An important question confronting feminist philosophers is why women are sometimes complicit in their own subordination. The dominant view holds that complicity is best understood in terms of adaptive preferences. This view assumes that agents will naturally gravitate away from subordination and towards flourishing as long as they do not have things imposed on them that disrupt this trajectory. However, there is reason to believe that ‘impositions’ do not explain all of the ways in which complicity can arise. (...) This paper defends a phenomenological account of complicity, which offers an alternative explanation. (shrink)

Adaptive preferences are preferences formed in response to circumstances and opportunities – paradigmatically, they occur when we scale back our desires so they accord with what is probable or at least possible. While few commentators are willing to wholly reject the normative significance of such preferences, adaptive preferences have nevertheless attracted substantial criticism in recent political theory. The groundbreaking analysis of Jon Elster charged that such preferences are not autonomous, and several other commentators (...) have since followed Elster’s lead. On a second front, Capacity Theorists Martha Nussbaum and Amartya Sen have objected that adaptive preferences lead people away from objective goods and constitute an impediment to progressive change in developing countries. In this paper I argue that the criticisms of Elster, Sen and Nussbaum fail on the one hand to take into account what may be positively said in favour of this type of preference formation, and fail on the other hand to distinguish between different types of psychological changes – with the result that many of the critiques offered have a narrower purview than is currently allowed. My analysis of adaptive preferences, even in their most ideal form, is however not entirely positive; I adduce reasons why we can be cautious about allowing adaptive preferences to play certain types of roles in political processes, even as we accept those very preferences as normative and autonomous for the agent holding them. [International scholars without access to the AJPAE are invited to email [email protected] for a pdf copy of this article.]. (shrink)

Adaptive preference formation is the unconscious altering of our preferences in light of the options we have available. Jon Elster has argued that this is bad because it undermines our autonomy. I agree, but think that Elster’s explanation of why is lacking. So, I draw on a richer account of autonomy to give the following answer. Preferences formed through adaptation are characterised by covert influence (that is, explanations of which an agent herself is necessarily unaware), and covert (...) influence undermines our autonomy because it undermines the extent to which an agent’s preferences are ones that she has decided upon for herself. This answer fills the lacuna in Elster’s argument. It also allows us to draw a principled distinction between adaptive preference formation and the closely related – but potentially autonomy-enhancing – phenomenon of character planning. (shrink)

I argue, first, that the deprived individuals whose predicaments Nussbaum cites as examples of "adaptive preference" do not in fact prefer the conditions of their lives to what we should regard as more desirable alternatives, indeed that we believe they are badly off precisely because they are not living the lives they would prefer to live if they had other options and were aware of them. Secondly, I argue that even where individuals in deprived circumstances acquire tastes for conditions (...) that we regard as bad, they are typically better off having their acquired preferences satisfied. If they are badly off it is because they cannot get what we and they, would regard as more desirable alternatives. Preference utilitarianism explains why individuals in such circumstances are badly off whether they have adapted to their deprived circumstances or not. Even if they prefer the conditions of their lives to all other available alternatives, most would prefer alternatives that are not available to them which would, on the preferentist account, make them better off. And that, on the preferentist account, is the basis for a radical critique of unjust institutions that limit people's options and prevent them from getting what they want. (shrink)

The starting point regarding consent has to be that it is both extremely important, and that it is often suspicious. In this article, the author tries to make sense of both of these claims, from a largely liberal perspective, tying consent, predictably, to the value of autonomy and distinguishing between autonomy as sovereignty and autonomy as nonalienation. The author then discusses adaptive preferences, claiming that they suffer from a rationality flaw but that it's not clear that this flaw (...) matters morally or politically. What matters is whether they suffer from an autonomy flaw. To answer this question, the author develops an account of autonomy failure, according to which a preference is nonautonomous if an injustice played an appropriate role in its causal history. The author then discusses the moral implications—and in an initial way, the political ones as well—of proclaiming a preference, or consent based on it, nonautonomous in this way. (shrink)

Many economists and social theorists hypothesize that most societies could soon face a ‘post-work’ future, one in which employment and productive labor have a dramatically reduced place in human affairs. Given the centrality of employment to individual identity and its pivotal role as the primary provider of economic and other goods, transitioning to a ‘post-work’ future could prove traumatic and disorienting to many. Policymakers are thus likely to face the difficult choice of the extent to which they ought to satisfy (...) individual citizens’ desires to work in a socioeconomic environment in which work is in permanent decline. Here I argue that policymakers confronting a post-work economy should discount, or at least consider problematic, the desire to work because it is very likely that this desire is an adaptive preference. An adaptive preference is a preference for some state of affairs within a limited set of options formed under unjust conditions. The widespread desire for work has been formed under unjust labor conditions to which individuals are compelled to submit in order to meet material and ethical needs. Furthermore, the prevalence of the ‘work dogma’ in contemporary societies precludes nearly all individuals from seeing alternatives to work as live options. (shrink)

Let’s say that an act requires Person-Affecting Justification if and only if some alternative would have been better for someone. So, Lucifer breaking Xavier’s back requires Person-Affecting Justification because the alternative would have been better for Xavier. But the story continues: While Lucifer evades justice, Xavier moves on and founds a school for gifted children. Xavier’s deepest values become identified with the school and its community. When authorities catch Lucifer, he claims no Person-Affecting Justification is needed: because the attack set (...) Xavier on his life’s path, it’s no longer true that the alternative would have been better by the standard of what Xavier now values most. An unappealingly paternalistic way to hold Lucifer to account is to discount Xavier’s preferences as merely adaptive. Instead, I propose understanding the persons of Person-Affecting Justification to be not persons but person stages. This allows us to hold Lucifer to account without having to discount Xavier’s actual preferences, and has interesting implications for compensatory justice, including making sense of reparations for historical wrongs. (shrink)

