Production and Productive Reason

This article explores two rival understandings of production and what it means to be a rational productive subject. Against ‘technicist’ models of productive reason, it defends a ‘phronetic’ model on both normative and pragmatic grounds. The discussion begins with a description of the general principles underpinning technicist theories of workplace organisation, principles which continue to inform work design approaches to this day. The technicist model is thereafter criticised on three counts: that it represents a specific managerial agenda which privileges sectional interests; that it is suspect morally for a number of reasons; and that despite its aspiration of arriving at ‘one best method’, it represents but one way of organising work processes. The phronetic model is then set out using the notion of ‘practices’ as a guide. This notion is important in providing a view of production in which technical reason is subsumed under a broader practical reason incorporating individual experience and judgement. Against the charge that this view is merely an instance of nostalgic craft romanticism having little relevance to present industrial realities, there are recognisable contemporary instances of phronetic production, one of the most interesting being Volvo’s innovations in automotive assembly systems.

A graded BDI agent model to represent and reason about preferences

In this research note, we introduce a graded BDI agent development framework, g-BDI for short, that allows to build agents as multi-context systems that reason about three fundamental and graded mental attitudes (i.e. beliefs, desires and intentions). We propose a sound and complete logical framework for them and some logical extensions to accommodate slightly different views on desires. © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Political Liberalism, Free Speech and Public Reason

In this paper, I critically assess John Rawls' repeated claim that the duty of civility is only a moral duty and should not be enforced by law. In the first part of the paper, I examine and reject the view that Rawls' position may be due to the practical difficulties that the legal enforcement of the duty of civility might entail. I thus claim that Rawls' position must be driven by deeper normative reasons grounded in a conception of free speech. In the second part of the paper, I therefore examine various arguments for free speech and critically assess whether they are consistent with Rawls' political liberalism. I first focus on the arguments from truth and self-fulfilment. Both arguments, I argue, rely on comprehensive doctrines and therefore cannot provide a freestanding political justification for free speech. Freedom of speech, I claim, can be justified instead on the basis of Rawls' political conception of the person and of the two moral powers. However, Rawls' wide view of public reason already allows scope for the kind of free speech necessary for the exercise of the two moral powers and therefore cannot explain Rawls' opposition to the legal enforcement of the duty of civility. Such opposition, I claim, can only be explained on the basis of a defence of unconstrained freedom of speech grounded in the ideas of democracy and political legitimacy. Yet, I conclude, while public reason and the duty of civility are essential to political liberalism, unconstrained freedom of speech is not. Rawls and political liberals could therefore renounce unconstrained freedom of speech, and endorse the legal enforcement of the duty of civility, while remaining faithful to political liberalism.

Partisanship and Public Reason

In the large body of literature concerning John Rawls’s Political Liberalism (1993) and his conception of public reason, little attention has been paid to the implications that the constraints of public reason have for partisans, i.e. citizens who participate in politics through political parties. This paper argues that even on the basis of a ‘mild’ understanding of Rawls’s conception of the constraints of public reason, which takes into account the various stipulations Rawls provided throughout his later work, when applied to partisans the constraints of public reason lose none or little of their hindering force. This seriously undermines the contribution that parties and partisans can provide to the change and the varieties of public reason that Rawls himself advocates as a response to social change and, therefore, to political justification and legitimacy. Parties articulate, coordinate and enhance societal demands which, without their support, may remain unheard and fail to change the acceptable terms of public reason and political justification. If the political speech of partisans is restrained, this potential for change (and, therefore, its contribution to political legitimacy) is seriously undermined.

Engorgement des centres d'urgences: une raison légitime de refuser l'accès aux patients non urgents [Emergency department overcrowding: a legitimate reason to refuse access to urgent care for non-urgent patients?].

