Στην ανά χείρας εργασία θα ασχοληθούμε με το φόβο του θανάτου. Ο στόχος είναι να δούμε κατά πόσον ο φιλόσοφος είχε δίκιο να υποστηρίζει πως ο θάνατος δεν είναι τίποτε για μας. / Was Epicurus right about his thesis that death is nothing to us?

Wittgenstein once asked, "What is left over if I subtract the fact that my arm goes up from the fact that I raise my arm?" What would be left is, presumably, the quality of 'agency,' which differentiates between legitimate actions and mere behaviors. In my dissertation I investigate the way we conceive of this quality and recommend a change of the prevalent model for one that is developed in a more empirically informed way. Most current work in ethics employs a historically acquired and folk-psychology approved notion of agency. On this view, the distinction between actions and behaviors is fairly clear-cut. Actions proper are characteristic of human beings. They are 'rational' in either the deliberative process that preceded it or in terms of their efficacy; they are launched `autonomously' by the agent's self rather than influenced by context, emotion or habit. These, and a few other conditions have to be fulfilled for an act to earn the badge of an action; falling short of that standard disqualifies it, or, at the very least renders it an imperfect, faulty instance of agency. An agent is thus typically viewed as a disembodied, rational source of conduct, who can withhold her desires and choose between different courses of action using some form of deliberation. I submit that this model survives neither due to its empirical adequacy nor because it is otherwise valuable for ethics (or, more generally, for understanding human behavior). Rather, there is (I argue), a certain widespread philosophical attitude that determines its persistence--a general longing for the stability of the self and an orderly, controllable relationship between the agent and the world. I call the proponents of this attitude "tortoises" and offer a critique of their main claims. I conclude that we must alter this model. The empirical results from psychology and neuroscience suggest that an agent is best viewed as a bundle of modules that are governed by different rules. None of them is "more" the agent than another, but all operate to achieve a state of homeostasis between so the different processes within the agent and the environment.

The main objective of this project is to identify whether personality traits relate to the major moral categories of Deontology and the two subcategories of Teleology, namely Egoism and Utilitarianism. Chronological Age, the three personality traits of Allocentrism, Machiavellianism and Long-Term Orientation, and the moderating variable of Biological Sex were analyzed with multinomial logistic regression to predict a respondent's justification of moral philosophy across three different scenarios. Although none of the variables were significant predictors across all three scenarios, Machiavellianism significantly predicted a respondent's choice in a confidentiality scenario, and the interaction between Allocentrism and Biological Sex were partially significant predictors for a personal income tax evasion scenario, and Chronological Age was a significant predictor for a bribery scenario and a partially significant predictor for the personal income tax evasion scenario. The results suggest that personality traits can act as significant predictors for the justification of moral acts in specific situations, but the significance of predictability depends on difference contexts.