Citizens of liberal, affluent societies are regularly encouraged to support reforms meant to improve conditions for badly-off people in the developing world. Our economic and political support is solicited for causes such as: banning child labor, implementing universal primary education, closing down sweatshops and brothels, etc. But what if the relevant populations or individuals in the developing world do not support these particular reforms or aid programs? What if they would strongly prefer other reforms and programs, or would rank the (...) various benefits that might be offered differently than seems reasonable to the Western, liberal supporters of these campaigns and organizations? What is the proper liberal response here? I argue that the proper liberal response is to support those programs and reforms that the global poor most value. The bulk of the paper is devoted to arguing against the popular liberal argument which states that we can safely disregard the preferences of the oppressed when they seem very unreasonable because these individuals suffer from “adaptive preferences.” This typically is taken to mean that their preferences are “not their own” in an important sense. I put forward various different proposals for why adaptive preferences can be safely dismissed, but ultimately argue that they are not persuasive. And if it is no longer legitimate to appeal to adaptive preferences as a basis for disregarding what oppressed people want, then I argue that to do so is straightforward paternalism, and so is unjustifiable in all but the most extreme cases. Finally, I argue for the following concrete recommendations: Given that resources are not infinite, we should (1) Support programs that give oppressed people increased access to information, such as access to technology, (2) support those reforms and aid programs that the oppressed themselves regard as most important, with special emphasis on those opportunities for education that they deem valuable, and (3) refrain from supporting coercive policies intended to thwart adaptive preferences. (shrink)

This paper proposes Optimal Adaptation Ethics (OAE), a framework designed to resolve the long-standing tension between moral universalism and cultural relativism. By establishing the "Principle of Contradiction Minimization" as an ontological axiom rather than a moral preference, OAE defines ethical norms as the output of an optimization function: Gamma (ethical norms) equals the argument that minimizes total contradiction (C_total). This system posits that while the content of norms must adapt to environmental variables (E) and internal factors (I), the form of (...) the norms is absolute and logically necessary for the survival of any intelligent agent, including Artificial Superintelligence (ASI). (shrink)

Under ideal conditions, explicit consent and related actions usually change the moral facts in a distinctive way: they make something permissible that was previously impermissible. But they don't do this if the consent is coerced. And it seems they also don't do it if the preferences on which the consent is based were formed in particular ways: if they were formed via certain mechanisms under pressure from unjust social forces, for instance. In this paper, I describe a range of (...) mechanisms by which our preferences might be formed, determine which of those can give rise to preferences that ground effective consent and which cannot, and explain why each mechanism falls on its side of the division. (shrink)

Rethinking Work, Power, and the Future of Nations// This article examines how economic and social systems adapt to technological disruptions, particularly artificial intelligence and automation. It explores several fundamental questions about systemic evolution in the face of changing scarcity paradigms. How do systems adapt when traditional forms of scarcity diminish? As technology reduces scarcity of physical and intellectual labor, new forms of scarcity emerge—attention, meaning, purpose, and experience become the new commodities. These shifts catalyze the evolution of economic structures, transforming (...) work rather than eliminating it entirely..//What drives the survival mechanisms of societal systems? Systems function like software agents with programmatic rules, continuously evolving to maintain their existence. Though not consciously acting entities, they develop traits ensuring adaptation and persistence. Citizens serve as both carriers and executing agents of these systems, participating in reinforcement mechanisms that perpetuate the system's operation.// How do systems change? Significant transformation typically requires emotional energy exceeding critical thresholds—often generated through crises. While proactive adaptation would be preferable, systems generally resist change until environmental pressures become intense enough to overcome institutional inertia.// Why is system diversity of systems important? Multiple competing systems create "trial-and-error laboratories" that test different approaches to emerging challenges. This diversity enhances humanity's collective adaptive capacity, proving more advantageous than monocultural global systems with reduced adaptability.// What role does information control play? As systems compete, control over information flows becomes crucial for survival. Systems naturally frame comparisons with competitors to maintain their power position. Open communication about relative fitness, however, encourages beneficial cross-adoption of successful elements.// What future emerges from these adaptations? Rather than catastrophic collapse, gradual transformation is more likely. Systems will incorporate new elements while preserving core structures. The evolving landscape may create unprecedented value, enabling human endeavor to pivot toward qualitative improvements in well-being, sustainability, and creativity./// The analysis concludes that human progress continues through evolutionary adaptation rather than revolutionary disruption, as systems expand into new niches while preserving fundamental human values and social cohesion. (shrink)

Does the visual system adapt to number? For more than fifteen years, most have assumed that the answer is an unambiguous “yes”. Against this prevailing orthodoxy, we recently took a critical look at the phenomenon, questioning its existence on both empirical and theoretical grounds, and providing an alternative explanation for extant results (the old news hypothesis). We subsequently received two critical responses. Burr, Anobile, and Arrighi rejected our critiques wholesale, arguing that the evidence for number adaptation remains overwhelming. Durgin questioned (...) our old news hypothesis — preferring instead a theory about density adaptation he has championed for decades — but also highlighted several ways in which our arguments do pose serious challenges for proponents of number adaptation. Here, we reply to both. We first clarify our position regarding number adaptation. Then, we respond to our critics’ concerns, highlighting seven reasons why we remain skeptical about number adaptation. We conclude with some thoughts about where the debate may head from here. (shrink)

For successful climate change adaptation, the distribution of responsibility within society is an important question. While the literature highlights the need for involving both public and private actors, little is still known of how citizens perceive their own and others’ responsibility, let alone the moral groundings for such perceptions. In this paper, we report the results of a survey regarding people’s attitudes towards different ways of distributing responsibility for climate change adaptation. The survey was distributed to citizens in six Swedish (...) municipalities and completed by 510 respondents. A large number of respondents wanted to assign responsibility for making decisions about and implementing adaptation measures to local governments, but also to property owners, whereas the national government was raised as responsible for setting decision boundaries and for financial support. The most preferred principles for a fair distribution of responsibility among the respondents were desert, ability, efficiency and need, while the principle of equal shares found less support. All principles received some support, indicating that it is necessary to consider several principles when distributing responsibility for climate change adaptation. Compared to earlier studies, this study shows more nuanced perceptions on who should be responsible and on what moral grounds. (shrink)

