Springer, New York. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-50874-0 This book takes the reader on a journey, navigating the enigmatic aspects of cooperation; a journey that starts inside the body and continues via our

European Journal of Population,  Volume 35, Issue 1, pp 63–85. doi.org/10.1007/s10680-018-9469-1 Abstract A growing literature has demonstrated a relationship between parity and mortality, but the explana

Campbell, T. Axiological Retributivism and the Desert Neutrality Paradox. Philosophies 2022, 7, 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies7040080 Abstract: According to axiological retributivism, people canan outcome in which someone gets what she deserves, even if it is bad for her, can thereby haveintrinsic positive value. A question seldom asked is how axiological retributivism should deal withcomparisons of outcomes that differ with respect to the number and identities of deserving agents.Attempting to answer this question exposes a problem for axiological retributivism that parallels awell-known problem in population axiology introduced by John Broome. The problem for axiologicalretributivism is that it supports the existence of a range of negative wellbeing levels such that if adeserving person comes into existence at any of these levels, the resulting outcome is neither betternor worse with respect to desert. However, the existence of such a range is inconsistent with a setof very plausible axiological claims. I call this the desert neutrality paradox. After introducing theparadox, I consider several possible responses to it. I suggest that one reasonable response, thoughperhaps not the only one, is to reject axiological retributivism.

Patrik Lindenfors

I am an Associate Professor of Zoological Ecology at the Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, where I also got my PhD, but have for the last years mainly worked at the Centre for the Study of

Proceedings of the royal society Biological Sciences Abstract Cultural evolution typically studies how ideas and behaviours spread and change depending on how we learn and from whom. A new model suggest

Panel discussion - The Future of Humans. Moral Bioenhancement

The greatest problems of the 21st century - climate change, terrorism, poverty and global inequality, among others – are not the result of external threat, but predominantly the result of human cho

Q&A - The Future of Humans. Moral Bioenhancement

The greatest problems of the 21st century - climate change, terrorism, poverty and global inequality, among others – are not the result of external threat, but predominantly the result of human cho

Åsa Wikforss - The Future of Humans. Moral Bioenhancement

www.iffs.se Professor of Theoretical Philosophy at Stockholm University. She is currently working with the research project Knowing One’s Own Thoughts. The greatest problems of the 21st centur

Socially constructed beliefs about biological gender differences, i.e. gender essentialism, can to a large extent explain the remaining gender segregation and inequality. That’s one of the conclusions

in Analysis, Volume 80, Issue 2 AbstractKurt Gödel’s version of the Ontological Proof derives rather than assumes the crucial (yet controversial) Possibility Claim, that is, the claim that it is possib