apply equally to any emergent superintelligence.

1. Shaun Nichols, 2004, Sentimental Rules, Oxford.
2. Harry Frankfurt, 1988,The Importance of What We Care about, Cambridge University Press, page 83.

Patient Advocacy and Caring

In this posting I want to explore the idea of caring further in a nursing context. It is now common to talk of nurses of not just caring for a patient’s physical needs but also acting as the patient’s advocate, see for instance Brier Mackie (1). I want to question whether acting as a patient’s advocate might be inconsistent with a nurse’s key role as a professional carer. In order to examine whether this inconsistency is real I will also examine the concept of caring.

Brier-Mackie believes patients are often unable to verbalise their needs and it is one of the roles of a nurse to act as a patient advocate in order to enable them do so.

“Patients who are confronted with the autonomy/paternalism dichotomy are often unable to verbalize their needs and wants to their doctors either because they are intimidated by the doctors’ perceived power, or because the doctors lack the time to listen to their concerns” (2)

In many hospital situations the needs of the patient are simple and nurses have no reason to verbalise her needs, for instance in the case of a patient having a lumpectomy for breast cancer the patient’s needs are almost self-evident. Nevertheless there are some complex situations in which the patient’s needs are far from self-evident. Such situations are situations in which the patient must balance certain goods, such as the quality of life, with the length of life or the possibility of increased mobility with the risks and dangers of treatment. I agree with Brier-Mackie that in such situations a nurse has as the role to play by acting as a patient’s advocate helping him to verbalise his needs.

Any competent nurse will quickly learn to deal with the physical needs of her patients. However it is by no means so easy to verbalise someone’s non-physical needs. The first thing a good patient advocate must remember is that is she is acting as the patient’s agent rather than his representative. A patient’s advocate acting as his representative should represent her patient’s interests but representing a patient’s interests might be interpreted to mean the patient’s interests as seen by the representative. A patient’s advocate acting as an agent must present her patient’s views and these views might well differ from what the patient’s advocate would objectively regard as being in the patient’s best interests. Nursing is a caring profession and it might appear if a nurse acts as a patient’s advocate by vocalising a patient’s perceived needs, which she believes run counter to his best interests, then by vocalising these needs she is acting in a way which conflicts with the caring aims of her profession.

In order to examine whether the above conflict is real or a simply an illusion we must have a clear idea of what it means to care in a nursing context. I will now consider three suggestions as to the nature of caring in the context of nursing. Firstly in previous postings I have often referred to Harry Frankfurt’s ideas on ‘caring about’. Caring about to Frankfurt involves love and this in turn involves necessity. According to Frankfurt we cannot simply choose to love or whom we love. Nurses clearly do not love all their patients because illness might make some patients awkward and unlovable. It follows when nurses care for their patients they are not ‘caring about’ their patients on the basis of love. Secondly it might be suggested the way nurses care about their patients is defined by the practice of nursing. I am reluctant to accept this suggestion because caring constituted this way would focus directly on the needs of the practice and only indirectly on the needs of individual patients. For an excellent account caring without empathy see Havi Carel (3). For these reasons I believe any good nursing care must involve some empathic concern. What exactly does empathic concern mean? Empathy is defined by the Cambridge Online Dictionary as follows,

“the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in their situation”.

Using this definition empathic concern might be defined as experiencing the patient’s feelings and acting in a way that attempts to alleviate these feelings. However if the way nurses care about their patients involves empathic concern for their patients a problem arises. Nurses might burn themselves out emotionally in some situations. For example nurses working on an oncology ward might be especially susceptible to this danger. I believe this problem with empathic concern highlighted by my example might be overcome by a limiting but not eliminating, empathic concern for patients.

