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.