We have the pleasure to invite you to another research seminar. Jeffrey Hanson is going to give a talk: "The measure of meaningfulness at work”. The seminar will take place on the 23rd of May at 5:30 p.m. in the room 25 on Grodzka Street and via MS Teams.

Soon we begin new research project funded by Poland's National Science Centre (Narodowe Centrum Nauki) entitled "Emerging reproductive technologies meet philosophy: the non-identity problem, harm, and counterfactuals" as part of the Preludium BIS 4 call, number: 2022/47/O/HS1/02794, head of the project: dr hab. Tomasz Żuradzki, prof. UJ.

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (MSCA) offer an opportunity to fund applicants’ own research fellowships at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics (INCET) - a research centre within the Faculty of Philosophy of the Jagiellonian University in Kraków. Expressions of interest should be submitted by 8 May 2024.

We have the pleasure to invite you to another research seminar. Bartosz Janik is going to give a talk: "Rules and interpretation: behavioral account”. The seminar will take place on the 25th of April exceptionally at 3:30 p.m. in the room 25 on Grodzka Street and via MS Teams.

We have the pleasure to invite you to another research seminar. Tomasz Krawczyk is going to give a talk: "Meaningful inclusion? Influence of Research Institutions on Epistemic Injustice in Public Involvement”. The seminar will take place on the 18th of April at 5:30 p.m. in the room 25 on Grodzka Street and via MS Teams.

“Proxy crimes” is a phrase loosely used to refer to conduct that is punished only as a means to target other harmful conduct. Many criminal law scholars find the criminalization of this type of conduct unjustifiable from a retributivist perspective, while others note that proxy criminalization can contribute to mass incarceration and overcriminalization. Given the importance of these problems, a systematic analysis of proxy crimes, currently absent in the criminal law literature, is needed.

In this paper, we use an innovative, empirical, and–as yet–rarely applied method in bioethics, namely corpus analysis. By demonstrating the ambiguity of the concept of dignity discernible when analyzing its use in normative contexts, our work is a novel contribution to the debates among the historians of ideas about conceptual identity and conceptual drift.

A paper co-authored by Vilius Dranseika - a researcher in the BIOUNCERTAINTY project at the Interdisciplinary Centre for Ethics at the Jagiellonian University - has been proclaimed one of the three best articles published in The British Journal of Aesthetics in 2020. Congratulations!

Vilius Dranseika wrote an open peer commentary to Zawadzki and Adamczyk's target article: "Personality and Authenticity in Light of the Memory-Modifying Potential of Optogenetics". The article and commentaries were published in the new issue of AJOB Neuroscience.

Literature-based meta-analysis is a standard technique applied to pool results of individual studies used in medicine and social sciences. It has been criticized for being too malleable to constrain results, averaging incomparable values, lacking a measure of evidence's strength, and problems with a systematic bias of individual studies. We argue against using literature-based meta-analysis of RCTs to assess treatment efficacy and show that therapeutic decisions based on meta-analytic average are not optimal given the full scope of existing evidence.

It is often suggested that when opinions differ among individuals in a group, the opinions should be aggregated to form a compromise. This paper compares two approaches to aggregating opinions, linear pooling and what I call opinion agglomeration. In evaluating both strategies, I propose a pragmatic criterion, No Regrets, entailing that an aggregation strategy should prevent groups from buying and selling bets on events at prices regretted by their members.

This paper explores an emerging sub-field of both empirical bioethics and experimental philosophy, which has been called “experimental philosophical bioethics” (bioxphi). As an empirical discipline, bioxphi adopts the methods of experimental moral psychology and cognitive science; it does so to make sense of the eliciting factors and underlying cognitive processes that shape people’s moral judgments, particularly about real-world matters of bioethical concern.

Despite pervasive variation in the content of laws, legal theorists and anthropologists have argued that laws share certain abstract features and even speculated that law may be a human universal. In the present report, we evaluate this thesis through an experiment administered in 11 different countries. Are there cross-cultural principles of law?

The Precautionary Principle is typically construed as a conservative decision rule aimed at preventing harm. But Martin Peterson has argued that the principle is better understood as an epistemic rule, guiding decision-makers in forming beliefs rather than choosing among possible acts. On the epistemic view, he claims there is a principle concerning expert disagreement underlying precautionary-based reasoning called the ecumenical principle.

A striking feature of our memories of the personal past is that they involve different visual perspectives: one sometimes recalls past events from one’s original point of view (a field perspective), but one sometimes recalls them from an external point of view (an observer perspective). In philosophy, observer memories are often seen as being less than fully genuine and as being necessarily false or distorted. This paper looks at whether laypeople share the standard philosophical view by applying the methods of experimental philosophy.