James Stacey Taylor, in his book Markets With Limits, argues that Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski, in their book Markets Without Limits, systematically mischaracterize the views of the anti-commodification theorists they are critiquing, attributing to them positions (e.g., semiotic essentialism and an asymmetry thesis) that they do not hold. Further, Taylor offers an anti-commodification hypothesis of his own to explain why talented academics like Brennan and Jaworski could fall into such systematic mistakes – namely, that the intrusion of market norms into academia incentivizes scholars to prioritize original arguments in prominent venues over careful fact-checking. I argue that Taylor is correct in charging that Brennan and Jaworski have gotten their opponents’ views wrong; and I show how their subsequent replies to Taylor’s criticisms have been unconvincing. I also argue, however, that Taylor may be over-hasty in identifying the likely causes of their errors.

In Markets with Limits: How Commodification of Academia Derails Debate, James Stacey Taylor presents a well-written book that is, in great part, a response to Peter Jaworski and Jason Brennan’s work Markets Without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests. In the first part of Taylor’s book, he effectively illustrates the misguided nature of many of Jaworski and Brennan’s arguments. Taylor maintains that Brennan and Jaworski misinterpret the work of their “anti-commodification” opponents. After this critique, the book takes a dramatic turn as Taylor critiques the market incentives involved in academia and attempts to explain the structures that allow for inferior work, like that of Brennan and Jaworski, to be incentivized. By directly linking the two parts of the work and holding up Markets Without Limits: Moral Virtues and Commercial Interests as an example of inferior academic work, there is sometimes an undercurrent of an academic spat at play. Also, given the shift in the book and scope of both projects undertaken by Taylor, I believe this work could have been developed into several manuscripts, or a series of articles. In its current form, chapters 8–10 seem more rushed than the rest of the work and could have benefitted from additional space to be flushed out in the detail they deserve. It is this later section that I believe could benefit the most from revision and expansion.

In the wake of ChatGPT’s release, academics and journal editors have begun making important decisions about whether and how to integrate generative artificial intelligence (AI) into academic publishing. Some argue that AI outputs in scholarly works constitute plagiarism, and so should be disallowed by academic journals. Others suggest that it is acceptable to integrate AI output into academic papers, provided that its contributions are transparently disclosed. By drawing on Taylor’s work on academic norms, this paper argues against both views. Unlike “traditional” forms of plagiarism, use of generative AI can be consistent with the norms that should underlie academic research. In these cases, its use should neither be prohibited nor required to be disclosed. However, some careless uses of generative AI do threaten to undermine the quality of academic research by mischaracterizing existing literature. This, not “AI plagiarism,” is the real concern raised by ChatGPT and related technologies.

In this article I respond to the constructive criticisms of my views in Markets with Limits that have been developed by Amy E. White, Roderick T. Long, and Julian Koplin. I also outline how Jason Brennan and Peter Jaworski have surreptitiously altered their position in the second edition of their book Markets Without Limits—alterations that they appear to have made in response to my criticisms. First, they have changed the view that they attribute to those they identify as anti-commodification theorists in response to my claim that none of them hold the position that they attribute to them. Second, they have altered their definition of what constitutes a “semiotic” objection to markets. I argue that none of these changes successfully address my initial criticisms. By contrast, I believe that the revisions that I make to my views in response to the objections of White and Long address their concerns, and I concur with Koplin’s development of my views in the context of the use of AI.

Much of the discussion surrounding freedom of speech relates to the importance of promoting speech. On this approach, the more speech the better, both for individuals and for democratic society. This line of thought, typically associated with the work of J. S. Mill, has obvious merit. Yet unrestrained speech also poses perils to individuals and society. In this paper, we argue for two theses: (1) Examination of On Liberty shows that Mill in fact supported the notion that forbearance in public speech is ethically justified (albeit not legally enforceable), and (2) Anyone supporting utilitarian principles should give serious consideration to the possibility that prudent forbearance in public speech is a civic virtue. In other words, a reasonable concern for free speech as an integral part of social well-functioning should lead us to temper our manners of expression in circumstances when this is appropriate, and when a policy of complete license in public expression would likely undermine both the well-functioning of the society of which we are a part and the free exchange of ideas that free speech principles were intended to foster in the first place.

