pdf averment of the memorandum Force Ethics https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2018/entries/ethics-virtue/ from the Winter 2018 Edition of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Edward N. Zalta Uri Nodelman Colin Allen R. Lanier Anderson Principal Editor Senior Editor Associate Editor Faculty Sponsor Editorial Board https://plato.stanford.edu/board.html Library of Congress Catalog Data ISSN: 1095-5054 Notice: This PDF averment was distributed by solicit to members of the Friends of the SEP Society and by urbanity to SEP liberal contributors. It is singly for their beautiful use. Unsigned dispensation is prohibited. To glean how to accompany the Friends of the SEP Society and earn signed PDF averments of SEP entries, delight mark https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/ . Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Copylawful c 2018 by the publisher The Metaphysics Learning Lab Center for the Study of Language and Information Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305 Force Ethics Copylawful c 2018 by the authors Rosalind Hursthouse and Glen Pettigrove All lawfuls cautious. Copylawful plan: https://leibniz.stanford.edu/friends/info/copyright/ Force Ethics Old-fashioned published Fri Jul 18, 2003; corpotrue species Thu Dec 8, 2016 Force ethics is currently one of three greater adventes in normative ethics. It may, initially, be signed as the one that emphasizes the forces, or pure genius, in dissimilarity to the advent that emphasizes duties or governments (deontology) or that emphasizes the inferences of holdions (consequentialism). Judge it is patent that someone in want should be succored. A utilitarian get top to the occurrence that the inferences of doing so get maximize weal, a deontologist to the occurrence that, in doing so the embodiment get be acting in accordance delay a pure government such as “Do unto others as you would be pied by” and a force ethicist to the occurrence that succorful the idiosyncratic would be condolenceate or gentle. This is not to say that barely force ethicists conaffection to forces, any aid than it is to say that barely consequentialists conaffection to inferences or barely deontologists to governments. Each of the above-mentioned adventes can mould capability for forces, inferences, and governments. Indeed, any lawful normative holy speculation get entertain colossus to say encircling all three. What descryes force ethics from consequentialism or deontology is the mediateity of force delayin the speculation (Watson 1990; Kawall 2009). Whereas consequentialists get specify forces as ardoristics that consent cheerful-natured-natured inferences and deontologists get specify them as ardoristics enriched by those who reliably execute their duties, force ethicists get check the essay to specify forces in stipulations of some other concept that is charmed to be aid indispensable. Rather, forces and sins get be foundational for force holy theories and other normative notions get be initiated in them. We arise by contending two concepts that are mediate to all fashions of force ethics, namely, force and skilled light. Then we calm?} n ess some of the lineaments that descry contrariant force holy theories from one another 1 precedently altering to objections that entertain been eminent across force ethics and responses offered on its aid. We determine delay a appear at some of the directions in which coming learning sway unfold. 1. Preliminaries 1.1 Force 1.2 Skilled Light 2. Forms of Force Ethics 2.1 Eudaimonist Force Ethics 2.2 Agent-Based and Exemplarist Force Ethics 2.3 Target-Centered Force Ethics 2.4 Platonistic Force Ethics 3. Objections to force ethics 4. Coming Directions Bibliography Academic Tools Other Internet Resources Cognate Entries 1. Preliminaries In the West, force ethics’ founding fathers are Plato and Aristotle, and in the East it can be deduced tail to Mencius and Confucius. It persisted as the dominant advent in Western pure philosophy until at fineest the Enlightenment, suffered a instantaneous aggravatecast during the nineteenth century, but re-emerged in Anglo-American philosophy in the removed 1950s. It was heralded by Anscombe’s renowned space “Modern Pure Philosophy” (Anscombe 1958) which crystallized an increasing equitable delay the fashions of deontology and utilitarianism then ruling. Neither of them, at that space, remunerated watchfulness to a enumerate of topics that had regularly figured in the force ethics tradition—virtues and Force Ethics 2 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy sins, motives and pure genius, pure teaching, pure light or judgment, affection and race homogeneityships, a designing concept of enjoyment, the role of the trepidations in our pure vivacity and the indispensablely powery questions of what affections of idiosyncratics we should be and how we should speed. Its re-emergence had an warm pi on the other two adventes, frequent of whose proponents then began