Christoph Lumer is a professor of moral philosophy at the University of Siena (Italy). Address: Prof. Christoph Lumer
Università di Siena
DISPOC
(Dip. di Scienze Sociali, Politiche e Cognitive)
Via Roma 56
I-53100 Siena
Italy
The article analyzes the ethical work of H. Skovoroda's "A Conversation Among Five Trave... more The article analyzes the ethical work of H. Skovoroda's "A Conversation Among Five Travelers Concerning Life's True Happiness" from the standpoint of systematic analytical philosophy. Skovoroda's innovative arguments are defined, in particular regarding the criticism of materialistic hedonism. The significant stylistic difference between the philosophical and theological parts of Skovoroda's text is emphasized. The peculiarities of his philosophical arguments and dogmatic preaching of Christian eudaimonism are highlighted.
In times of populist mistrust towards experts, it is important and the aim of the paper to ascert... more In times of populist mistrust towards experts, it is important and the aim of the paper to ascertain the rationality of arguments from expert opinion and to reconstruct their rational foundations as well as to determine their limits. The foundational approach chosen is probabilistic. However, there are at least three correct probabilistic reconstructions of such argumentations: statistical inferences, Bayesian updating, and interpretive arguments. To solve this competition problem, the paper proposes a recourse to the arguments' justification strengths achievable in the respective situation
Generational Justice is justice in a particular area, namely the relations between different gene... more Generational Justice is justice in a particular area, namely the relations between different generations. Hence in the simplest case, maxims of generational justice could be seen as the applications of norms of general justice. These general norms are themselves deduced from moral axioms behind them. Five such axioms are presented and explained and it is shown briefly which demands arise from these principles: Principle 1: Ethical hedonism: Only the welfare of human beings and more highly developed animals is intrinsically morally relevant. Principle 2: Beneficiary universalism: All human beings (and in a limited degree more highly developed animals as well) no matter where in space and time should be equal beneficiaries of the morality of a subject. So beneficiary universalism among other things excludes temporal discounting i.e. a lower consideration of the fate of future generations. Principle 3: Prioritarianism: The moral value of an action or a norm is roughly determined by the thereby produced changes in human welfare. More precisely, though, more weight should be given to changes in welfare of subjects worse off. Principle 4: Principle of limited commitment: Moral commitment should reach at least a bit beyond socially valid moral duties, which are legally or socially sanctioned. A further increase of commitment is not a moral duty. The principle demands the maximum of what can be demanded of rational subjects and is supposed to maintain achieved standards and at the same time to raise moral commitment in the historically long term. Principle 5: Efficiency or economy principle: Moral commitment should be efficient and employed where the ratio of cost and moral benefit is the most favourable. After this normative part, Lumer points out that the present developments seems to lead to a reduction of the intergenerational savings rate (referring to pensions politics, high youth unemployment, unrestrained consumption of non-renewable resources, hardly restrained emissions of greenhouse gases). This, in the authors opinion, contradicts the principle of limited commitment, as it infringes the informal duty to maintain the intergenerational savings rate existing so far and hence is a forbidden moral step back. Developments seem to lead to a considerable lowering of welfare in the Third World countries. Therefore Lumer states that the usual justification for the consumption of non-renewable resources, namely that future generations will profit the most from the so paid progress, is not valid in these cases. Following Lumer, plausible asumptions concerning these developments imply that even if current policies are continued the next future First World generations will be still better off than the currently dominant ones and also a lot better off than future Third World generations. Therefore in the Third World countries the ratio of cost to moral benefit would be the most favourable. Besides this, Lumer argues, that many damages provoked by the greenhouse effect only become social problems because of the widespread poverty and therefore direct investments in the Third World’s development would probably be an efficient means to considerably reduce damages due to the greenhouse effect. Lumer comes to the conclusion that if these empirical hypotheses are right, according to the expounded principles, the morally most important and morally obligatory steps towards generational justice are: 1. considerable support for the development of the poorest countries, 2. the containment of the anthropogenous greenhouse effect and 3. the reduction of youth unemployment. Lumer resumes that it remains unclear how important the reduction of the consumption of resources is in proportion to these three measures