Non-urgent cases represent 30-40% of all ED consults; they contribute to overcrowding of emergency departments (ED), which could be reduced if they were denied emergency care. However, no triage instrument has demonstrated a high enough degree of accuracy to safely rule out serious medical conditions: patients suffering from life-threatening emergencies have been inappropriately denied care. Insurance companies have instituted financial penalties to discourage the use of ED as a source of non-urgent care, but this practice mainly restricts access for the underprivileged. More recent data suggest that in fact most patients consult for appropriate urgent reasons, or have no alternate access to urgent care. The safe reduction of overcrowding requires a reform of the healthcare system based on patients' needs rather than access barriers.

Public Reason that Speaks to People : Iris Marion Young and the Problem of Internal Exclusion

Dossier : In Memoriam, Iris Marion Young (1949-2006)

The typic in Kant’s critique of practical reason : moral judgment and symbolic representation

Comment pouvons-nous représenter un principe moral universel de manière à le rendre applicable à des cas concrets ? Ce problème revêt une forme aiguë dans la philosophie morale d’Emmanuel Kant (1724-1804), tout particulièrement dans sa théorie du jugement moral, car il soutient que l’on doit appliquer la loi morale « suprasensible » à des actions dans le monde sensible afin de déterminer celles-ci comme moralement bonnes ou mauvaises. Kant aborde ce problème dans un chapitre de la Critique de la raison pratique (1788) intitulé « De la typique de la faculté de juger pratique pure » (KpV 5: 67-71). La première partie de la thèse vise à fournir un commentaire compréhensif et détaillé de ce texte important, mais trop peu étudié. Étant donné que la loi morale, en tant qu’Idée suprasensible de la raison, ne peut pas être appliquée directement à des actions dans l’intuition sensible, Kant a recours à une forme particulière de représentation indirecte et symbolique. Sa solution inédite consiste à fournir la faculté de juger avec un « type [Typus] », ou analogue formel, de la loi morale. Ce type est la loi de la causalité naturelle : en tant que loi, il sert d’étalon formel pour tester l’universalisabilité des maximes ; et, en tant que loi de la nature, il peut aussi s’appliquer à toute action dans l’expérience sensible. Dès lors, le jugement moral s’effectue par le biais d’une expérience de pensée dans laquelle on se demande si l’on peut vouloir que sa maxime devienne une loi universelle d’une nature contrefactuelle dont on ferait soi-même partie. Cette expérience de pensée fonctionne comme une « épreuve [Probe] » de la forme des maximes et, par ce moyen, du statut moral des actions. Kant soutient que tout un chacun, même « l’entendement le plus commun », emploie cette procédure pour l’appréciation morale. De plus, la typique prémunit contre deux menaces à l’éthique rationaliste de Kant, à savoir l’empirisme (c’est-à-dire le conséquentialisme) et le mysticisme. La seconde partie de la thèse se penche sur l’indication de Kant que la typique « ne sert que comme un symbole ». Un bon nombre de commentateurs ont voulu assimiler la typique à la notion d’« hypotypose symbolique » présentée dans le § 59 de la Critique de la faculté de juger (1790). La typique serait un processus de symbolisation esthétique consistant à présenter, de façon indirecte, la représentation abstraite de la loi morale sous la forme d’un symbole concret et intuitif. Dans un premier chapitre, cette interprétation est présentée et soumise à un examen critique qui cherche à montrer qu’elle est erronée et peu judicieuse. Dans le second chapitre, nous poursuivons une voie d’interprétation jusqu’ici ignorée, montrant que la typique a de plus grandes continuités avec la notion d’« anthropomorphisme symbolique », une procédure strictement analogique introduite auparavant dans les Prolégomènes (1783). Nous en concluons, d’une part, que la typique fut un moment décisif dans l’évolution de la théorie kantienne de la représentation symbolique et que, d’autre part, elle marque la réalisation, chez Kant, d’une conception proprement critique de la nature et de la morale comme deux sphères distinctes, dont la médiation s’opère par le biais des concepts de loi et de conformité à la loi (Gesetzmässigkeit). En un mot, la typique s’avère l’instrument par excellence du « rationalisme de la faculté de juger ».