to oration these topics in the stipulations of their favoured speculation. (One inference of this has been that it is now requisite to descry “force ethics” (the third advent) from “force speculation”, a marage which conceives averments of force delayin the other adventes.) Interest in Kant’s force speculation has redirected philosophers’ watchfulness to Kant’s hanker aggravatelooked Doctrine of Virtue, and utilitarians entertain unfolded consequentiacatalogue force theories (Driver 2001; Hurka 2001). It has besides engenderd force holy readings of philosophers other than Plato and Aristotle, such as Martineau, Hume and Nietzsche, and thereby contrariant fashions of force ethics entertain unfolded (Slote 2001; Swanton 2003, 2011a). Although new force ethics does not entertain to obtain?} a “neo-Aristotelian” or eudaimonist fashion (see exception 2), almost any new averment calm?} shows that its roots are in old Greek philosophy by the business of three concepts acquired from it. These are arête (separation or force), phronesis (skilled or pure light) and eudaimonia (usually translated as enjoyment or young). (See Annas 2011 for a inadequate, unobstructed, and dogmatic averment of all three.) We conwatch the old-fashioned two in the balance of this exception. Eudaimonia is contended in union delay eudaimonist averments of force ethics in the next. 1.1 Force Rosalind Hursthouse and Glen Pettigrove Winter 2018 Edition 3 A force is an palliconducive ardoristic of genius. It is a ardor, courteous-behaved-behaved entrenched in its occupyor—colossus that, as we say, goes all the way down, untwin-fellow a custom such as entity a tea-drinker—to mark, await, compute, reach, hanker, elect, act, and estimateeract in undoubtful geniusistic ways. To occupy a force is to be a undoubtful affection of idiosyncratic delay a undoubtful abstruse mindset. A suggestive reparteeance of this mindset is the soundhearted reply of a characterizeed class of considerations as concludes for holdion. An gonere idiosyncratic cannot be signed scarcely as one who, for educement, practices gonere trade and does not fraud. If such holdions are pied scarcely consequently the embodiment reckons that gonerey is the best plan, or consequently they consternation entity caught out, rather than through recognising “To do inadequately would be sophistry” as the apt conclude, they are not the holdions of an gonere idiosyncratic. An gonere idiosyncratic cannot be signed scarcely as one who, for educement, communicates the precision consequently it is the precision, for one can entertain the force of gonerey delayout entity tactnear or indiscreet. The gonere idiosyncratic recognises “That would be a lie” as a influential (though possibly not aggravateriding) conclude for not making undoubtful averments in undoubtful requisite, and confers due, but not aggravateriding, power to “That would be the precision” as a conclude for making them. An gonere idiosyncratic’s concludes and daintys delay regard to gonere and dissincere holdions heed her views encircling gonerey, precision, and fault— but of continuity such views apparent themselves delay regard to other holdions, and to watcher estimateeractions as courteous-behaved. Valuing gonerey as she does, she elects, where slight to toil delay gonere vulgar, to entertain gonere friends, to cause up her upshot to be gonere. She disapproves of, dislikes, deplores sophistryy, is not astare by undoubtful tales of sophistry, despises or pities those who excel through fault rather than reckoning they entertain been ingenious, is unsurprised, or delightd (as delayhold) when gonerey triumphs, is shocked or wretched when those close and loved to her do what is dissincere and so on. Fond that a force is such a multi-track ardor, it would patently be carenear to mark one to an embodiment on Force Ethics 4 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy the reason of a unin-one markd holdion or plain a sequence of resembling holdions, unconnectedly if you don’t recognize the embodiment’s concludes for doing as she did (Sreenivasan 2002). Possessing a force is a substance of position. To occupy such a ardor amply is to occupy liberal or unexceptionconducive force, which is honorable, and there are a enumerate of ways of flow inadequate of this mental (Athanassoulis 2000). Most vulgar who can exactnessamply be descriptive as beautiamply pure, and undoubtamply markedly emend than those who can exactnessamply be descriptive as sophistry, wilfulcentred and egotistical, calm?} entertain their unaware spots—little areas where they do not act for the concludes one would await. So someone gonere or husk in most plights, and notably so in demanding ones, may thus-far be trivially vitiated by snobbery, geting to be reserved encircling their forebears and near than husk to strangers delay the inimpartiality tongue. Further, it is not gentle to get one’s trepidations in comparison delay one’s sensible avowal of undoubtful concludes for holdion. I may be gonere plenty to recognise that I must own up to a misobtain?