TL;DR: How may the authors usefully think about a leader who hubristically abuses power, damaging the lives of others?
Abstract: ‘The history of madness is the history of power. Because it imagines power, madness is both impotence and omnipotence. It requires power to control it. Threatening the normal structures of authority, insanity is engaged in an endless dialogue—a monomaniacal monologue sometimes—about power’ .
Roy Porter
A Social History of Madness: Stories of the Insane, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1987 p. 39
Charisma, charm, the ability to inspire, persuasiveness, breadth of vision, willingness to take risks, grandiose aspirations and bold self-confidence—these qualities are often associated with successful leadership. Yet there is another side to this profile, for these very same qualities can be marked by impetuosity, a refusal to listen to or take advice and a particular form of incompetence when impulsivity, recklessness and frequent inattention to detail predominate. This can result in disastrous leadership and cause damage on a large scale. The attendant loss of capacity to make rational decisions is perceived by the general public to be more than ‘just making a mistake’. While they may use discarded medical or colloquial terms, such as ‘madness’ or ‘he's lost it’, to describe such behaviour, they instinctively sense a change of behaviour although their words do not adequately capture its essence.
A common thread tying these elements together is hubris, or exaggerated pride, overwhelming self-confidence and contempt for others (Owen, 2006). How may we usefully think about a leader who hubristically abuses power, damaging the lives of others? Some see it as nothing more than the extreme manifestation of normal behaviour along a spectrum of narcissism. Others simply dismiss hubris as an occupational hazard of powerful leaders, politicians or leaders in business, the military and academia; an unattractive but understandable aspect of those who crave power.
But the matter can be formulated differently so that it becomes appropriate to think of hubris …
TL;DR: The notion of "resilience" as mentioned in this paper is defined as "a subject which accepts the dangerousness of the world it lives in as a condition for paring itself to adapt itself to the world, and not a subject which can conceive of changing its structure and conditions of possibility".
Abstract: What does it mean to live dangerously? This is not just a philosophical question or ethical call to reflect upon our own individual recklessness. It is a deeply political question being asked by ideologues and policy makers who want us to abandon the dream of ever achieving security and embrace danger as a condition of possibility for life in the future. As this article demonstrates, this belief in the necessity and positivity of human exposure to danger is fundamental to the new doctrine of ‘resilience’. Resilience demands our disavowal of any belief in the possibility to secure ourselves and accept that life is a permanent process of continual adaptation to dangers said to be outside our control. The resilient subject is a subject which must permanently struggle to accommodate itself to the world, and not a subject which can conceive of changing the world, its structure and conditions of possibility. However, it is a subject which accepts the dangerousness of the world it lives in as a condition for par...
TL;DR: In this paper, the historical context of criminal doctrine and criminal law is discussed, and a discussion of self-defense and self-defence in criminal law can be found in Section 2.
Abstract: Part I. Context: 1. Contradiction, critique and criminal law 2. The historical context of criminal doctrine Part II. Mens Rea: 3. Motive and intention 4. Recklessness Part III. Actus Reus: 6. Acts and omissions 7. Causation Part IV. Defences: 8. Necessity and duress 9. Insanity and diminished responsibility 10. Self defence 11. Loss of control Part V. Concluding: 12. Sentencing 13. Conclusion.
TL;DR: Part I Philosophy and Law 1. Direct and Oblique Intention and Malice Aforethought 2. Intention, Mens Rea' in Murder 3. Duress per Minas' as a Defence to Crime 4. The Expert in Court Part II Philosophy and War 5. Counterforce and Countervalue 6. Better Dead than Red' 7. The Logic and Ethics of Nuclear Deterrence 8. Risk, Recklessness and Extravagance Epilogue 9. Enemies of Academic Freedom
Abstract: Part I Philosophy and Law 1. Direct and Oblique Intention and Malice Aforethought 2. Intention and Mens Rea' in Murder 3. Duress per Minas' as a Defence to Crime 4. The Expert in Court Part II Philosophy and War 5. Counterforce and Countervalue 6. Better Dead than Red' 7. The Logic and Ethics of Nuclear Deterrence 8. Risk, Recklessness and Extravagance Epilogue 9. Enemies of Academic Freedom
TL;DR: In this paper, a fair division of risks is proposed for distributive justice, and the tort/crime distinction is defined as follows: 1. Equality, luck and responsibility 2. Corrective justice and spontaneous order 3. Foresight and responsibility 4. FOREIGHT and responsibility 5. Punishment 6. Mistakes 7. Recklessness and attempts 8. Reciprocity and responsibility
Abstract: 1. Equality, luck and responsibility 2. Corrective justice and spontaneous order 3. A fair division of risks 4. Foresight and responsibility 5. Punishment and the tort/crime distinction 6. Mistakes 7. Recklessness and attempts 8. Beyond corrective and retributive justice? Marx and Pashukanis on the 'narrow horizons on Bourgeois right' 9. Reciprocity and responsibility in distributive justice.