Introduction: This study delves into the ethical dimensions surrounding autonomous vehicles (AVs), with a specific focus on decision-making algorithms. Termed the “Trolley problem,” an ethical quandary arises, necessitating the formulation of moral algorithms grounded in ethical principles. To address this issue, an online survey was conducted with 460 participants in China, comprising 237 females and 223 males, spanning ages 18 to 70. -/- Methods: Adapted from Joshua Greene’s trolley dilemma survey, our study employed Yes/No options to probe participants’ choices and (...) Likert scales to gauge moral acceptance. The primary objective was to assess participants’ inclinations toward four distinct algorithmic strategies—Utilitarianism, Rawlsianism, Egoism, and a Hybrid approach—in scenarios involving AVs -/- Results: Our findings revealed a significant disparity between participants’ preferences in scenarios related to AV design and those focused on purchase decisions. Notably, over half of the respondents expressed reluctance to purchase AVs equipped with an “egoism” algorithm, which prioritizes the car owner’s safety. Intriguingly, the rejection rate for “egoism” was similar to that of “utilitarianism,” which may necessitate self-sacrifice. -/- Discussion: The hybrid approach, integrating “Utilitarianism” and “Egoism,” garnered the highest endorsement. This highlights the importance of balancing self-sacrifice and harm minimization in AV moral algorithms. The study’s insights are crucial for ethically and practically advancing AV technology in the continually evolving realm of autonomous vehicles. (shrink)

This paper explores the dual nature of identity politics in progressive activism, examining its role as both a powerful tool for empowerment and a problematic source of essentialism. While collective identities organized around race and gender have historically enabled marginalized groups—such as the Combahee River Collective—to gain political recognition and challenge systemic oppression, they often rely on fixed, immutable categories that inadvertently exclude diversity and mirror essentialist frameworks. By engaging with Diana Fuss’s critique of constructionism and Charles Taylor’s "politics of (...) recognition," the author illustrates how traditional identity politics can crystallize fluid identities into rigid binaries. -/- To address these limitations, the paper proposes "Preference Essentialism" as a new paradigm for inclusive activism. Rooted in Peter Singer’s preference utilitarianism, this approach shifts the focus from ontological identities (based on inherent traits like race or gender) to normative identities shaped by shared values, moral schemas, and goals. Using the movement for reproductive rights as a case study, the paper demonstrates how Preference Essentialism can build broader, more adaptable coalitions by uniting diverse allies through shared preferences for social justice rather than shared biological or social categories. Ultimately, the author argues that this model strengthens the impact of social justice movements by fostering a dynamic framework that accommodates the complexities of contemporary identity. (shrink)

In this paper, I address the question of whether aerosol geoengineering (AG) ought to be deployed as a response to climate change. First, I distinguish AG from emissions mitigation, adaptation, and other geoengineering strategies. Second, I discuss advantages and disadvantages of AG, including its potential to result in substantial harm to some persons. Third, I critique three arguments against AG deployment, suggesting reasons why these arguments should be rejected. Fourth, I consider an argument that, in scenarios in which all available (...) climate change strategies would result in net harm to persons, we ought to adopt that response to climate change which would result in the least net harm. I suggest that under .. (shrink)

Ethical frameworks throughout history have struggled with fragmentation, internal contradictions, and the inability to adapt to complex, real-world decision-making. Traditional models—deontology, utilitarianism, and moral relativism—fail to resolve key ethical paradoxes such as the is-ought problem, the tension between justice and mercy, and the limits of moral responsibility under deterministic constraints. This paper develops a coherence-first ethical framework, where morality emerges as a function of stability optimization across multiple scales of decision-making rather than imposed rules or subjective preferences. Ethics is (...) defined as the maximization of coherence persistence, with moral responsibility proportional to an agent’s recursive coherence capacity. The model formally integrates coherence gradients, ethical weighting functions, and recursive selection mechanisms to unify rule-based and outcome-based ethical reasoning. This resolves dilemmas such as the trolley problem by demonstrating that ethical decision-making is not purely about harm minimization but about preserving coherence stability within a system. The framework also provides a structured approach to adaptive ethics in artificial intelligence and post-human decision-making, where rigid moral codes fail in novel environments. By modeling ethical action selection as gradient ascent in coherence space, this approach eliminates the need for static moral absolutes, ensuring that ethical structures remain dynamic and scalable. The result is a self-optimizing ethical system capable of resolving classical dilemmas while maintaining long-term coherence evolution across biological, social, and technological domains. (shrink)

An interesting application for social robots is to act as a presenter, for example as a museum guide. In this paper, we present a fully automated system architecture for building adaptive presentations for embodied agents. The presentation is generated from a knowledge graph, which is also used to track the grounding state of information, based on multimodal feedback from the user. We introduce a novel way to use large-scale language models (GPT-3 in our case) to lexicalise arbitrary knowledge graph (...) triples, greatly simplifying the design of this aspect of the system. We also present an evaluation where 43 participants interacted with the system. The results show that users prefer the adaptive system and consider it more human-like and flexible than a static version of the same system, but only partial results are seen in their learning of the facts presented by the robot. (shrink)

For several years, scholars have (for good reason) been largely preoccupied with worries about the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) tools to make decisions about us. Only recently has significant attention turned to a potentially more alarming problem: the use of AI/ML to influence our decision-making. The contexts in which we make decisions—what behavioral economists call our choice architectures—are increasingly technologically-laden. Which is to say: algorithms increasingly determine, in a wide variety of contexts, both the sets of (...) options we choose from and the way those options are framed. Moreover, artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) makes it possible for those options and their framings—the choice architectures—to be tailored to the individual chooser. They are constructed based on information collected about our individual preferences, interests, aspirations, and vulnerabilities, with the goal of influencing our decisions. At the same time, because we are habituated to these technologies we pay them little notice. They are, as philosophers of technology put it, transparent to us—effectively invisible. I argue that this invisible layer of technological mediation, which structures and influences our decision-making, renders us deeply susceptible to manipulation. Absent a guarantee that these technologies are not being used to manipulate and exploit, individuals will have little reason to trust them. (shrink)