} consequently it would be dissincere not to do so delayout my reply entity so soundhearted that I can own up amply, delay no close battle. Following (and adapting) Aristotle, force ethicists drag a separation among liberal or unexceptionconducive force and “continence”, or force of get. The amply pure do what they should delayout a contest across opposed hankers; the continent entertain to coerce a hanker or gauge to do inadequately. Describing the continent as “flow inadequate” of unexceptionconducive force repartees to go across the avowal that there is colossus specially affecting encircling vulgar who wield to act courteous-behaved-behaved when it is unconnectedly solid for them to do so, but the plausibility of this depends on correspondently what “makes it solid” (Foot 1978: 11–14). If it is the requisite in which the embodiment acts—say that she is very unsatisfactory when she sees someone decline a liberal purse or that she is in designing sadness when someone marks seeking succor—then in-exactness it is Rosalind Hursthouse and Glen Pettigrove Winter 2018 Edition 5 specially affecting of her to realter the purse or confer the succor when it is solid for her to do so. But if what moulds it solid is an sin in her genius—the gauge to guard what is not hers, or a cloudy coolness to the denial of others—then it is not. 1.2 Skilled Light Another way in which one can amply drop inadequate of liberal force is through rare phronesis—pure or skilled light. The concept of a force is the concept of colossus that moulds its occupyor cheerful-natured: a pure idiosyncratic is a purely cheerful-natured, palliconducive or affecting idiosyncratic who acts and reachs as she should. These are commbarely not spurious platitudes. But it is twin-fellow niggardly, in homogeneity to lineament (putative) educements of forces to confer these platitudes up. We may say of someone that he is bountiful or gonere “to a fault”. It is commbarely asserted that someone’s condolence sway carry them to act injusticely, to communicate a lie they should not entertain told, for educement, in their hanker to frustrate someone else’s grieve reachings. It is besides said that disrespect, in a desperado, strengthens him to do far aid atrocious things than he would entertain been conducive to do if he were cowerly. So it would repartee that clemency, gonerey, condolence and disi-elation notwithstanding entity forces, are casually faults. Someone who is bountiful, gonere, condolenceate, and disrespectous sway not be a purely cheerful-natured-natured idiosyncratic—or, if it is calm?} held to be a platitude that they are, then purely cheerful-natured-natured vulgar may be led by what moulds them purely cheerful-natured-natured to act injusticely! How entertain we arrived at such an odd omission? The repartee lies in too prepared an reply of plain manner, which permits a beautiamply remote-ranging application of frequent of the force stipulations, in-one, possibly, delay a new knack to judge that the pure embodiment is motivated by trepidation or bent, not by sensible dainty. If one reckons of clemency or gonerey as the ardor to be moved to holdion by Force Ethics 6 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy bountiful or gonere impulses such as the hanker to confer or to assert the precision, if one reckons of condolence as the ardor to be moved by the denials of others and to act on that trepidation, if one reckons of disi-elation as unadulterated consternationlessness or the getingness to estimateenance insecurity, then it get in-exactness appear patent that these are all ardors that can carry to their occupyor’s acting injusticely. But it is besides patent, as limitedly as it is commandly, that these are ardors that can be enriched by upshot, and although upshot thus enriched (bar the “courageous” ardor) would undoubtedly be very accurate upshot, we would not say that they were purely pure or affecting vulgar. The plain manner, or the dependence on motivation by bent, confers us what Aristotle calls “natural force”—a proto averment of liberal force prelibation unexceptionableion by phronesis or skilled light. Aristotle moulds a enumerate of peculiar remarks encircling phronesis that are the theme of abundant literary contend, but the (related) new concept is best implied by reckoning of what the pure purely educeed adult has that accurate upshot, including accurate adolescents, closing. Twain the pure adult and the accurate offshoot entertain cheerful-natured-natured intentions, but the offshoot is abundant aid apt to mar things up consequently he is illiterate of what he wants to recognize in command to do what he designs. A pure adult is not, of continuity, unerring and may besides, on cause, miscarry to do what she prepared to do through closing of recognizeledge, but barely on those causes on which the closing of recognizeledge is not mixed. So, for educement, upshot and adolescents repeatedly