Andjelika Eissing-Patenova Book order

The thesis presents a compelling argument that universal basic income (UBI) is essential for achieving an ideal society characterized by maximum justice. By examining four political philosophy approaches—utilitarian, libertarian, meritocratic, and egalitarian—the author concludes that egalitarian distributive principles are most effective in fostering an equitable society. This analysis provides a philosophical foundation for advocating UBI as a transformative solution to societal inequalities.

The essay explores the "guise of the good" thesis, arguing that agents perceive some goodness in their intentional actions. It addresses common objections rooted in the ambiguity of the term "good" and clarifies the concept of intentional action. By distinguishing two interpretations of goodness, the author presents a structured argument: if agents have motivating reasons for their actions, they must perceive some good in them. The paper also critiques Kieran Setiya's objections, suggesting ways to reconcile these issues, and calls for further interdisciplinary research, particularly in psychology.

The paper explores the implications of advanced artificial intelligence and realistic simulations of organic bodies, suggesting that machines may soon be indistinguishable from living beings. It examines the challenges of defining the boundary between organisms and machines, questioning whether current biological concepts can apply to modern technology. The author prompts a reevaluation of these concepts, considering whether they need to be adapted to accommodate the evolving relationship between humans and machines.

The essay explores the complexities of distributive justice, particularly in situations of scarce resources. It examines critical questions surrounding the allocation of medical treatments, educational opportunities, and military service, emphasizing the role of lotteries as a method to ensure fairness. By analyzing various philosophical theories, the work discusses when discrimination is justified versus when random selection is preferable. The implications of these decisions extend beyond individual cases, potentially influencing broader political, societal, and economic issues related to fairness on a global scale.

Moral fallacies contribute significantly to inaction on climate change by obscuring our responsibilities. The essay argues that merely identifying the effects of climate change, such as greenhouse gas emissions, is insufficient. It emphasizes the need to explore the underlying causes of our harmful behaviors, which stem from misconceptions about intergenerational justice and an inflated view of progress in consumer society. Addressing these moral issues could enhance our ability to act effectively, ensuring future generations inherit a livable planet.