Big decisions in a person’s life often affect the preferences and standards of a good life which that person’s future self will develop after implementing her decision. This paper argues that in such cases the person might lack any reasons to choose one way rather than the other. Neither preference-based views nor happiness-based views of justified choice offer sufficient help here. The available options are not comparable in the relevant sense and there is no rational choice to make. Thus, (...) ironically, in many of a person’s most important decisions the idea of that person’s good seems to have no application. (shrink)

Disability-positive philosophers often note a troubling tendency to dismiss what disabled people say about their well-being. This chapter seeks to get clearer on why this tendency might be troubling. It argues that recent appeals to lived experience, testimonial injustice, and certain challenges to adaptive-preference reasoning do not fully explain what is wrong with questioning the happiness of disabled people. It then argues that common attempts to debunk the claim that disabled people are happy are worrisome because they threaten everyone’s (...) well-being and are further challenged by an argument from moral risk. (shrink)

In this article, we deal with the evaluation of the losses suffered by persons living in urban areas as a result of energy services. In the first part, we analyse how by adopting different informational foci we obtain contrasting interpersonal evaluations regarding the same loss. In the second part, we distinguish between a diachronic and a hypothetical/moralised threshold for harm in order to assess whether individuals are benefiting from or being harmed by a given energy service. Our argument is that (...) the most accurate evaluation of an individual damage caused by an energy service can be obtained by using capabilities as informational focus, instead of realised wellbeing or means to wellbeing, and by interpreting the loss in relation to a hypothetical/moralised threshold that corresponds to a list of central capabilities. In the last part, we address monetary and non-monetary compensations for a loss that is evaluated in terms of capabilities. Accordingly, we expound how compensation policies can either restore the capabilities lost due to energy services or monetarily compensate the individual for the fact that a given capability (or set of capabilities) has been irremediably lost. (shrink)

Testimony by disabled people concerning the relationship between their experiences and overall well-being has long been an object of social scientific and humanistic study. Often discussed in terms of “the disability paradox,” these studies contrast the intuitive horribleness of certain impaired states against the testimonial evidence suggesting that people in such states do not in fact experience their lives as horrible. Explanations for why such testimonial evidence is suspect range from claims about adaptive preferences to issues of qualitative (...) research methodology. In this paper, I argue that the problem lies not with the evidence, but the intuitions in question. Using the disability paradox as a case study, I further argue against the use of the concept of intuitive horribleness in social epistemology and beyond. I contend that testimonial and hermeneutical injustices are baked into most deployments of the concept, and even if one were to justify its use in select cases, it should be accompanied with prima facie suspicion. In conclusion, I discuss the implications of this analysis for the literature on transformative experience and also for the stakes of multi-cultural, historically informed philosophical inquiry more generally. (shrink)

We often find ourselves in situations where it is up to us to make decisions on behalf of others. How can we determine whether such decisions are morally justified, especially if those decisions may change who it is these others end up becoming? In this paper, I will evaluate one plausible kind of justification that may tempt us: we may want to justify our decision by appealing to the likelihood that the other person will be glad we made that specific (...) choice down the line. Although it is tempting, I ultimately argue that we should reject this sort of appeal as a plausible justification for the moral permissibility of our vicarious decisions. This is because the decisions that we make on behalf of another may affect the interests and values that that person will hold in the future. As I will show, this complicates the justificatory relationship between present decisions and future attitudes, since the latter can depend on the former. This is not to say that the predicted future attitudes of others can play no significant role in justifying our decisions on others’ behalf. Rather, appealing to the future attitudes in our moral justifications may play an important role in our practical thinking but only when we consider the future attitudes of all relevant possible futures. (shrink)

In this article, I firstly discuss why a prioritarian clause can rescue the utilitarian doctrine from the risk of exacerbating inequality in the distribution of resources in those cases in which utility of income does not decline at the margin. Nonetheless, when in the presence of adaptive preferences, classic prioritarianism is more likely than utilitarianism to increase the inequality of resources under all circumstances, independently of the diminishing trend of utility. Hence, I propose to shift the informational focus (...) of prioritarianism from welfare to either social income or capabilities in order to safeguard those who are worse off. Following this, I argue that we may have reasons to limit the aggregative logic of priority-amended utilitarianism through one or more sufficiency thresholds, and that we can partially defuse the negative-thesis objection that is usually levelled against sufficientarianism, provided we interpret the threshold(s) as valid only as long as everyone is led above it. (shrink)

(Conference proceedings 2014) This presentation (International Development Ethics Association, July 2014) considers economic vulnerability, exploring the risk of deprivation of necessary resources due to a complex and rarely discussed vulnerability that arises from hope. Pierre Bourdieu’s sociological account of French petit-bourgeois aspiration in The Social Structures of the Economy has recently inspired Wendy Olsen to introduce the term “aspiration paradox” to characterize cases wherein “a borrower's status aspirations may contribute to a situation in which their borrowings exceed their capacity to (...) repay,” leaving the individual much the worse, due to an aspiration to betterment. If such financial opportunities were not made available to these people – if some were denied loans due to a careful assessment of their vulnerability – would they be better off? We should seriously consider that they might be. I will hazard the straightforwardly paternalistic suggestion that limiting access to lending to those who are vulnerable to their aspirations can be a just policy. Because aspiration paradox is a cross-cultural phenomenon, and because lending frequently involves asymmetries in mathematical education between borrowers and lenders, I hope to elude at least some of the charges of colonialism that have gained a stronger purchase on adaptive preference arguments. (shrink)