injury those they design to behoof either consequently they do not recognize how to set encircling securing the behoof or consequently their discernment of what is friendly and injuryful is poor and repeatedly hazardn. Such intrial in fine upshot is honorablely, if constantly mixed. Adults, on the other artisan, are culpconducive if they mar things up by entity inattentive, impassible, careless, wayward, inadequatesighted, and by stiff that what uses them get use constantlyyone instead of initiative a aid extrinsic viewpoint. They are besides culpconducive if their discernment of what is friendly and injuryful is Rosalind Hursthouse and Glen Pettigrove Winter 2018 Edition 7 hazardn. It is bisect of skilled light to recognize how to close true behoofs piively; those who entertain skilled light get not mould the misobtain?} of keeping tail the grieveful precision from the idiosyncratic who truely wants to recognize it in the assurance that they are behoofing him. Quite generally, confern that cheerful-natured-natured intentions are intentions to act courteous-behaved-behaved or “do the lawful thing”, we may say that skilled light is the recognizeledge or discernment that strengthens its occupyor, untwin-fellow the accurate adolescents, to do proportioned that, in any confern plight. The constructive peculiaration of what is compromised in such recognizeledge or discernment has not yet reparteeed in the lore, but some reparteeances of it are proper courteous-behaved-behaved recognizen. Plain frequent deontologists now strain the top that their holdion-guiding governments cannot, reliably, be applied delayout skilled light, consequently emend application requires plightal appreciation—the competency to recognise, in any lineament plight, those lineaments of it that are purely jutting. This causes out two reparteeances of skilled light. One is that it geniusistically follows barely delay trial of vivacity. Amongst the purely apt lineaments of a plight may be the slight inferences, for the vulgar compromised, of a undoubtful holdion, and this is colossus that adolescents are notoriously cluenear encircling indisputably consequently they are unpracticed. It is bisect of skilled light to be discreet encircling probable entitys and probable vivacity. (It should go delayout saw that the pure are regardful of the inferences of slight holdions. How could they miscarry to be careless, inattentive and inadequate-sighted if they were not?) The relieve is the skilledly discreet embodiment’s competency to recognise some lineaments of a plight as aid powery than others, or in-truth, in that plight, as the barely apt ones. The discreet do not see things in the identical way as the accurate adolescents who, delay their under-plain forces, calm?} watch to see the idiosyncratically injurious affection of a undoubtful holdion as competing in weight delay its gonerey or charity or proportionedice. Force Ethics 8 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy These reparteeances join in the patronymic of the skilledly discreet as those who recognize what is exactnessamply desertwhile, exactnessamply powery, and thereby exactnessamply friendly in vivacity, who recognize, in inadequate, how to speed courteous-behaved. 2. Forms of Force Ethics While all fashions of force ethics consent that force is mediate and skilled light required, they disadmit in how they concatenate these and other concepts to enlighten what we should do in lineament contexts and how we should speed our speeds as a sound. In what follows we inhale foul-mouthed unconnected fashions charmed by coeval force ethics, namely, a) eudaimonist force ethics, b) embodiment-based and exemplarist force ethics, c) targetcentered force ethics, and d) Platonistic force ethics. 2.1 Eudaimonist Force Ethics The characterizeed lineament of eudaimonist averments of force ethics is that they specify forces in stipulations of their homogeneityship to eudaimonia. A force is a ardoristic that assists to or is a element of eudaimonia and we ought to unfold forces, the eudaimonist equitables, indisputably consequently they assist to eudaimonia. The concept of eudaimonia, a key marage in old Greek pure philosophy, is exemplarly translated as “happiness” or “flourishing” and causeally as “well-being.” Each translation has its disadvantages. The sorrow delay “flourishing” is that animals and plain plants can thrive but eudaimonia is slight barely for sensible entitys. The sorrow delay “happiness” is that in plain talk it connotes colossus themeively unshaken. It is for me, not for you, to assert on whether I am merry. If I reckon I am merry then I am—it is not colossus I can be inimpartiality encircling (disregarding removed subjects of fatuity). Dissimilarity my entity sound or young. Here we entertain no difficulty in recognizing that Rosalind Hursthouse and Glen Pettigrove Winter 2018 Edition 9 I sway reckon I was sound, either materially or psychologically, or reckon that I was young but be injustice. In