In chapter one of “Justice and Love” Nicholas Wolterstorff introduces his proposed ethical view of agapism, comparing it with the three macro systems of ethical thought: egoism, eudaimonism, and utilitarianism. I find his critiques conclusive against egoism and utilitarianism; his critique against eudaimonism seems less persuasive. To be clear, on the whole I do not differ with his argument, but it seems to me that his argument against eudaimonism does not preclude two possible objections.
I recently read an article about a new Swedish based religion dedicated to freely copying “digital information,” regardless of copyright, patent, or other intellectual property protection. Underlying that though are interesting aspects of how we think about digital data in contrast to other more traditional information forms.
Part II: Martha Nussbaum’s “Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism” seeks to delineate certain essential human characteristics, with the end of normatively grounding a liberal capabilities polity. In my view, Karol Wojtyla’s “Person and Act” gives strong support in the epistemology of person to her capabilities project.
Part I: Martha Nussbaum’s “Human Functioning and Social Justice: In Defense of Aristotelian Essentialism” seeks to delineate certain essential human characteristics, with the end of normatively grounding a liberal capabilities polity. In my view, Karol Wojtyla’s “Person and Act” gives strong support in the epistemology of person to her capabilities project.
Enzo Bianchi: In any case, if the other does not accept or receive forgiveness, the one who forgives, in forgiving, affirms gratuitousness. He affirms that he wants to re-initiate the relationship with the other—the one who wronged him—from the beginning. He wants in some way to say that he does not want reciprocity. This to me is what is truly and profoundly human in forgiving.
Haim Baharier, a rabbi in Italy, was the guest on the March 20th program of Uomini e Profeti discussing I Samuel 9-15, entitled “Saul: tragedy of the first king”. In the course of the discussion he made a remark that caught my attention.
Illegal immigration is doubtless a highly complex issue, with myriad points of view to consider, as are drug use and other non-violent crimes; however, a positive one should not be corporate profit, recast in patriotic and political terms with which it becomes difficult to differ in principle without seeming to affirm the opposite.
Gratuitousness is basic to the life of a person, because this is how we know ourselves to be human. Gratuitousness is an escape from alienation and commoditization.
Karol Wojtyla’s Person and Act seems the best approach I have personally found to understand the world after a post-foundationalist collapse. Any certainty that I have does not derive from my ability to reduce the world to the scope of my theories, whether scientific or theological, but from truths which I re-cognize outside myself, toward which I reach beyond myself.
The first law of robotics is simply this: “A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.” Might it be too much to require the management of drug companies to adhere to the first law of robotics?