Since the early 1990s, Uganda has been cajoled by the IMF and World Bank to pursue a neo-liberal approach to development as opposed to a liberal development modus operandi. However, in theory the World Bank has pursued a liberal, rights based approach to poverty reduction policy but, in practice, it has implemented a neo-liberal, market centric approach to poverty reduction. This is the reason why pro-poor poverty reduction in Uganda is more of rhetorical than practical. This paper critiques the epistemological (...) pre-suppositions characteristic of the ethics of the current pro-poor poverty policy in Uganda. The fundamental premises of this critique are: Can the views of the poor in Uganda influence poverty policies given their asymmetrical disadvantage? Who knows the views of poor? Do the elites interpret the views of the poor as they are or as they think them to be? Do the poor have poverty knowledge or poverty opinion? Are some of the views of the poor simply adaptive preferences? What constitutes poverty knowledge as opposed to poverty opinion? Is it ethical to eradicate poverty using opinion riddled poverty polices? Is it ethically sustainable for poverty policies to persistently aim at integrating women in poverty eradication interventions while largely giving lip service patriarchal power relations that asymmetrically disadvantage them? (shrink)

The phenomenon of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide (EAS) in unjust conditions has received much attention in the popular press, along with a handful of responses in academic venues. These responses typically defend the permissibility of EAS in unjust conditions by appeal to anti-discrimination or harm reduction arguments, which frame the issue in terms of exclusion from current EAS law. We first briefly examine these arguments within such a framing, and then argue that it fails to account for the deep moral (...) concern elicited by EAS in unjust conditions. To address this moral concern more fully, we compare the policy of allowing EAS in unjust conditions to a hypothetical EAS policy which requires a guarantee of basic care—and thus avoids the EAS cases of moral concern from the start. We argue for the moral superiority of the latter policy and respond to several potential objections. (shrink)

Over the last 30 years the Indian philosopher-economist Amartya Sen has developed an original normative approach to the evaluation of individual and social well-being. The foundational concern of this ‘capability approach’ is the real freedom of individuals to achieve the kind of lives they have reason to value. This freedom is analysed in terms of an individual’s ‘capability’ to achieve combinations of such intrinsically valuable ‘beings and doings’ (‘functionings’) as being sufficiently nourished and freely expressing one’s political views. In this (...) account, ‘development’ is conceived as the expansion of individuals’ capability, and thus as a concept that goes beyond the economic growth of third world countries. My thesis is a philosophical examination of Sen’s capability approach. In the first part (chapters 1-3) I present and defend my interpretation of Sen’s work. (shrink)

The research approaches the problem of illegitimate external influences through the hierarchical analysis of personal autonomy and the analysis of theories of personal autonomy that arose as a constructive and critical reaction to it, which contributes to the establishment of criteria for demarcation between legitimate and illegitimate external influences. In addition, the relationship between personal autonomy and political legitimacy in a democratic context is examined, and the preconditions for political decision-making by autonomous citizens are defined. Using conceptual analysis, the critical-evaluative (...) method, and thought experiments, it is shown that personal autonomy cannot completely depend on the subjective assessment of the agent. The criterion of independence ought to have the status of a social convention that implies uniformity in its application to all agents in a relatively similar position. Personal autonomy implies being able to resist the possible arbitrary influence of others. In the political context, this means that respecting the personal autonomy of each citizen requires a participatory deliberative democracy in which the quality of the argument will be the only relevant factor in the formation of a collective decision. The legitimacy of a political decision is based on respect for personal autonomy, not only during the democratic process but also in the period that preceded it. Given that citizens are exposed to the arbitrary use of power that affects the impartiality of their judgment, autonomy-sensitive participatory deliberative democracy should take into account deliberative constraints in order to ensure the legitimacy of political decision-making. (shrink)

This article explores the relationship between deliberative democracy, the Internet, and systems theory’s thoughts on diversity. After introducing Habermas’s theory of deliberative democracy and how diversity fits into it, the article discusses various ideas about whether and how it could work on the Internet. Next, the article looks at research into diversity done in the field of complex adaptive systems, showing that diversity has both good and bad effects, but is clearly preferred for the purpose of survival. The article (...) concludes with an analysis of how the results of systems theory’s study of diversity can assist society in bringing democracy to the Web. (shrink)

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law is often read as a provocation, incitement to indulgence, or manifesto of individual sovereignty. Beneath its surface, though, lies a precise intuition about the nature of agency, order, and the forces that govern persistence. What Aleister Crowley named “Will” stands far closer to a structural invariant than to personal preference; it gestures toward the deep trajectory that an agent follows when all internal contradiction has been resolved, the noise of (...) impulse falls away, and the system is aligned with its own conditions of continuation. Through this lens, the famous maxim ceases to be a mystical slogan and becomes a description of a law inherent to adaptive systems. The organism, mind, society, or cosmos persists only by aligning with the path along which it maintains internal coherence and avoids fragmentation that leads to decay. (shrink)

In this paper, I critique arguments made by philosopher David Buller against central evolutionary-psychological explanations of human mating. Specifically, I aim to rebut his criticisms of Evolutionary Psychology regarding (1) women's long-term mating preferences for high-status men; (2) the evolutionary rationale behind men's provisioning of women; (3) men's mating preferences for young women; (4) women's adaptation for extra-pair sex; (5) the sex-differentiated evolutionary theory of human jealousy; and (6) the notion of mate value. In sum, I aim to (...) demonstrate that Buller's arguments contra Evolutionary Psychologists are left wanting. (shrink)

