Clinical decision-making: the case against the new casuistry.

Albert Jonsen and Stephen Toulmin have argued that the best way to resolve the complex issues in medical settings is to focus on the actual details of cases and then determine what to do in the given cases. This approach to medical decision-making, labeled "casuistry," has met with much criticism. In response, Carson Strong has attempted to save much of Jonsen and Toulmin's version of casuistry. This analysis reveals that Strong's recent salvage efforts fail to deflect the major criticisms. The upshot of this analysis is that Jonsen and Toulmin's version of casuistry is not an appropriate framework from which to resolve complex issues in clinical settings.

Psychological altruism vs. biological altruism: narrowing the gap with the Baldwin effect.

This paper defends the position that the supposed gap between biological altruism and psychological altruism is not nearly as wide as some scholars (e.g., Elliott Sober) insist. Crucial to this defense is the use of James Mark Baldwin's concepts of "organic selection"and "social heredity" to assist in revealing that the gap between biological and psychological altruism is more of a small lacuna. Specifically, this paper argues that ontogenetic behavioral adjustments, which are crucial to individual survival and reproduction, are also crucial to species survival. In particular, it is argued that human psychological altruism is produced and maintained by various sorts of mimicry and self-reflection in the aid of both individual and species survival. The upshot of this analysis is that it is possible to offer an account of psychological altruism that is closely tethered to biological altruism without reducing entirely the former to the latter.