Social behaviour is common in nature. Yet, for over a century and half, scholars have struggled in vain to offer a satisfactory account of its evolution under Darwinian natural selection. In this thesis I propose that three fundamental assumptions in the Darwinian explanation of social behaviour are at the root of the problem. They are: 1. The basic Darwinian philosophy that evolutionary change occurs by one inherent trait replacing another in an organism. 2. The collapse of social behaviour, in its entirety, into a single, narrow concept called “altruism.” 3. The assumption that such “altruism” arises from a mutation at a single gene locus, where it supplants “selfishness” as an alternative allele. The thesis identifies some insights from Hume’s analysis of human morality and sociality that suggest the proper circumstances of social interactions in humans. We see from Hume’s analysis that nothing inherent in human nature needs to change in order to move beyond parenting to sociality. Hume identifies two principles in human nature — selfishness and empathy — that are the ultimate basis of human sociality. Empathy expands self-interest to include relatives and associates, but not strangers. And that suffices to form small, primitive human societies. For large, cosmopolitan societies, Hume suggests they are maintained only through human inventions such as governments and justice. Hume’s explanation precludes the need for a weaker “altruistic gene” to supplant a fitter “selfish gene” as a condition for social evolution, which has been the basis of the Darwinian explanatory difficulty. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Vigilantism is an underdeveloped concept in scholarly discourse, particularly within the field of philosophy. My definition of vigilantism is: private citizens who engage in illegal coercive activity, against alleged transgressors of some normative code. Vigilantes seek to fulfill some conception of justice, and in doing so, they presume upon the state's authority. This definition excludes similar activities, like police brutality or terrorism. It also improves upon earlier definitions from other scholars. There are many potential objections to the practice of vigilantism as a whole, and there are many examples of unjustified, immoral vigilantism. However, vigilantism can be morally justified under the following circumstances: a breakdown of the legal system, protection of vulnerable individuals, proportional punishments, fair treatment, attempts to mend the larger social issues, and the advancement of justice. Depending on the particular circumstances, vigilantism can be morally justified, morally optimal, or unjustified. Since I can only provide a cursory examination of vigilantism, these ideas need more rigorous investigation and development. Further discussion on this subject is very important, given our volatile political climate. / Thesis / Master of Arts (MA) / Vigilantism requires more careful discussion in scholarly discourse, particularly given recent political developments in Canada and the United States. Although there is some earlier material on the subject, it is inconsistent and scattered across academic fields. Within this thesis, I develop a philosophical definition of vigilantism, and discuss how it differs things like terrorism or police brutality. I also develop a preliminary account of the morality of vigilantism, exploring several reasonable concerns with the practice as a whole. In spite of these issues, vigilantism can be morally justified under a particular set of circumstances, which are difficult but not impossible to fulfill. However, there is much more work to be done on the subject, in order to develop a robust understanding of vigilantism.

Although moral individualism is sufficient for making fair moral decisions, it is itself supported by our implicit moral commitments; Rawls (and consequently Rowlands) uses the original position as a method for making moral decisions that are both fair and consistent without proposing a normative moral code, and DeGrazia adds content to this method by spelling out what interests are and which individuals are capable of having interests - and thus being morally considerable. Rawls does not go far enough in the process of bracketing off undeserved, unearned properties; he fails to see that properties such as rationality and species are undeserved. Using Rowlands' interpretation of Rawls, I argue that the revised intuitive equality argument provides the justification for the social contract argument - that is, for bracketing off the properties that are arbitrary. I use DeGrazia to make the case for sentience as being essential for moral consideration. Sentience is necessary and sufficient for having interests, and having interests is sufficient for being worthy of moral consideration. From this, I conclude that because there are many sentient nonhuman animals, there are many nonhuman animals that are worthy of moral consideration. Being morally considerable is not equivalent to having substantial moral status. Rachels' moral individualism allows us to make moral decisions based upon the properties or characteristics of the individual, and this is particularly useful for pinpointing our treatment of humans and our justification for doing so and then simply extending this line of thought to nonhumans. This method allows us to isolate what is indeed relevant to the situation at hand and to consider if both individuals under consideration share it. In the case of moral status, sentience will play an important role because it is a property shared by humans and at least some nonhuman animals. Using Rawls, Rowlands, DeGrazia and Rachels as support, I conclude that at least some animals have significant moral status. / Master of Arts

Very often, we are unsure about what we ought to do. Under what conditions should we help to improve the lives of distant strangers rather than those of our family members? At what point does an embryo or foetus become a person, with all the rights that that entails? Is it ever permissible to raise and kill non-human animals in order to use their meat for food? Sometimes, this uncertainty arises out of empirical uncertainty: we might not know to what extent non-human animals feel pain, or how much we are really able to improve the lives of distant strangers compared to our family members. But this uncertainty can also arise out of fundamental normative uncertainty: out of not knowing, for example, what moral weight the wellbeing of distant strangers has compared to the wellbeing of our family; or whether non-human animals are worthy of moral concern even given knowledge of all the facts about their biology and psychology. In fact, for even moderately reflective agents, decision-making under normative uncertainty is ubiquitous. Given this, one might have expected philosophers to have devoted considerable research time to the question of how one ought to take one’s normative uncertainty into account in one’s decisions. But the issue has been largely neglected. This thesis attempts to begin to fill this gap. It addresses the question: what ought one to do when one is uncertain about what one ought to do? It develops a view that I call metanormativism: the view that there are second-order norms that govern action that are relative to a decision-maker’s uncertainty about first-order normative claims. In consists of two distinct parts. The first part (Chapters 1-4) develops a general metanormative theory. I argue in favour of the view that decision-makers should maximise expected choice-worthiness, treating normative uncertainty analogously with how they treat empirical uncertainty. I defend this view at length in response to two key problems, which I call the problems of merely ordinal theories and the problem of intertheoretic comparisons. The second part (Chapters 5-7) explores the implications of metanormativism for other philosophical issues. I suggest that it has important implications for the theory of rational action in the face of incomparable values, for the causal/evidential debate in decision-theory, and for the value we should ascribe to research into moral philosophy.