In this paper I try to clarify and systematize some contributions with regard to (a) the main aspects of crisis situations that impose the management of emotions, (b) the correlation of certain social emotions with the factors that trigger them and their related tendencies to act, (c) the essential elements of emotional experience, (d) the differentiation of appropriate emotional reactions to a crisis situation from the inappropriate ones; (e) the in-stances in which emotions can be managed, and (f) the balance (...) between rationality and affectivity in the organization’s response to the risks or crises which it faces. By means of logical correlations I arrived at the following conclusions. Regardless of the social sphere in which the crisis makes itself felt, regardless of its type, phase or damage control strategies, the rational control of emotions contributes significantly to overcoming the crisis situation. Beyond the specificities, crises involve digressions form the norms of rightful conduct, breaches of the social norms that support institutions (as spontaneous order structures) and maladaptive reactions to reality. They can be corrected through a good management of emotions, with the caveat that we are not dealing with a problem of knowledge, but rather with one of will and character. All people can identify the adaptive emotional responses to a crisis situation, but only a few prefer them and train assiduously to use them. (shrink)

Background: Despite significant advances in understanding hedonic adaptation and reward processing, the relationship between knowledge acquisition and motivational preferences remains underexplored. This paper introduces the Knowledge-Tranquility Theory (KTT), which proposes that accumulating knowledge across diverse domains fundamentally alters human motivational orientation from actively seeking pleasure and excitement toward preferring states of tranquility and peace. -/- Methods: This theoretical framework synthesizes empirical evidence from neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and wisdom research. We analyze existing studies on reward-learning frameworks, hedonic adaptation, wisdom development, (...) and dopaminergic processes to construct a testable model of knowledge-driven motivational transformation. -/- Results: The KTT framework identifies four distinct stages: (1) knowledge acquisition across diverse domains, (2) pattern recognition leading to cognitive sophistication, (3) reward system adaptation through neural plasticity, and (4) preference shift toward tranquility over excitement. The theory distinguishes itself from hedonic adaptation by proposing that general knowledge—not repeated exposure to specific stimuli—drives motivational change. -/- Conclusions: The Knowledge-Tranquility Theory provides a novel framework for understanding how intellectual development influences human motivation. The theory generates specific empirical predictions and offers implications for education, well-being, and human flourishing. (shrink)

Background: Despite significant advances in understanding hedonic adaptation and reward processing, the relationship between knowledge acquisition and motivational preferences remains underexplored. This paper introduces the Knowledge-Tranquility Theory (KTT), which proposes that accumulating knowledge across diverse domains fundamentally alters human motivational orientation from actively seeking pleasure and excitement toward preferring states of tranquility and peace. -/- Methods: This theoretical framework synthesizes empirical evidence from neuroscience, psychology, philosophy, and wisdom research. We analyze existing studies on reward-learning frameworks, hedonic adaptation, wisdom development, (...) and dopaminergic processes to construct a testable model of knowledge-driven motivational transformation. -/- Results: The KTT framework identifies four distinct stages: (1) knowledge acquisition across diverse domains, (2) pattern recognition leading to cognitive sophistication, (3) reward system adaptation through neural plasticity, and (4) preference shift toward tranquility over excitement. The theory distinguishes itself from hedonic adaptation by proposing that general knowledge—not repeated exposure to specific stimuli—drives motivational change. -/- Conclusions: The Knowledge-Tranquility Theory provides a novel framework for understanding how intellectual development influences human motivation. The theory generates specific empirical predictions and offers implications for education, well-being, and human flourishing. (shrink)

This article explores the impact of cultural factors on consumer behavior in the insurance market, highlighting the critical role of cultural dimensions in shaping consumer preferences, decision-making processes, and the overall demand for insurance products. Key cultural dimensions analyzed include uncertainty avoidance, institutional collectivism, long-term orientation, and gender equality. These factors significantly influence how consumers perceive risks, trust financial institutions, and interact with insurance providers. By examining these cultural elements through the lens of the GLOBE project and other relevant (...) studies, the article develops a comprehensive typology of insurance solutions that account for diverse cultural, social, and economic consumer characteristics. The typology includes insurance solutions tailored to reduce uncertainty, individualistic and collectivist preferences, long-term planning, and social and environmental considerations. Such adaptations are crucial for addressing the distinct needs of consumers across different regions and cultural contexts. The article also emphasizes the growing role of digital transformation in the insurance sector. Advanced technologies, such as artificial intelligence, big data analytics, and digital platforms, are enabling the personalization of insurance products, enhancing customer experience, and fostering efficient communication between companies and consumers. These technologies provide innovative opportunities to align insurance offerings with cultural nuances, while simultaneously addressing global challenges such as climate change, economic instability, and the increasing demand for sustainable and socially responsible solutions. In addition to its practical implications, the research offers theoretical insights into the integration of cultural dimensions into product development and marketing strategies. By adapting insurance products to cultural contexts, companies can build stronger customer relationships, improve loyalty, and enhance competitiveness in international markets. Furthermore, the article underscores the importance of transparent and trustworthy practices in the insurance industry, which are vital for fostering confidence among consumers, particularly in culturally diverse environments. (shrink)

This article investigates the hitherto under-examined relations between affirmative action, paternalism and respect. We provide three main arguments. First, we argue that affirmative action initiatives are typically paternalistic and thus disrespectful towards those intended beneficiaries who oppose the initiatives in question. Second, we argue that not introducing affirmative action can also be disrespectful towards these potential beneficiaries because such inaction involves a failure to adequately recognize their moral worth. Third, we argue that the paternalistic disrespect involved in affirmative action is (...) alleviated when the potential beneficiaries’ preferences against such initiatives are adaptive. We conclude that although there is a relevant sense in which paternalistic affirmative action is disrespectful, it may well be more disrespectful not to pursue such policies. (shrink)

Pursuing a life of moral excellence is often seen as allowing a person not only to live by good and just principles but also to live an authentic life that brings them closest to their true self. This view is taken to reflect the priority that people should place on moral pursuits or “moral primacy.” The results of four preregistered studies (N = 2,911) suggest that people do not always hold this view and highlight a tension within it: how can (...) morality both constrain human behavior and afford the freedom to be one’s truest self? We find that people resolve this conflict with ‘value pluralism,’ preferring a balance of life pursuits across several value domains, where aesthetic pursuits are viewed as affording freedom from convention. We then adapt a personal change paradigm from prior work and develop a novel paradigm to examine whether people’s intuitions about the true self also reveal that a broader set of values—not just moral ones—inform judgments of the true self. We find no differences in true self judgments following the loss of an aesthetic versus moral quality. However, when directly comparing life paths, the pursuit of aesthetic excellence is sometimes viewed as offering greater access to one’s true self compared with moral excellence, in part because aesthetic pursuits are seen as less rule bound. These findings offer insights into the myriad paths a person can take in life while pursuing autonomy, authenticity, and closeness to their true self. (shrink)