However before considering whether caring, based on a limited or form of empathic concern, conflicts with a nurse’s role as patient advocate I must examine two problems associated with a limited empathic concern. Firstly if someone limits her empathic concern we might be concerned as to the genuineness of her concern. Indeed it might be argued that ‘limited empathic concern’ is a form of sympathy rather than genuine empathy. In order to address this concern we must consider exactly what I mean by limited empathic concern. Let it be accepted that empathy involves the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences. Limited empathic concern doesn’t just mean sharing only some of someone’s feelings and experiences. Limited empathic concern cannot involve us in selecting certain feelings or experiences in a pick and mix fashion. Accepting this seems to mean we cannot exude empathy in a generalised way but can only feel empathy for someone or some people in a particular situation. In the rest of this posting when I refer to empathic concern I am referring to empathic concern in a particular situation. It seems to me if we feel ‘limited empathic concern for someone then we must share all of the feelings pertinent to her situation to some degree. Let it be accepted feeling ‘limited empathy’ for someone must involve feeling all the appropriate feelings to her situation to a limited degree. It might be objected to the above if the feelings we share are too limited that ‘limited empathic concern’ is not genuine a form of empathic concern. This may well be true in extreme cases but I would argue all empathic concern is to some extent limited. Consider the case of a mother who loses her child in a shopping mall it is certainly possible for a second mother to feel genuine empathic concern for the first. However I would question whether she shares the first mother’s feelings of panic and alarm to the same degree, her empathic concern is limited to some degree. For this reason I would argue the above objection carries little weight in most situations and that ‘limited empathic care’ based on feeling all the feelings appropriate to a situation in a limited way is a necessary element of genuine empathic concern in that situation.

I now want to argue that ‘limited empathic concern’ based on feeling all of someone’s feelings, pertinent to a particular situation, in a limited way is not a sufficient condition for genuine empathic concern. It seems clear to me genuine empathic concern for someone must include respecting her autonomy, see caring based solely one empathy . However if ‘limited empathic concern’ is a genuine form of empathy and it is based solely on experiencing all of someone’s appropriate feelings to some particular situation in a limited way then it seems to be possible both to care for someone in an empathic way whilst at the same time not respecting her autonomy. Human beings are not rational machines and have a large number of desires and these desires need not always form a consistent set. This might be especially true in the case of illness due to stress. Nevertheless most human beings, including patients, remain autonomous because they can rank their desires. This ranking does not mean someone must be able to give weights to specific desires. It does however mean an autonomous agent can unequivocally say if she desires both x and y and these desires are inconsistent that she prefers x or y. It follows if ‘limited empathic concern’ does not consider the way a patient ranks her desires it is a perverted form of empathic concern. It follows if ‘limited empathic concern’ is a genuine form of empathic concern that it must include both the carer experiencing all of the cared for one’s feelings, appropriate to the situation in a limited way, and being able to accurately represent the way the cared for one ranks her feelings or desires.

Accepting the above gives rise to the second problem connected to limited empathic caring. Is it possible to rank the feelings or desires of another? In what follows I will argue that ‘limited empathic caring’ is possible in practice but difficult to achieve. Firstly it might be suggested that a carer might experience the cared for one’s feelings in a way that is proportionate to the way cared for one experiences these feelings. It might then be further suggested if a carer experiences another’s feelings in a limited but proportionate way she naturally ranks the cared for one’s desires. My example of a mother’s empathic concern for a second mother who has lost her child in a shopping mall seems to support this suggestion. The extremity of the first mother’s feelings in this situation makes this ranking possible. This example is an example of an extreme situation and I believe it unlikely that in most situations a carer can naturally rank the desires of the cared for. However it seems to me that a carer might be able rank a cared for one’s desires in accordance with his ranking through dialogue. If empathic care must of necessity involve respecting autonomy then the purpose of such a dialogue must be the clarification of the cared for one’s desires and feelings. It is of course possible that in some situations this might also involve helping the cared for one clarify her own desires. Such a clarification should enable the carer to rank the cared for one’s feelings in a way that is proportionate to the way the cared for one experiences these feelings. It should however be noted there is great danger attached to such a dialogue. It might be all too easy for the carer to pay attention to the cared for one’s interests rather than help her clarify her feelings and desires. Nevertheless it does seem this second problem can be overcome with care and that limited empathic care is possible.

In the light of the above it is possible to answer the question as to whether a nurse acting as a patient’s advocate, by vocalising a patient’s views which she believes run counter to his best interests, might find herself in conflict with the caring aims of her profession. I have accepted that good nursing care involves limited empathic concern. I have argued limited empathic caring involves the carer experiencing all of the cared for one’s feelings, appropriate to the situation in a limited way. I have also argued limited empathic caring involves respecting the cared for one’s autonomy. If my arguments are accepted and it is also accepted that good nursing involves empathic concern then I can see no reason as to why a nurse’s role as patient advocate should conflict with the caring aims of her profession.

1. Brier Mackie, 2001, Patient Autonomy and Medical Paternity; Can Nurses help Doctors to listen to Patients? Nursing Ethics 8(6),
2. Brier Mackie, page 515.
3. Havi Carel,2008, illness, Acumen, p 38.