The article is a critique of Friedo Ricken's "Ethik der abwägenden Vernunft". It is... more The article is a critique of Friedo Ricken's "Ethik der abwägenden Vernunft". It is proposed that instead of using vague or arbitrary procedures as weighting aggregationist welfare ethics should be applied as a better alternative in moral decision making
In this paper, I present the fundamental ideas of a new theory of justification strength. This th... more In this paper, I present the fundamental ideas of a new theory of justification strength. This theory is based on the epistemological approach to argumentation. Even the thesis of a valid justification can be false for various reasons. The theory outlined here identifies such possible errors. Justification strength is equated with the degree to which such possible errors are excluded. The natural expression of this kind of justification strength is the (rational) degree of certainty of the belief in the thesis
(1) Höffe's theory of political justice ("Politische Gerechtigkeit") is one of the ... more (1) Höffe's theory of political justice ("Politische Gerechtigkeit") is one of the few great and original models in recent political philosophy. Some main components of this theory are discussed in the paper: (2) Höffe's criterion for political justice, i.e. strong pareto-superiority over a state of nature / anarchy, (3) his justification of human rights by means of a comparison of its transcendental value with that of anarchy, (4) the introduction of a second, contractarian criterion of justice, (5) his legitimation of constitutional democracies, (6) and his plea for a rather minimal state which only guaranties human rights. Some of these ideas are criticized, e.g. that the transcendental value comparison from the perspective of liberties, instead of being neutral with respect to different conceptions of value, is biased in favour of a politically liberal position, and that Höffe's plea for a minimal state is not well founded. (7) On the other hand Höffe's view of an institutionalization and historicizing of moral norms is a real solution for problems of current political philosophy and ethics
Seit Platon standen Philosophen der Rhetorik in der Mehrzahl feindlich gegenüber, weil es der Rhe... more Seit Platon standen Philosophen der Rhetorik in der Mehrzahl feindlich gegenüber, weil es der Rhetorik nicht um Wahrheit gehe; manche Philosophen behaupteten gar, der Rhetorik ginge es um die Verdunkelung der Wahrheit. Das Verhältnis zwischen Rhetorik und philosophischer Argumentationstheorie ist heute sicher entspannter als zu Platons Zeiten. Für viele handelt es sich einfach um zwei benachbarte Disziplinen. Wenn dem so ist, was ist dann das Ziel dieser beiden Disziplinen, und wie können sie sich gegenseitig befruchten? In dem Beitrag geht es hauptsächlich um den Beitrag der Argumentationstheorie zu einer wirkungsvollen und auch für die Adressaten nützlichen Rhetorik: Was ist das besondere argumentativen Überzeugens? Wie funktioniert es? Was sind seine Vorteile
The paper is a critique of discourse theory and argumentation theory of truth, in particular in t... more The paper is a critique of discourse theory and argumentation theory of truth, in particular in the version of Wolfgang Becker. One of the main criticism is that the structure of arguments is designed in such a way as to guide a process of cognising that the truth criteria of the claim are fulfilled. This implies that argumentation (and argumentation theory) presupposes independent truth criteria. Hence an argumentation theory of truth is viciously circular
Since the millennium, the neurophysiological and psychological bases of moral judgements and acti... more Since the millennium, the neurophysiological and psychological bases of moral judgements and actions have been the topic of much empirical research. This volume discusses the relevance and possible usage of this research for (meta-)ethics and action theory. An overview of the empirical research, followed by critical assessments of several of its results, provides orientation on the research and criteria for its reasonable usage
University of Pittsburgh Press eBooks, Sep 7, 2010
In this article an instrumentalistic conception of action interpretation will be developed. This ... more In this article an instrumentalistic conception of action interpretation will be developed. This conception shall be suitable for interpreting moral actions as well as other actions. The approach's instrumentalism consists in the fact that interpretations here are conceived as means for fulfilling a certain function, in particular for providing a certain type of information about the action. After these preliminary remarks it will be explained which kind of information we expect from action interpretations (sect. 2). In the subsequent section it will be discussed which model of action and action interpretation in principle could provide this information (sect. 3). In the second part of the paper some simple methods (sect. 4) and a complex method of action interpretation will be explained (sects. 5-6). The final section is dedicated to the question of how moral actions function and whether the methods explained so far are suitable for interpreting them (sect. 7).