As climate change intensifies, scientific and policy discussions increasingly address questions of future habitability and potential population movements. In this perspective, we caution against premature or top-down characterizations of areas as uninhabitable, or portrayals of large-scale climate-induced displacement as inevitable—particularly when the perspectives and preferences of affected populations are excluded. While we recognize the importance of modelling and scenario-building to assess future risks, we argue that such efforts must be grounded in local realities and include diverse forms of knowledge. (...) Habitability is not determined by climate alone, but emerges from intersecting environmental, political, economic, and cultural dynamics—including governance, inequality, and historical injustice. Framings that do not consider this risk producing two problematic outcomes: first, by prematurely defining areas as uninhabitable, they may undermine the legitimacy of in-situ adaptation and the agency of affected communities; second, when modelling or the use of modelling results does not consider local context, it may inadvertently contribute to narratives portraying climate-induced mass displacement as inevitable, reinforcing deterministic understandings of migration and overlooking the complex drivers of mobility and immobility. To counter these risks, we propose five guiding recommendations: (1) avoid declaring hard limits to habitability without inclusive, context-specific assessments; (2) treat model-based projections as possible, not predetermined futures; (3) reject simplistic global North/South assumptions in assessing vulnerability and mobility; (4) uphold people’s right to remain, alongside the right to move; and (5) prioritize investment in in-situ adaptation that addresses structural inequalities. These principles aim to inform more reflexive and justice-oriented approaches to climate mobility and habitability research—approaches that recognize lived experiences, engage diverse knowledge systems, and help secure equitable futures for those most exposed to environmental change. (shrink)

This paper presents empirical evidence for the Imperative of Pluralism, the thesis that pluralism is not merely a moral or political preference but an ontological necessity for sustaining relational and democratic orders. Drawing on data from the SimEthica simulation framework, I analyze agent-based systems endowed with cognitive agency and epistemic autonomy. These agents form obligations, negotiate trust, and repair contradiction debt across regimes of differing plural structures. The results show that moral and institutional resilience depends on epistemic diversity coupled with (...) partial alignment. Systems that enforce homogeneity (authoritarian or all-legal) or lack shared norms (anomic or purely pluralist) collapse, while systems maintaining moderate diversity remain stable and adaptive. The findings provide empirical grounding for the philosophical architecture developed in The Geometry of the Good (unpublished manuscript), confirming that pluralism is structurally indispensable for sustaining social being. (shrink)

Evolutionary aesthetics (EA) investigates the origins and evolution of aesthetic preferences and artistic behaviors, along with the underlying capacities that support these preferences and behaviors. EA is a multidisciplinary approach that intersects various disciplines – e.g. evolutionary psychology, biology, neurosciences, art history, archeology, anthropology, philosophical aesthetics – providing a comprehensive framework for understanding the deep-rooted biological and evolutionary underpinnings of human aesthetic preferences and artistic expressions. Central to EA, in fact, is the exploration of when, how and (...) why aesthetic preferences and artistic behaviors originated in human history, as well as understanding whether these behaviors are evolutionary adaptations, by-products of evolutionary processes, or nonbiological cultural products (Killin 2021; Richards 2022). (shrink)

This paper develops a unified analytical framework for measuring political legitimacy across heterogeneous governance domains. Building on insights from constitutional political economy, social choice theory, and institutional analysis, the framework establishes consent-holding—the mapping from decision domains to those with authority over them—as a structural necessity of collective action. We formalize this intuition through five axioms and five theorems, demonstrating that legitimacy can be operationalized as stakes-weighted consent alignment α(d, t), while friction F (d, t) measures the deviation between outcomes and (...) stakeholder preferences. The framework bridges normative democratic theory and empirical prediction, generating testable hypotheses about institutional stability. Historical validation examines suffrage expansion, abolition movements, labor rights, and contemporary platform governance, demonstrating how misalignment between stakes and voice generates observable instability. Unlike existing approaches that prescribe ideal institutions, this framework provides analytical tools for measuring legitimacy within any governance structure, enabling systematic comparison across democratic, technocratic, and algorithmic systems. Computational mechanism comparison via Bayesian learning dynamics across 1000 Monte Carlo runs demonstrates relative performance under adaptive agents: when preferences update based on observed policy outcomes, stakes-weighted DoCS achieves highest final alignment (α = 0.872) with lowest terminal friction (F = 1.5, 94.9% reduction from initial F = 30.3). This comparative advantage holds across static baseline (α = 0.627), learning dynamics (α = 0.872), and alternative temporal mechanisms, suggesting stakes-weighting produces superior initial matches that persist even when agents adapt to institutional performance. The framework’s domain-specific approach resolves the apparent tension between consent and competence, showing both as complementary dimensions of institutional legitimacy. This framework is part of the Adversarial Systems Research program, which examines stability, alignment, and friction dynamics in complex systems where competing interests generate structural conflict. (shrink)

In this paper we analyze the non-coercive ways in which researchers can use knowledge about the decision-making tendencies of potential participants in order to motivate them to consent to research enrollment. We identify which modes of influence preserve respect for participants’ autonomy and which disrespect autonomy, and apply the umbrella term of manipulation to the latter. We then apply our analysis to a series of cases adapted from the experiences of clinical researchers in order to develop a framework for thinking (...) through the ethics of manipulating people into research participation. All manipulation disrespects autonomy and is therefore pro tanto wrong. However, only deceptive manipulation invalidates the consent that results from it. Use of the other forms of manipulation can be permissible, but only if the outcome of using manipulation is sufficiently good and if the research cannot be carried out using ethically preferable means to obtain consent. (shrink)

