<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>DSpace Collection: Monographica I: Etica di Heidegger  -  Monographica II: Prelinguistic practice, social ontology, semantics</title>
    <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5180</link>
    <description>Monographica I: Etica di Heidegger  -  Monographica II: Prelinguistic practice, social ontology, semantics</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 18:14:51 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:date>2013-05-22T18:14:51Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Etica &amp; Politica / Ethics &amp; Politics</title>
      <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5227</link>
      <description>Title: Etica &amp; Politica / Ethics &amp; Politics
Type: Fascicolo rivista</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5227</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Human Rights: A Modest Proposal</title>
      <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5226</link>
      <description>Title: Human Rights: A Modest Proposal
Authors: Byron, Michael
Abstract: Human rights have become an enormously useful tool in our time, and this&#xD;
for a variety of reasons. Useful, yes: but are rights real? I propose first to&#xD;
examine the most significant philosophical attempts to justify human rights.&#xD;
A universally justified conception of rights I call ‘robust,’ since a successful&#xD;
rational justification would fully underwrite the real existence of rights. Alas,&#xD;
we have no such justification; the second part of my remarks sketches&#xD;
devastating objections to each proposed justification. But all is not lost for&#xD;
rights: a new pragmatic justification for rights talk is available, one that is&#xD;
modest. On the modest view rights are real; but then we should like to know&#xD;
whether rights are as useful as they are on the robust view. Not as useful, no;&#xD;
but a
Type: Articolo</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5226</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Crash and Carry: Financial Intermediaries, the Intertemporal-Carry Trade, and Austrian Business Cycles</title>
      <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5225</link>
      <description>Title: Crash and Carry: Financial Intermediaries, the Intertemporal-Carry Trade, and Austrian Business Cycles
Authors: Barnett II, William; Block, Walter E.
Abstract: Barnett and Block (2008) establish that not only are fractional reserve demand deposits&#xD;
fraudulent and create an Austrian Business Cycle (ABC), but that a certain type of&#xD;
mismatching between time deposits and the period for which the depository institution relends&#xD;
the deposited funds (banks or other financial intermediaries “borrowing short and&#xD;
lending long”) are also contrary to libertarian law. The question we address in the present&#xD;
paper is whether or not this type of disconnect between the period for which the ultimate&#xD;
lender committed funds and the ultimate borrower gained possession thereof also&#xD;
necessarily start an Austrian Business Cycle. Even though this does not constitute an&#xD;
increase in the stock of money, we answer in the affirmative.
Type: Articolo</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5225</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Euthanasia: Some Critical Remarks</title>
      <link>http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5224</link>
      <description>Title: Euthanasia: Some Critical Remarks
Authors: Ayodele, Adejumobi Olatidoye
Abstract: Euthanasia is generally regarded as killing in order to put an end to the unrelieved pain&#xD;
and suffering of a patient. Most terminal diseases are often associated with unrelieved pain&#xD;
and suffering, as a result advocates of euthanasia have argued for the legalization of&#xD;
euthanasia on the ground of compassion for the patients’ suffering. However advancement&#xD;
in medicine has made it possible for modern medicine to reduce pain and suffering to the&#xD;
barest minimum. The questions that arise from this are, given the advancement in&#xD;
medicine; is there any necessity for euthanasia? Is the relief of pain the same as the relief of&#xD;
suffering? Do the physiological treatment of pain and its symptoms treat the psychological&#xD;
and emotional effect of pain and suffering? This paper shall attempt to answer these&#xD;
questions and argue that though issues and fears raised by the anti-euthanasia movements&#xD;
are very legitimate, the problems are resolvable by a well regulated medical system. I will&#xD;
attempt to explain what a well regulated system entails and how it can take care of the&#xD;
concerns of the anti euthanasia movement.
Type: Articolo</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.openstarts.units.it:80/dspace/handle/10077/5224</guid>
      <dc:date>2009-01-01T00:00:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

