Suchergebnisse

Fear of life, fear of death, and fear of causing death form a combination that prevents reasoned changes in laws concerning end-of-life situations. This is shown systematically in this article using the methods of conceptual analysis. Prevalent fears are explicated and interpreted to see how their meanings differ depending on the chosen normative stance. When the meanings have been clarified, the impact of the fears on the motivations and justifications of potential legislative reforms are assessed. Two main normative stances are evoked. The first makes an appeal to individual self-determination, or autonomy, and the second to the traditional professional ethics of physicians. These views partly share qualifying elements, including incurability and irreversibility of the patient's medical condition, proximity of death, the unbearable nature of suffering, and issues of voluntariness further shade the matter. The conclusion is that although many motives to change end-of-life laws are admirable, they are partly contradictory, as are calls for autonomy and appeals to professional ethics; to a degree that good, principled legislative solutions remain improbable in the foreseeable future. ; Peer reviewed

This book presents findings from an intensive study of fear and courage under battle conditions, as represented by 300 veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. The work has been done in the hope that the results would prove to have military value. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved)

Hobbes distinguishes 'two very general objects of fear : one, the power of spirits invisible; the other, the power of...men.' Hobbes's political doctrine rests on the proper management of these two fears. (JLN)

A review essay on books by (1) Peter Alexander Meyers, Civic War and the Corruption of the Citizens (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2008) & (2) Jonathan Simon, Governing through Crime: How the War on Crime Transformed American Democracy and Created a Culture of Fear (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008).

IN 1982 AND 1983 THERE WAS AN INCREASE IN THE FEAR OF WAR AND FEAR OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS BECAUSE THE INTERMEDIATERANGE NUCLEAR FORCE TALKS BROKE DOWN. SINCE 1983 FEAR OF NUCLEAR WAR HAS BEEN RECEDING; BUT FEAR OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS HAS NOT ABATED. THE AUTHOR REVIEWS OPINION STATISTICS OF SIX EUROPEAN COUNTRIES AND FINDS A GREAT DEAL OF SKEPTICISM ABOUT SUPERPOWER SINCERITY. BY AND LARGE, WITH REGARD TO TALKS, THE PUBLIC SIDES WITH THE US IN CONCERN OVER VERIFICATION DIFFICULTIES.

WHILE THE ROLE OF FEAR IN HOBBES'S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY HAS RECEIVED CLOSE SCRUTINY IN RECENT YEARS, THE COMMON AND UNQUESTIONED ASSUMPTION AMONG VIRTUALLY ALL CONTEMPORARY SCHOLARS IS THAT HOBBES CONSIDERS THE FEAR OF VIOLENT DEATH MAN'S PRIMARY FEAR. SCHOLARS ASSUME THAT THE POLITICAL LEVEL IS THE DEEPEST STRATUM OF HOBBESIAN FEAR. THIS PAPER COMPARES ROUSSEAU'S NATURAL MAN TO HOBBES'S. ROUSSEAU HAS CRITIZED HOBBES VIEWS, ACCORDING TO HIM, EVEN THOUGH HOBBES DENIES THAT MAN IS NATURALLY SOCIAL, HOBBES'S NATURAL MAN IS CHARACTERIZED BY QUALITIES PRODUCED BY SOCIETY RATHER THAN BY NATURE. ROUSSEAU IS PERFECTLY CORRECT IN DENYING THE TRUE SOLITUDE OF THE HOBBESIAN MAN, BUT HE IS FUNDAMENTALLY MISTAKEN OR MISLEADING IN CLAIMING THAT FEAR OF VIOLENT DEATH IS PRIMARY IN HOBBES'S VEIW. THIS ARTICLE ARGUES THAT HOBBESIAN FEAR IS BEST UNDERSTOOD AS A PRIMAL, INDETERMINATE FEAR OF THE UNKNOWN.