Why love is not just a disposition to feel empathy

In my last two postings I have argued the love of inanimate objects may not be same as the love of persons and that loving someone might simply be a disposition to feel empathy for beloved. However I will now present two examples which appear contradict my previous view. My first example is of a mother’s love of her baby and my second is self-love. I will firstly consider a mother’s love and attempt to show this love is incompatible with love being regarded as a disposition to feel empathy and I will then repeat the exercise with self-love.

Empathy is defined by the Cambridge Online Dictionary as follows; empathy is the ability to share someone else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in their situation. Let it be assumed that loving someone simply means having a disposition to feel empathy for her. It follows if a mother loves her baby she is able to share her baby’s feelings or experiences. I accept a mother may share her child’s feelings or experiences but it seems inconceivable to me that a mother could share her baby’s feelings or experiences. A baby’s experiences just aren’t available to others. Moreover it would seem to be impossible for a mother to share her baby’s feelings by imagining what it would be like to be a baby. She might of course be able to imagine what it would be like for her to be a baby but this is by no means the same thing as imagining what it is like to be a baby. It follows if we accept the premise that love is simply a disposition to feel empathy it follows that mothers are unable to love their babies. Mothers clearly do love their babies. It follows the above conclusion is false and we must reject the premise it is based on.

Are there any counter arguments which would enable us to accept the above premise and also accept that mothers love their babies? If empathy is defined as above it seems to me the answer is clearly no. However let us consider a real case in order to clarify our concept of empathy. In 2007 the Washington Post reported that a colonel in the US army called off a test using a land mine sweeping robot because it continued sweeping after losing several of its legs. The colonel declared the test was inhumane. What might be the reasons behind the colonel’s decision? His decision was clearly not based on pure rationality. It follows the colonel’s decision was at least in part emotionally based. People have a tendency to anthropomorphise in such situations. It seems likely this was happening in this case, the colonel was treating the robot as if it was something like a human being. It further seems to me the colonel was doing so because he attributed feelings or emotions to the robot. The colonel felt sympathy for the robot. I believe feeling sympathy is connected to some degree with feeling empathy. Sympathy is defined by the Cambridge Online Dictionary as; an expression of understanding and care for someone else's suffering. It seems to me one cannot possibly understand someone else’s suffering unless one has some ability to share that person’s feelings or experiences. Admittedly this sharing does not need to be very precise. For instance a child may share a sense of unease with his mother who has lost her partner. The mother feels uneasy but it would be more accurate to say she feels grief. I believe for sympathy to take place between persons there must be some basic sharing of feelings, or at the very least moods, between the persons involved. I believe understanding how someone feels must involve emotion. I cannot use pure logic to understand someone’s grief. Moreover the emotion involved must be an appropriate emotion. It makes no sense to say I understand someone’s grief if the only emotion I feel is happiness. Accepting the above means sympathy of necessity involves some basic form of empathy. Accepting the above also means the colonel felt some basic or primitive form of empathy for the robot. Clearly this scenario is nonsensical. However it might be suggested this difficultly might be overcome if a primitive form of empathy was defined as the ability to experience what you believe to be someone or something else's feelings or experiences by imagining what it would be like to be in their situation. It might then be argued that whilst a mother cannot feel full blown empathy for her baby she may nonetheless feel some primitive form of empathy based on what she believes her baby feels. And her disposition to feel this primitive empathy can form a basis of her love for her baby.

The question I now wish to address is whether the primitive form of empathy defined above really is a form of empathy? Does this primitive form of empathy even exist? It seems clear to me the concept of empathy can be stretched and that the feeling of empathy is to some extent a matter of degree. For instance I may have the ability to share some of someone else's feelings or experiences but not others. This is probably particularly true of the sharing of some feelings and experiences between men and women. However is describing, the ability to experience what you believe to be someone or something else's feelings or experiences as empathy, stretching the concept of empathy too far? Let it be accepted that the feeling of empathy depends on our ability to experience emotions as well as place ourselves in someone else’s situation. The connection between the emotion and the situation cannot be purely arbitrary. I believe empathy should not be regarded as the feeling of any emotion but the feeling of an appropriate emotion. The feeling of a shared emotion is an appropriate emotion. It follows the feeling of a believed shared emotion is not an appropriate emotion and for this reason, the ability to share what you believe to be someone or something else's feelings or experiences, is not a genuine form of empathy. Let us accept that mothers do love their babies. Let us also accept that mothers cannot feel or have a disposition to feel empathy for their babies. It follows that loving someone cannot simply be a disposition to feel empathy for the beloved.

