Purpose I will discuss the prospect of pharmaceutically enhancing human morality and decision making in such a way as to eliminate morally unjustifiable choices and promote desirable ones. Background Our species in the relatively short period since it has emerged has enormously advanced in knowledge, science, and technical progress. When it comes to moral development, the distance it has covered is almost negligible. What if we could medically accelerate our moral development? What if we could once and for all render our species totally immune to certain vices? Methodology I will examine whether pharmaceutically intervening in human morality would compromise the autonomy of moral agents. I will argue that the argument from the autonomy of the moral agent is neither stable nor convincing. Conclusions In the light of Kantian ethics we might consider moral enhancement by pharmaceutical means to be a perfect duty for moral agents.

The twenty-third World Congress of Philosophy was held in Athens in 2013. It was sponsored by the Greek Philosophical Society, in cooperation with the Fédération Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie. This volume contains outstanding papers presented at the plenary session, symposia, and Endowed Lecture sessions of this congress. It has been published in both print and electronic formats as a special supplement to the Journal of Philosophical Research. Print copies are also available from Amazon. Contributors include Simon Critchley, Souleymane Bachir Diagne, Umberto Eco, Dagfinn Føllesdal, Jürgen Habermas, Wenchao Li, Alexander Nehamas, and Ernest Sosa.

Ecofascism as a tradition in Environmental Ethics seems to burgeoning with potential. The roots of Ecofascism can be traced back to the German Romantic School, to the Wagnerian narration of the Nibelungen saga, to the works of Fichte and Herder and, finally, to the so-called völkisch movement.Those who take pride in describing themselves as ecofascists grosso modo tend to prioritize the moral value of the ecosphere, while, at the same time, they almost entirely devalue species and individuals. Additionally, these ecofascists are eager to reject democracy, the idea of progress in its entirety, as well as industrialization and urbanization. They also seem to be hostile towards individual autonomy and free will. In this short essay I will present and discuss Kaarlo Pentti Linkola’s approach to environmental ethics, one that could be well described as the epitome of Ecofascism. I will argue that his arguments are neither sound nor documented, and I will conclude that Linkola’s overall approach is, in my view, contrary to the purpose as well as to the very essence of morality.

Philosophy, as Aristotle said, originates in wonder. And nonhumananimals have long been a source of wonder to humans,especially in regard to the treatment they deserve. The upshot isthat Western philosophy has been concerned with the way inwhich we ought to treat nonhuman animals since its origins withthe pre-Socratic philosophers.Animal ethics is a highly challenging fi
eld, as well as one of theliveliest areas of debate in ethics in recent years. Not only has thisarea issued in a range of attention-grabbing controversies, but ithas also led to the exploration o f novel and imaginativeapproaches to worn-out issues.This book is roughly evenly divided between the presentationand discussion of a range of influential past approaches toanimal ethics, and an equally signi
ficant range of contemporaryapproaches. We need to understand the legacy of the past andthe resources that it offers us while also forging new views thatare appropriate to our increasingly developed understanding ofthe nature of nonhuman animals.