Abstract Gaslighting is a form of domination which builds upon multiple and mutually reinforcing strategies that induce rational acquiescence. Such abusive progressively insulate the victims inflict loss in self-respect, with powerful alienating effects. In arguing for these claims, I reject views gaslighting an epistemic or structural wrong, moral wrong instrumentalization. contrast, refocus o...

Editorial Persistent vegetative state, withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration, and the patient's "best interests" In this issue of the journal Anthea Fenwick, an Edinburgh University graduate law student, robustly challenges the use of "best interests" by English judges in the context of permitting withdrawal of life-supporting nutrition and hydra-tion from patients in persistent vege...

When making moral judgments people often make snap decisions and then highlight information that confirms that preliminary judgment, a phenomenon referred to as “motivated moral reasoning.” The current study uses eye-tracking technology to examine whether people are also “motivated moral perceivers” – that is, whether people disproportionally attend to visual information that is consistent with...

Much moral skepticism stems from the charge that moral facts do not figure in causal explanations. However, philosophers committed to normative epistemological discourse (by which I mean our practice of evaluating beliefs as justified or unjustified, and so forth) are in no position to demand that normative facts serve such a role, since epistemic facts are causally impotent as well. I argue in...

This Article examines the promise and limits of a moral paradigm for allocating resources both to health care and among competing health care needs, and derives the essential attributes of a moral health care system. The author concludes that, given society's limited resources, the absolutist position that no beneficial health care should ever be denied is untenable. Nonetheless, no health care...

Two general ethical problems in psychiatry are thrown into sharp relief by long term care. This article discusses each in turn, in the context of two anonymised case studies from actual clinical practice. First, previous mental health legislation soothed doubts about patients' refusal of consent by incorporating time limits on involuntary treatment. When these are absent, as in the provisions f...

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES Patient-centred care has been a central part of US and UK health policy for over a decade, but, despite its importance, the policy literature often fails to provide an adequate theoretical justification for why and how we should value it. This omission is problematic because it renders the status, content and appropriate evaluation of patient-centredness unclear. ...

Abstract Vicarious responsibility is a notoriously puzzling notion in normative reasoning. In this article we will explore two fundamental issues, which call the “explication problem” and “justification problem”. The former issue concerns how vicarious can plausibly be defined terms of other concepts. latter ascriptions justified. We address these problems by combining ideas taken from legal th...

BACKGROUND International variation in homicide rates may be attributable to cultural differences in acceptance of moral justifications for killing. The aim of this study is to investigate the relationships between measures of attitudes towards the justification of killing and homicide rates in diverse international populations. METHODS Four studies assessed variations in acceptance of killing...

articulates a view of natural law that is reflected in how judges apply the law to decide cases. This view, he argues, is different from the traditional metaphysical view of natural law, which says that what the law is must be determined by what the law ought to be. He argues that his view of natural law insists that the content of law may sometimes depend on the correct answer to some moral qu...