The article analyzes the ethical work of H. Skovoroda's "A Conversation Among Five Trave... more The article analyzes the ethical work of H. Skovoroda's "A Conversation Among Five Travelers Concerning Life's True Happiness" from the standpoint of systematic analytical philosophy. Skovoroda's innovative arguments are defined, in particular regarding the criticism of materialistic hedonism. The significant stylistic difference between the philosophical and theological parts of Skovoroda's text is emphasized. The peculiarities of his philosophical arguments and dogmatic preaching of Christian eudaimonism are highlighted.
In times of populist mistrust towards experts, it is important and the aim of the paper to ascert... more In times of populist mistrust towards experts, it is important and the aim of the paper to ascertain the rationality of arguments from expert opinion and to reconstruct their rational foundations as well as to determine their limits. The foundational approach chosen is probabilistic. However, there are at least three correct probabilistic reconstructions of such argumentations: statistical inferences, Bayesian updating, and interpretive arguments. To solve this competition problem, the paper proposes a recourse to the arguments' justification strengths achievable in the respective situation
Generational Justice is justice in a particular area, namely the relations between different gene... more Generational Justice is justice in a particular area, namely the relations between different generations. Hence in the simplest case, maxims of generational justice could be seen as the applications of norms of general justice. These general norms are themselves deduced from moral axioms behind them. Five such axioms are presented and explained and it is shown briefly which demands arise from these principles: Principle 1: Ethical hedonism: Only the welfare of human beings and more highly developed animals is intrinsically morally relevant. Principle 2: Beneficiary universalism: All human beings (and in a limited degree more highly developed animals as well) no matter where in space and time should be equal beneficiaries of the morality of a subject. So beneficiary universalism among other things excludes temporal discounting i.e. a lower consideration of the fate of future generations. Principle 3: Prioritarianism: The moral value of an action or a norm is roughly determined by the thereby produced changes in human welfare. More precisely, though, more weight should be given to changes in welfare of subjects worse off. Principle 4: Principle of limited commitment: Moral commitment should reach at least a bit beyond socially valid moral duties, which are legally or socially sanctioned. A further increase of commitment is not a moral duty. The principle demands the maximum of what can be demanded of rational subjects and is supposed to maintain achieved standards and at the same time to raise moral commitment in the historically long term. Principle 5: Efficiency or economy principle: Moral commitment should be efficient and employed where the ratio of cost and moral benefit is the most favourable. After this normative part, Lumer points out that the present developments seems to lead to a reduction of the intergenerational savings rate (referring to pensions politics, high youth unemployment, unrestrained consumption of non-renewable resources, hardly restrained emissions of greenhouse gases). This, in the authors opinion, contradicts the principle of limited commitment, as it infringes the informal duty to maintain the intergenerational savings rate existing so far and hence is a forbidden moral step back. Developments seem to lead to a considerable lowering of welfare in the Third World countries. Therefore Lumer states that the usual justification for the consumption of non-renewable resources, namely that future generations will profit the most from the so paid progress, is not valid in these cases. Following Lumer, plausible asumptions concerning these developments imply that even if current policies are continued the next future First World generations will be still better off than the currently dominant ones and also a lot better off than future Third World generations. Therefore in the Third World countries the ratio of cost to moral benefit would be the most favourable. Besides this, Lumer argues, that many damages provoked by the greenhouse effect only become social problems because of the widespread poverty and therefore direct investments in the Third World’s development would probably be an efficient means to considerably reduce damages due to the greenhouse effect. Lumer comes to the conclusion that if these empirical hypotheses are right, according to the expounded principles, the morally most important and morally obligatory steps towards generational justice are: 1. considerable support for the development of the poorest countries, 2. the containment of the anthropogenous greenhouse effect and 3. the reduction of youth unemployment. Lumer resumes that it remains unclear how important the reduction of the consumption of resources is in proportion to these three measures