It might be pointed out in response to the above that loving friends, partners and children differs from loving babies. It might then be suggested that loving someone other than babies means loving persons. Young babies might be regarded as human beings and potential persons rather than actual persons. It might then be further suggested that loving a person simply means having a disposition to feel empathy for her. Accepting these suggestions would not mean we don’t love babies, for clearly we do, but rather that we love babies in a different way to the way we love persons. I would be reluctant to accept to this suggestion. For they imply either we love babies in the same way as we love cities, landscapes or a particular piece of music. Or that we love babies in a completely different way to the way we love both inanimate things and the way we love persons.

My second example of why it is hard to accept that loving, someone is simply a disposition to feel empathy, is connected to self-love. Let it be accepted that I cannot feel empathy for myself. It follows if loving someone simply means having a disposition to feel empathy for that person that self-love is impossible. Intuitively we can love ourselves. If our intuitions are correct we must reject the premise that loving someone simply means having a disposition to feel empathy for her.

Let it be accepted the two examples I have used show that I was wrong to argue that loving someone might simply be a disposition to feel empathy for the beloved in a previous posting. However the idea of self-love is interesting and I now wish to examine self-love further in order to try and better understand the nature of love. Some people believe that the self-love is not at all bad even if it runs counter to accepted morality. They might use Nietzsche to justify this belief. However I would argue such a belief is based on a false view about the nature of love. This false view seems to connect loving purely with satisfying our desires. Nietzsche would have approved of the strong satisfying their desires. However let us consider a mother who desires chips, cocaine, cigarettes and large quantities of alcohol. Let it be assumed she neglects her child and indulges in all of the above. If loving one-self is purely a matter of satisfying one’s desires then clearly this mother loves herself. It might be objected my example only shows that self-love based on the rather basic desires, I introduced in my example, is not genuine self-love. My objector might then be suggest that the satisfaction of noble desires is a form of self-love. Once again Nietzsche might well have approved of this objection seeing the desire for power rather than gluttony as a form of self-love. My reply to this objection is simple. I do not deny love can be connected to our desires. Indeed I believe love must be connected to our desires. I do however believe love cannot be only connected to our desires. If love can be based on noble but not base desires then there must be some way, of differentiating between noble and base desires. Furthermore any way of differentiating between noble and base desires cannot itself be a desire. Returning to my example I would suggest that the mother in question not only neglects her child but that she also neglects herself. I would further argue anyone who neglects herself does not genuinely love herself. My reason being I believe loving is linked to caring about and it follows loving oneself involves caring about oneself.

I accept Harry Frankfurt is correct when he states that love is a form of ‘caring about’ and that love concerns the will rather than being a simple emotion. Love has persistence and desires and emotions however noble need not. This persistence was the main reason for my suggestion that love might be defined as a disposition to feel an emotion. It in order to better understand the nature of love we must understand the nature of caring about. What then does caring about consist of? Frankfurt argues a lover is benefited when her beloved flourishes and this means accepting the interests of her beloved as her own (1). Let it be accepted ‘caring about’ ourselves is the same as ‘caring about’ others. It follows if we ‘care about’ ourselves we must be concerned with our flourishing and our interests.

Let us accept that if I love someone that I must be concerned with my beloved’s flourishing and furthering her interests. It seems to me this concern must contain two important elements. Firstly this concern cannot be a passive concern but must involve action. If my beloved needs help and I fail to help for no good reason then it must be questioned whether my love is genuine. Secondly this concern must involve some reflection. If I am genuinely concerned with someone’s flourishing and interests I must concerned with how my actions will promote this flourishing and these interests. It follows loving defined as ‘caring about’ someone must involve our cognitive powers. Accepting that love involves cognition does not of course imply that love does not also involve the emotions. Personally I would argue love must involve the emotions. I pointed out in my posting ‘love revisited’ some philosophers would argue emotions are intentional and as a result must have a cognitive element. If this is correct then love might be regarded as an emotion which includes a cognitive element. However I myself am doubtful as to whether emotions contain a cognitive element. Emotions might of course act as alarms calling for reflection by our cognitive elements, see Brady (2). Our emotions might alert us to consider the needs of our beloved. It seems to me that any meaningful actions, including loving ones, must depend on both a cognitive and affective element for without any affective element we have no reason to act.