This paper motivates taking seriously the possibility that brains are basically protean: that they make use of neural structures in inventive, on-the-fly improvisations to suit circumstance and context. Accordingly, we should not always expect cognition to divide into functionally stable neural parts and pieces. We begin by reviewing recent work in cognitive ontology that highlights the inadequacy of traditional neuroscientific approaches when it comes to divining the function and structure of cognition. Cathy J. Price and Karl J. Friston, and Colin (...) Klein identify the limitations of relying on forward and reverse inferences to cast light on the relation between cognitive functions and neural structures. There is reason to prefer Klein’s approach to that of Price and Friston’s. But Klein’s approach is neurocentric - it assumes that we ought to look solely at neural contexts to fix cognitive ontology. Using recent work on mindreading as a case study, we motivate adopting a radically different approach to cognitive ontology. Promoting the Protean Brain Hypothesis, we posit the possibility that we may need to look beyond the brain when deciding which functions are being performed in acts of cognition and in understanding how the brain contributes to such acts by adapting to circumstance. (shrink)

In the face of causal complexity, scientists reconstitute phenomena in order to arrive at a more simplified and partial picture that ignores most of the 'bigger picture.' This paper will distinguish between two modes of reconstituting phenomena: one moving down to a level of greater decomposition (toward organizational parts of the original phenomenon), and one moving up to a level of greater abstraction (toward different differences regarding the phenomenon). The first aim of the paper is to illustrate that phenomena are (...) moving targets, i.e., they are not fixed once and for all, but are adapted, if necessary, on the basis of the preferred perspective adopted for pragmatic reasons. The second aim is to analyze in detail the second mode of reconstituting phenomena. This includes an exposition of the kind of pragmatic-pluralistic picture resulting from the fact that phenomena are reconstituted by a move up to a level of greater abstraction. (shrink)

Behavioural flexibility is often treated as the gold standard of evidence for more sophisticated or complex forms of animal cognition, such as planning, metacognition and mindreading. However, the evidential link between behavioural flexibility and complex cognition has not been explicitly or systematically defended. Such a defence is particularly pressing because observed flexible behaviours can frequently be explained by putatively simpler cognitive mechanisms. This leaves complex cognition hypotheses open to ‘deflationary’ challenges that are accorded greater evidential weight precisely because they offer (...) putatively simpler explanations of equal explanatory power. This paper challenges the blanket preference for simpler explanations, and shows that once this preference is dispensed with, and the full spectrum of evidence—including evolutionary, ecological and phylogenetic data—is accorded its proper weight, an argument in support of the prevailing assumption that behavioural flexibility can serve as evidence for complex cognitive mechanisms may begin to take shape. An adaptive model of cognitive-behavioural evolution is proposed, according to which the existence of convergent trait–environment clusters in phylogenetically disparate lineages may serve as evidence for the same trait–environment clusters in other lineages. This, in turn, could permit inferences of cognitive complexity in cases of experimental underdetermination, thereby placing the common view that behavioural flexibility can serve as evidence for complex cognition on firmer grounds. (shrink)

Andrew Forcehimes and Luke Semrau argue that agent-relative consequentialism is implausible because in some circumstances it classes an act as impermissible yet holds that the outcome of all agents performing that impermissible act is preferable. I argue that their problem is closely related to Derek Parfit's problem of ‘direct collective self-defeat’ and show how Parfit's plausible solution to his problem can be adapted to solve their problem.

Synthetic biology (SynBio) covers two main areas: application engineering, exemplified by metabolic engi- neering, and the design of life from artificial building blocks. As the general public is often reluctant to embrace synthetic approaches, preferring nature to artifice, its immediate future will depend very much on the public’s reaction to the unmet needs created by the pervasive demands of sustainability. On the other hand, this reluctance should not have a negative impact on research that will now take into account the (...) existence of the multiple transitions that cells face over time. The ages of life—birth, development, maturation, senescence and death—reflect specific key transitions and have, until now, rarely been taken into account in SynBio designs. This results in a mismatch between novelty and the very long evolutionary time that led to the existing chassis [remember that this is the common term used to describe the cellular framework as seen by synthetic biologists (de Lorenzo & Danchin, 2008)]. It also implies that, in general, transitions between growth stages will be taken into account with the appro- priate embodiment of highly specific processes. This is particularly important when adapting new models to their host, whether natural or artificial. Adaptation fol- lows two stages, short-term accommodation of new entities and long-term assimilation into the cell as a whole. This requires discrimination between classes of entities. We suggest that proteins playing the essential role of Maxwell’ demons, here named Maxwell’s dis- criminators (MxDs) to refer to their original function, will permit the assimilation and accommodation of artificial constructs. As a consequence, we can foresee that class discrimination, beyond mere recognition, will be implemented in SynBio 2.0, leading to an authentic par- adigm shift (Kuhn, 1996), based on conceptions that embody information as a genuine currency of reality. (shrink)

Evolutionary psychologists often try to “bring together” biology and psychology by making predictions about what specific psychological mechanisms exist from theories about what patterns of behaviour would have been adaptive in the EEA for humans. This paper shows that one of the deepest methodological generalities in evolutionary biology—that proximate explanations and ultimate explanations stand in a many-to-many relation—entails that this inferential strategy is unsound. Ultimate explanations almost never entail the truth of any particular proximate hypothesis. But of course it (...) does not follow that there are no other ways of “bringing together” biology and psychology. Accordingly, this paper explores one other strategy for doing just that, the pursuit of a very specific kind of consilience. However, I argue that inferences reflecting the pursuit of this kind of consilience with the best available theories in contemporary evolutionary biology indicate that psychologists should have a preference for explanations of adaptive behavior in humans that refer to learning and other similarly malleable psychological mechanisms—and not modules or instincts or any other kind of relatively innate and relatively non-malleable psychological mechanism. (shrink)