The article is a critique of Friedo Ricken's "Ethik der abwägenden Vernunft". It is... more The article is a critique of Friedo Ricken's "Ethik der abwägenden Vernunft". It is proposed that instead of using vague or arbitrary procedures as weighting aggregationist welfare ethics should be applied as a better alternative in moral decision making
In this paper, I present the fundamental ideas of a new theory of justification strength. This th... more In this paper, I present the fundamental ideas of a new theory of justification strength. This theory is based on the epistemological approach to argumentation. Even the thesis of a valid justification can be false for various reasons. The theory outlined here identifies such possible errors. Justification strength is equated with the degree to which such possible errors are excluded. The natural expression of this kind of justification strength is the (rational) degree of certainty of the belief in the thesis
(1) Höffe's theory of political justice ("Politische Gerechtigkeit") is one of the ... more (1) Höffe's theory of political justice ("Politische Gerechtigkeit") is one of the few great and original models in recent political philosophy. Some main components of this theory are discussed in the paper: (2) Höffe's criterion for political justice, i.e. strong pareto-superiority over a state of nature / anarchy, (3) his justification of human rights by means of a comparison of its transcendental value with that of anarchy, (4) the introduction of a second, contractarian criterion of justice, (5) his legitimation of constitutional democracies, (6) and his plea for a rather minimal state which only guaranties human rights. Some of these ideas are criticized, e.g. that the transcendental value comparison from the perspective of liberties, instead of being neutral with respect to different conceptions of value, is biased in favour of a politically liberal position, and that Höffe's plea for a minimal state is not well founded. (7) On the other hand Höffe's view of an institutionalization and historicizing of moral norms is a real solution for problems of current political philosophy and ethics
Seit Platon standen Philosophen der Rhetorik in der Mehrzahl feindlich gegenüber, weil es der Rhe... more Seit Platon standen Philosophen der Rhetorik in der Mehrzahl feindlich gegenüber, weil es der Rhetorik nicht um Wahrheit gehe; manche Philosophen behaupteten gar, der Rhetorik ginge es um die Verdunkelung der Wahrheit. Das Verhältnis zwischen Rhetorik und philosophischer Argumentationstheorie ist heute sicher entspannter als zu Platons Zeiten. Für viele handelt es sich einfach um zwei benachbarte Disziplinen. Wenn dem so ist, was ist dann das Ziel dieser beiden Disziplinen, und wie können sie sich gegenseitig befruchten? In dem Beitrag geht es hauptsächlich um den Beitrag der Argumentationstheorie zu einer wirkungsvollen und auch für die Adressaten nützlichen Rhetorik: Was ist das besondere argumentativen Überzeugens? Wie funktioniert es? Was sind seine Vorteile
The paper is a critique of discourse theory and argumentation theory of truth, in particular in t... more The paper is a critique of discourse theory and argumentation theory of truth, in particular in the version of Wolfgang Becker. One of the main criticism is that the structure of arguments is designed in such a way as to guide a process of cognising that the truth criteria of the claim are fulfilled. This implies that argumentation (and argumentation theory) presupposes independent truth criteria. Hence an argumentation theory of truth is viciously circular
Since the millennium, the neurophysiological and psychological bases of moral judgements and acti... more Since the millennium, the neurophysiological and psychological bases of moral judgements and actions have been the topic of much empirical research. This volume discusses the relevance and possible usage of this research for (meta-)ethics and action theory. An overview of the empirical research, followed by critical assessments of several of its results, provides orientation on the research and criteria for its reasonable usage
University of Pittsburgh Press eBooks, Sep 7, 2010
In this article an instrumentalistic conception of action interpretation will be developed. This ... more In this article an instrumentalistic conception of action interpretation will be developed. This conception shall be suitable for interpreting moral actions as well as other actions. The approach's instrumentalism consists in the fact that interpretations here are conceived as means for fulfilling a certain function, in particular for providing a certain type of information about the action. After these preliminary remarks it will be explained which kind of information we expect from action interpretations (sect. 2). In the subsequent section it will be discussed which model of action and action interpretation in principle could provide this information (sect. 3). In the second part of the paper some simple methods (sect. 4) and a complex method of action interpretation will be explained (sects. 5-6). The final section is dedicated to the question of how moral actions function and whether the methods explained so far are suitable for interpreting them (sect. 7).