In this thesis I explore the possibility for a renewed communitarianism. Rather than present this as a rival to liberalism, however, I present it as a supplement. I start from the viewpoint that there are two basic facts with normative consequences the reconciliation of which is the central task of moral and political philosophy. One fact is the fact of individuality, which I believe produces a normative requirement that all and only obligations that respect a certain kind of individual autonomy are legitimate. This fact is well explained by liberalism, and so I am to that extent a liberal. Where I differ from contemporary liberalism, and where I think there is room for a renewed communitarianism, is in explaining the limits of autonomy. There are, I contend, a wide array of basic and legitimate obligations that cannot be adequately explained (i.e. the legitimacy of which cannot be explained) by autonomy alone. The role for communitarianism, then, is to explain the nature of a second legitimating principle and how these two principles – respect for autonomy and respect for (what I call) fraternity – can work together to explain when various maxims and policies are legitimate or illegitimate. In the first part I explain the importance of communitarianism. In the second, I try and determine the nature of the principle that should be seen as representing the normative requirements of the fact of sociality: the second inescapable fact of moral and political philosophy, that while we are individuals we are never alone. I will ultimately argue for a version of solidarity based on the role ethical obligations play in incorporating the interests of others in one‟s own set of interests. In the final part I explain how the ethical obligation at the heart of solidarity should work and then how to reconcile the normative requirements of the fact of sociality with autonomy.

Kant famously claims that autonomy is the ground of dignity. If he is correct about the grounding relationship, then doubts about our autonomy entail doubts about our dignity. Here, I attempt to show that Kant is sensitive to this problem, and invokes the ‘fact of reason’ (Faktum der Vernunft) as the key piece of evidence for our autonomy, and therefore our dignity. But as is well known, Kant’s appeal to the Faktum is controversial. After presenting an exegetical case for the connection between dignity and the fact of reason, I respond to two prominent criticisms of Kant’s strategy in the Critique of Practical Reason in attempt to defend Kant’s use of the Faktum, and hence to preserve his conception of the dignity of humanity.

I consider whether evolutionary explanations can debunk our moral beliefs. Most contemporary discussion in this area is centred on the question of whether debunking implications follow from our ability to explain elements of human morality in terms of natural selection, given that there has been no selection for true moral beliefs. By considering the most prominent arguments in the literature today, I offer reasons to think that debunking arguments of this kind fail. However, I argue that a successful evolutionary debunking argument can be constructed by appeal to the suggestion that our moral outlook reflects arbitrary contingencies of our phylogeny, much as the horizontal orientation of the whale’s tail reflects its descent from terrestrial quadrupeds. An introductory chapter unpacks the question of whether evolutionary explanations can debunk our moral beliefs, offers a brief historical guide to the philosophical discussion surrounding it, and explains what I mean to contribute to this discussion. Thereafter follow six chapters and a conclusion. The six chapters are divided into three pairs. The first two chapters consider what contemporary scientific evidence can tell us about the evolutionary origins of morality and, in particular, to what extent the evidence speaks in favour of the claims on which debunking arguments rely. The next two chapters offer a critique of popular debunking arguments that are centred on the irrelevance of moral facts in natural selection explanations. The final chapters develop a novel argument for the claim that evolutionary explanations can undermine our moral beliefs insofar as they show that our moral outlook reflects arbitrary contingencies of our phylogeny. A conclusion summarizes my argument and sets out the key questions that arise in its wake.