I have argued loving someone must include a reflective element. This conclusion seems at odds with some parts of Frankfurt’s concept of love. Frankfurt argues a lover,

“is not free. On the contrary, he is in the very nature of the case captivated by his beloved and his love. The will of the lover is rigorously constrained. Love is not a matter of choice. (3)

Clearly reflection serves no useful purpose if someone’s will is rigorously constrained. Am I wrong to argue love involves reflection or is it possible to reconcile these two views? Frankfurt’s defines loving in terms of what a lover cares about. He also defines autonomous decisions as decisions the agent cares about. Cuypers believes Frankfurt’s concept of autonomy and hence his concept of love is a hybrid concept. He believes this hybrid as a combination of voluntaristic and non-voluntaristic components. He argues that the harmonious agreement between a person’s second-order volitions and his first order desires defines the voluntaristic component. He then further argues that the non-voluntaristic component consists of what the agent cares about (2). I have some sympathy for Cuypers view. However I believe these two views might be better reconciled by differentiating between the way someone loves a beloved and comes to love a beloved.

I believe the way we love someone involves reflection. We must consider the interests of our beloved. The way we come to love someone might not. The way we come to love someone is constrained. It seems ridiculous to me to say I choose to love Jennifer, Newcastle United or philosophy. Do the emotions play any part in the way I come to love someone? Frankfurt would argue not. According to him the emotions have no persistence whilst love does. Indeed it might argued that he believes what defines coming to love someone is a lack of emotion. A lover might be defined as a satisfied person, perhaps willing to change her beloved, but also one who has no active interest in bringing about such a change. Intuitively however coming to love someone does involve emotion. If I come to some love someone I identify with her and as a result I become vulnerable to any harm that befalls her and become distressed as a result. It might be suggested coming to love someone means coming to have a disposition to feel empathy for her. However my example of the love between a mother and her baby seems to make this concept of coming to love difficult to accept. For this reason it might be suggested that coming to love someone simply means coming to be pleased when she is pleased and distressed when she is distressed. It might be objected that accepting this suggestion seems to conflate coming to love and actual loving. In response I would argue that someone cannot come to love someone without actually loving her. Loving someone of necessity must involve some emotion, if I love someone and she becomes distressed I must also become distressed. It follows coming to love does involve the emotions.

However I can feel distress for a lot of people I hardly know. For instance I may feel distress at seeing the distress of famine victims on TV, victims I don’t really know. It follows if my suggestion is accepted that I love these famine victims. It might then be pointed out this love seems counter to our intuitions of love. I am however prepared to argue that I do in fact love these victims to some degree. The degree to which I love my wife, children, friends and neighbours varies greatly. I see no reason why I should not feel at least some slight degree love for these famine victims. Indeed it might be a natural default position for most people to feel some degree of love for others. Optimistically considering the last century one of the defining characteristics of persons might be a natural tendency to love. People lacking this tendency such as sociopaths might be seen as damaged persons.

There is one final question I wish to address in this posting; does coming to love come to involve our rational faculties in any way? Clearly we may choose who we wish to marry but not who we love. Prima facie if it is accepted that our love is constrained it might be concluded our rational faculties play no part in our coming to love. I will argue such a prima facie conclusion is unjustified. What is meant by our will being constrained when we come to love? It certainly doesn’t mean our will is constrained by others. It means we cannot choose whom we come to love, our will is constrained by forces which are part of us, we like Luther can do no other. However these constraining forces are our constraining forces and hence our will seem likely to shaped by our perceptions of the world. These perceptions include our beliefs. Our rational faculties shape these beliefs. My perceptions of a situation surely partly determine the emotions I feel as I pointed in my posting love revisited. In this posting I pointed out if I am fearful, because I perceive a tiger approaching me, my perception is the cause of my fear. Moreover part of my perception must include the concept that tigers are dangerous. It might now be argued our perception of someone, which includes cognitive elements, frames our coming to love that person and reason indirectly affects our choice of a beloved.

1.  Harry Frankfurt, 2006,Taking Ourselves Seriously, Stanford University Press, page 41.
2. Michael Brady, 2013, Emotional Insight; The Epistemic Role of Emotional Experience, Oxford University Press.
3. Frankfurt, 1999, Necessity Volition and Love, Cambridge University Press, page 135.
4. Stefaan Cuypers, 2000, In Defence of Hierarchy, , Canadian Journal of Philosophy 30(2).