The Greenhouse. A Welfare Assessment and Some Morals, 2002
In this book some options concerning the greenhouse effect are assessed from a welfarist point of... more In this book some options concerning the greenhouse effect are assessed from a welfarist point of view: business as usual and several greenhouse gas abatement options. Up to today only economic cost-benefit analyses of such options, monetizing welfare losses, are available. Because this is found to be wanting from a moral point of view, the present study welfarizes (among others) monetary losses on the basis of a hedonistic utilitarianism and prioritarian welfare ethics; assessments by other types of ethics are included. The strongest abatement option is found to be optimum with great unanimity. In addition a cost-welfare analysis of greenhouse gas abatement is undertaken revealing efficient cost-welfare ratios for these measures and the most efficient ratio for the strongest option. The question of the last part of the book is which moral obligations do follow from these valuations. Eventually, the moral obligations resulting from such assessments are discussed. A general conception of progessive norm-welfarism is introduced, from which in the present case follows the moral duty to raise the standards of greenhouse gas abatement as much as politically feasible
Dalla filosofia dell’azione alla filosofia della mente – Riflessioni in onore di Sandro Nannini, 2018
“Dalla filosofia dell’azione alla filosofia della mente” è stato il percorso di alcuni filosofi d... more “Dalla filosofia dell’azione alla filosofia della mente” è stato il percorso di alcuni filosofi di nazionalità varia degli anni 1980 – come Paul Churchland negli Stati Uniti o Ansgar Beckermann in Germania – che prima si sono interessati agli aspetti più teorici nella filosofia dell’azione, come il modo di funzionamento delle azioni e la loro spiegazione scientifica, e che poi, con l’arrivo e la diffusione dei personal computers e delle scienze cognitive, hanno ampliato e approfondito questo interesse di ricerca e si sono dedicati alla filosofia della mente più in generale e in particolare alla spiegazione scientifica e filosofica del mentale. Sandro Nannini faceva parte di questo movimento ed è stato uno tra gli inizialmente pochi filosofi italiani che si sono occupati di questi argomenti; successivamente ne è diventato uno dei maggiori specialisti in Italia, proponendo una sua particolare versione di naturalizzazione del mentale. Subordinata agli interessi teorici è stata la sua iniziativa accademica di fondare e promuovere il primo dottorato italiano di ricerca in Scienze Cognitive. Il presente volume tratta dell’opera di Sandro Nannini in contributi che sono riflessioni più o meno specifiche sulle differenti tappe del suo percorso, affrontando temi come l’analisi dell'azione, il libero arbitrio, la discussione di Nannini di vari classici della filosofia, la tendenza del naturalismo a dissolvere la filosofia in un enciclopedismo empirico e la sfida dei qualia e della fenomenologia all’approccio naturalistico alla mente. Il volume contiene inoltre un saggio dello stesso Sandro Nannini, nel quale espone l’ultimo sviluppo della sua filosofia della mente nonché le risposte agli interventi degli altri autori: Mario De Caro, Sara Dellantonio, Rosaria Egidi, Roberta Lanfredini, Christoph Lumer, Paolo Parrini, Pietro Perconti, Claudio Pizzi, Emanuela Scribano e Giuseppe Varnier.
Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interac... more Argumentation as the public exchange of reasons is widely thought to enhance deliberative interactions that generate and justify reasonable public policies. Adopting an argumentation-theoretic perspective, we survey the norms that should govern public argumentation and address some of the complexities that scholarly treatments have identified. Our focus is on norms associated with the ideals of correctness and participation as sources of a politically legitimate deliberative outcome. In principle, both ideals are mutually coherent. If the information needed for a correct deliberative outcome is distributed among agents, then maximising participation increases information diversity. But both ideals can also be in tension. If participants lack competence or are prone to biases, a correct deliberative outcome requires limiting participation. The central question for public argumentation, therefore, is how to strike a balance between both ideals. Rather than advocating a preferred normative framework, our main purpose is to illustrate the complexity of this theme.
Uploads