Search results

AbstractShould we be worried that the concept of trust is increasingly used when we assess non-human agents and artefacts, say robots and AI systems? Whilst some authors have developed explanations of the concept of trust with a view to accounting for trust in AI systems and other non-agents, others have rejected the idea that we should extend trust in this way. The article advances this debate by bringing insights from conceptual engineering to bear on this issue. After setting up a target concept of trust in terms of four functional desiderata (trust-reliance distinction, explanatory strength, tracking affective responses, and accounting for distrust), I analyze how agential vs. non-agential accounts can satisfy these. A final section investigates how 'non-ideal' circumstances—that is, circumstances where the manifest and operative concept use diverge amongst concept users—affect our choice about which rendering of trust is to be preferred. I suggest that some prominent arguments against extending the language of trust to non-agents are not decisive and reflect on an important oversight in the current debate, namely a failure to address how narrower, agent-centred accounts curtail our ability to distrust non-agents.

From Wiley via Jisc Publications Router ; History: received 2021-01-09, accepted 2021-07-08, pub-electronic 2021-09-06 ; Article version: VoR ; Publication status: Published ; Abstract: May European Union (EU) member states, in the pursuit of enforcing the norms of 'EU justice', unilaterally adopt harmful policies that are ordinarily impermissible in the course of voluntary cooperation amongst democratic states? Though conditions of permissible vigilantism are strict and only rarely met, there are some basic EU duties the compliance with which each individual member state is permitted to enforce unilaterally. Such measures are sometimes permissible even if European community law says otherwise: to the extent that European law prevents states from enforcing these duties, it lacks authority.

AbstractThis article investigates what role the ideal of equality of opportunity should play in a European social market economy (ESME). After defining 'social market economy' and sketching different conceptions of equality of opportunity, it is argued that a social market economy must implement a substantive version of equality of opportunity. Subsequent sections assess how such a robust version needs adaptation in light of the EU's special nature: first, it assesses the merits of a direct transnational application of interpersonal substantive equality. Second, it considers what the ideal requires in a ESME understood along internationalist lines: even on this account, labour mobility creates tensions between EU citizens' claims to equal prospective chances in a fair cross‐border competition against each state's prerogative of providing the highest level of education to its residents. The concluding section offers some suggestions how we might alleviate this tension between domestic equality of opportunity and national autonomy.

There is widespread agreement that the European Union is presently suffering from a lack of social justice. Yet there is significant disagreement about what the relevant injustice consists in: Federalists believe the EU can only remedy its justice deficit through the introduction of direct interpersonal transfers between people living in separate states. Intergovernmentalists believe the justice-related purpose of the EU is to enable states to cooperate fairly, and to remain internally just and democratic in the face of increased global pressure on welfare states. I suggest that despite their fundamental differences, many of the most reasonable and prominent philosophical accounts of social justice in the EU nonetheless converge in their institutional prescriptions. In particular, they may each serve as a justificatory basis for introducing the European social minimum, an EU-wide income support scheme.

The Virtue of Solidarity brings together twelve world-leading philosophers to reflect on the nature, history, and virtue of solidarity. The new essays in this volume range from the sociological, to the religious, to the political. This comprehensive volume presents solidarity's many forms and justifications and explores the most urgent questions that surround it.

AbstractThis article offers a functionalist account of trust. It argues that a particular form of trust—Communicated Interpersonal Trust—is paradigmatic and lays out how trust as a social practice in this form helps to satisfy fundamental practical, deliberative, and relational human needs in mutually reinforcing ways. We then argue that derivative (non-paradigmatic) forms of trust connect to the paradigm by generating a positive dynamic between trustor and trustee that is geared towards the realization of these functions. We call this trust's proleptic potential. Our functionalist approach does not only provide important insights into the practice of trust and its place in the broader web of social life, but also illuminates existing philosophical debates. First, pointing out how opposing theoretical accounts of trust each capitalise on only one of its functions, our paradigm-based approach reveals why they each contain a kernel of truth but are also deficient: the optimal realization of each function is tied to the existence of the other functions as well. Second, we show how a functionalist re-orientation can illuminate two recent disputes regarding (i) the question whether trust is explanatorily two- or three-place and (ii) whether (and to what extent) we can decide to trust others.