As self-conscious curators and critics of moral history, the early Confucians are relevant to the contemporary debate over the fate of memorials dedicated to morally flawed individuals. They provide us with a pragmatic justification that is distinct from those utilized in the current debate, and in many respects superior to the alternatives. In addition to supplying this curative philosophic resource, the early Confucian practices of ancestral memorialization suggest preventative measures we might adopt to minimize the chances of establishing divisive and oppressive memorials in the future.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, has already caused large amounts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and will continue to do so for manyyears after hostilities have ceased mainly because of the emissions linked to the rebuilding of destroyed or damaged housing, public buildings, infrastructure, factories, and the like. My aim in this paper is to discuss how in a time of climate emergency such emissions of war should impact the political morality of states initiating, continuing, and ending war (through a just and enduring peace) as understood by just war theory (JWT). My point of departure is a study by Lennard de Klerk and six co-authors detailing the emissions of the first year of the Russo-Ukrainian war.

A fresh explication of the Thomist justification of self-defense casts off the hobbles of the principle of double effects to find a more secure footing in the historicaldevelopment of subjective natural rights by medieval jurists, and a straight-forward application to the latent threat of death in childbirth posed by non-consensual pregnancy. By articulating the implicit Thomistic right to defensive abortion in terms of conditional rights bestowed in Creation as correlative to particular natural law duties, justly proportionate limits to defensive abortion are identified, and balanced against the forfeited or reserved natural rights variously imputed to conceptus and embryo in non-consensual pregnancies. Subsequently, the varieties of involuntary consent are examined from a Thomist perspective with a view to their relevance in justifying recourse to a rehabilitated practice of defensive abortion when free and full consent to impregnation and childbirth is absent.

The DACA program, administered by the Department of Homeland Security, protects Dreamers—undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children.However, without legislative support, Dreamers face the imminent threat of losing their homes, rights, and deportation. I argue for the passage of the DREAM Act, which would protect Dreamers from unfair targeting and provide a path to citizenship. Dreamers possess a unique social membership in American society, and it is ethically imperative to shield them from deportation and grant them equal rights as fellow citizens if we ought to demonstrate a commitment to addressing oppression and injustice.

As the applied field of social work attempts to become more of a sciencebased profession, it is relying more on the findings from empirical research studies. Withinsocial work there is little discussion of the philosophy of science underlying conventional research inquiry. This paper introduces some major philosophical principles that undergird scientific investigations of the causes of societal and psychosocial problems and of the effectiveness of structured programs, policies and practices to ameliorate social ills. Among the principles introduced are the philosophical concepts of determinism, empiricism, realism, operationalism, scientific materialism, parsimony, logic, and positivism. Together these philosophical assumptions provide a pragmatic framework to design and conduct scientific research of value to the social work profession and other fields.

The rapid development of quantum technologies, such as quantum computing, quantum internet, and quantum sensing, has led to a growing awareness of theethical issues surrounding these technologies. This literature review aims to analyze the existing research on these ethical issues using the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) literature review approach. The literature search was conducted using the following databases: Scopus ArXiv, and IEEE Xplore, and the search terms used were “quantum computing,” “quantum internet,” “quantum sensing,” “quantum technology,” AND “ethics.” Inclusion criteria were: (1) articles that addressed ethical issues related to quantum technologies and (2) articles that were written in English. A total of 14 articles were included in the review. The majority of the articles (64 percent) were published in the last 5 years. The majority of the articles (78 percent) focused on the potential impact of quantum technologies on privacy and security, with a particular emphasis on the potential for quantum computers to break encryption and the subsequent impact on privacy and security. Approximately 50 percent of the articles focused on the accessibility and responsibility dimensions of quantum technologies. This scoping review has demonstrated that there is a growing awareness of the ethical issues surrounding quantum technologies and an increasing number of researchers, policymakers, and industry leaders working to address them. Future research should continue to explore these ethical issues in more depth and develop recommendations for addressing them.

This paper considers the argument that we have a duty to colonise other planets because we owe it to future generations. It puts forward the view that formulations of this argument in the current literature are confused. It distinguishes (at least) four versions of the argument and shows that none of them are compelling. It draws the conclusion that, should people put forward these arguments, they ought to be more precise in their formulations and more rigorous in their defence.

