E-LOGOS, 2022 (vol. 29), issue 1

Philosophy of Science

Dangerous epistemology

Pablos Kubes

E-LOGOS 2022, 29(1):19-31 | DOI: 10.18267/j.e-logos.490  

The study of cognitive differences by means of rational inquiry is a legitimate goal of epistemology and cognitive sciences. From the results of such an effort arose a number of rules seeking to establish some workable guidance for the appropriate cognitive conduct of the human mind but these rules are not yet advanced to such an extent that they may serve as a categorical prescription for the error-free search of truth. Current advancements in science result from collective activity of different agents, past and present, including their triumphs and failures. An analysis of the historically erroneous theory of combustion is offered here as an alternative...

Ethics, Social and Political Philosophy

'tis but a Scratch: on the Moral Neutrality of Tattoos

Michael Campbell

E-LOGOS 2022, 29(1):4-18 | DOI: 10.18267/j.e-logos.489  

In a recent article, Matej Cíbik claims that some tattoos are immoral because they are imprudent. (Cíbik 2020) In response, I argue that a tattoo can only be immoral if it causes harm to a third party, so that no tattoo is immoral simply because it is reckless. Conflating prudential and moral requirements in the way that Cíbik does would strike at the heart of liberalism, and has deeply counter-intuitive consequences, as we can see when we consider Cíbik's own discussions of suicidal individuals and smokers. After discussing the role of the self/other distinction in liberal moral philosophy, I affirm both the moral neutrality of tattoos and the importance...

Usury and the Paretian Objection

Lukáš Augustin Máslo

E-LOGOS 2022, 29(1):32-46 | DOI: 10.18267/j.e-logos.491  

This paper has the following goals: 1) to prove that the contract of usury suffers from a self-contradiction, both from the viewpoint of the lender and the borrower; 2) to demonstrate the self-contradictory nature of the contract of usury by means of the Fisher model of the inter-temporal choice; 3) to prove that both the lender and the borrower pronounce the consent to the basic contract involuntarily because the former as well as the latter is acting under the indirect coercion; 4) to respond to Paretian objection that the Pareto improvement implies the mutual voluntariness, which is why there is no justification for the state to not enforce the...