The theme of human extinction is increasingly at the center of the current debate on moral philosophy and bioethics. We look at space missions and station construction projects capable of accommodating a large population and at the colonization of other planets with great hope. However, solutions are not excluded either, which for now certainly appear to be much more original. One of the most original projects involves launching a spacecraft containing cryopreserved human embryos, which, once they arrive at destination on another planet, must be thawed and birthed by intelligent machines through artificial wombs (ectogenesis). In this paper, I do not intend to analyze whether the embryo space colonization project is indeed feasible. Instead, I will focus on examining the primary moral questions raised by the embryo space colonization project to determine whether, at least prima facie, it can be deemed morally acceptable. I will begin by discussing the objection advanced by Konrad Szocik (2021), according to which any embryo space colonization project is doomed to failure because it cannot offer the hoped-for solution to the problem of the extinction of the human species (second paragraph). In the third paragraph, then, I will ask whether embryo space colonization is able to ensure the people it brings into the world an adequate or at least the morally appropriate quality of life. Finally, in the fourth and last paragraph, I will examine the question of the morality of human reproduction that passes through the guidance and choice of intelligent machines. I will argue that to evaluate the morality of this project we should consider not only the interests and quality of life of the first people who could be born but also the interests of all possible subsequent generations.

Among the various ethical problems associated with the hype surrounding Space Colonization, one that has received little attention concerns the internal tension within the Posthumanist paradigm. While at the core of many of the hyper optimistic portrayals of the departure from Earth towards Outer Space there is the idea that this would represent a key component for humankind to evolve into a Posthuman, better, version of itself, other visions of Posthumanism might paint a direr picture. This paper wants to argue that such a clash would be particularly strong when applied to the different—and contrasting—narratives connected to Posthumanism and the Climate Crisis, deserving urgent attention.

In his article, “Should Space Travel be Human or Robotic? Reasons for and against full automation for space missions,” Maurizio Balistreri explores the ongoing debate regarding whether space travel, exploration, and extra-terrestrial colonization should be the domain of humans or robots. Balistreri explores both technical and normative arguments for why extraterrestrial ventures ought to be wholly robotic or human, ultimately taking no explicit side in the debate. However, in this article we argue that by even posing the question in this binary fashion, Balistreri and others are making a mistake at the outset. We show that there are certain missions and aims which require humans and others that plausibly may be undertaken solely by robots, but for all missions and aims there is likely to be some degree of human-robot pairing. More than this, we show that the question should not be whether space travel, exploration, or extra-terrestrial colonization ought to be generally human-centric or robot-centric, but rather that each and every mission should be examined on its own, as the values and disadvantages of humans versus robots are apt to be highly specific to the realities of particular discrete missions.

Space warfare is warfare that takes place in outer space. It involves ground-to-space, space-to-ground, and space-to-space violence between nations or peoples. The violence can involve kinetic weapons, directed energy weapons, or electronic destruction. International law, specifically, the Outer Space Treaty and SALT I, currently bans weapons of mass destruction from being put into space, although one wonders if one country were to violate the ban whether others would follow suit. In this paper, I argue that that if there is a non-consequentialist morality of space war, then one country can unjustly attack a second country’s space vehicles. This in turn depends on property rights. But there is no adequate theory of property rights with regard to space war. Hence, there is no non-consequentialist morality of a space war.

How may nations protect their interests in space if its fragility makes military operations there self-defeating? This essay claims nations are in Prisoners Dilemmas on the matter, and applies David Gauthier’s theories about how it is rational to behave morally—cooperatively—in such dilemmas. Currently space-faring nations should i) enter into co-operative space sharing arrangements with other rational nations, ii) exclude—militarily, but with only terrestrial force—nations irrational or existentially opposed to other nations being in space, and iii) incentivize all nations into co-operation by redistributing some space-generated wealth to nations that might otherwise ruin space. Further, since all nations are rationally incentivized to ever greater dependence on space, and since each, by threatening space, can hold hostage its benefits to all, each can demand resolution of terrestrial discontents with other nations. So each has a rational interest in treating others morally both in space and on terrestrial issues.

Given the vast distances separating astronomical objects, multi-generational space travel may eventually become a practicable option in the future. Such an expedition would most likely include companion animals as well. Especially since they are deemed important in assisting humans to cope with stress and anxiety. However, just as with humans, extended periods of confinement would be detrimental to companion animals as well, resulting in psychological, physiological, and behavioural disorders. Already occurring to animals locked up in terrestrial households, it would be an even bigger welfare problem during a life-long journey in a no-way-out confined spaceship. A conceivable solution could be to genetically enhance them to fit the spaceship environment. Assuming that companion animals will be part of future multi-generational space travels, this article aims at examining how such an experience would affect their welfare, even considering the implications of genetic adaptation.