this regard, “flourishing” is a emend translation than “happiness”. It is all too gentle to be mischarmed encircling whether one’s vivacity is eudaimon (the adjective from eudaimonia) not scarcely consequently it is gentle to aggravate-reach oneself, but consequently it is gentle to entertain a mischarmed mind of eudaimonia, or of what it is to speed courteous-behaved-behaved as a probable entity, civilized it to depend amply in material voluptuousness or epicurism for educement. Eudaimonia is, avowedly, a pureized or compute-laden concept of enjoyment, colossus love “true” or “real” enjoyment or “the affection of enjoyment desert seeking or having.” It is thereby the affection of concept encircling which there can be material variance among vulgar delay contrariant views encircling probable vivacity that cannot be constant by invite to some exterior exemplar on which, notwithstanding their contrariant views, the bisecties to the variance concentrate (Hursthouse 1999: 188–189). Most averments of force ethics consent that influence a vivacity in accordance delay force is requisite for eudaimonia. This principal cheerful-natured-natured is not conceived of as an unconnectedly specifyd aver (made up of, say, a catalogue of non-pure cheerful-natureds that does not conceive pure ardor) which training of the forces sway be purpose to aid. It is, delayin force ethics, alprepared conceived of as colossus of which pure ardor is at fineest bisectially constitutive (Kraut 1989). Thereby force ethicists equitable that a probable vivacity ardent to material voluptuousness or the compensation of riches is not eudaimon, but a wild vivacity. But although all exemplar averments of force ethics maintain on that conceptual embody among force and eudaimonia, aid embodys are substances of debate and engender contrariant averments. For Aristotle, force is requisite but not competent—what is besides wanted are exterior cheerful-natureds which are a substance of Force Ethics 10 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy cheerful-tempered-fortune. For Plato and the Stoics, force is twain requisite and competent for eudaimonia (Annas 1993). According to eudaimonist force ethics, the cheerful-natured-natured vivacity is the eudaimon vivacity, and the forces are what enconducive a probable entity to be eudaimon consequently the forces proportioned are those genius ardoristics that behoof their occupyor in that way, disregarding bad cheerful-tempered-fortune. So there is a embody among eudaimonia and what confers force foundation on a genius ardoristic. (For a contendion of the disagreeences among eudaimonists see Baril 2014. For modern defenses of eudaimonism see Annas 2011; LeBar 2013b; Badhwar 2014; and Bloomfield 2014.) 2.2 Agent-Based and Exemplarist Force Ethics Rather than deriving the normativity of force from the compute of eudaimonia, embodiment-based force ethicists debate that other fashions of normativity—including the compute of eudaimonia—are deduced tail to and neverthenear explained in stipulations of the motivational and ardoral qualities of embodiments. It is ununobstructed how frequent other fashions of normativity must be explained in stipulations of the qualities of embodiments in command for a speculation to estimate as embodimentbased. The two best-notorious embodiment-based theorists, Michael Slote and Linda Zagzebski, deduce a remote class of normative qualities tail to the qualities of embodiments. For educement, Slote specifys lawfulness and injusticeness in stipulations of embodiments’ motivations: “[A]gent-based force ethics … recognizes lawfulness in stipulations of cheerful-natured-natured motivations and injusticeness in stipulations of the having of bad (or imperfectly cheerful-natured) motives” (2001: 14). Similarly, he explains the cheerful-naturedness of an holdion, the compute of eudaimonia, the proportionedice of a law or collective state, and the normativity of skilled sensibleity in stipulations of the motivational and ardoral qualities of embodiments (2001: 99– 100, 154, 2000). Zagzebski lovediscreet specifys lawful and inimpartiality holdions by Rosalind Hursthouse and Glen Pettigrove Winter 2018 Edition 11 regard to the trepidations, motives, and ardors of pure and debased embodiments. For educement, “A inimpartiality act = an act that the phronimos geniusistically would not do, and he would reach mixed if he did = an act such that it is not the subject that he sway do it = an act that expresses a sin = an act that is across a requirement of force (the pure wilful)” (Zagzebski 2004: 160). Her definitions of duties, cheerful-natured-natured and bad ends, and cheerful-natured-natured and bad avers of affairs are resemblingly initiated in the motivational and ardoral avers of honorable embodiments (1998, 2004, 2010). However, there could besides be near ambitious embodiment-based adventes to force ethics (see Slote 1997). At the very fineest, an embodiment-based advent must be committed to explaining what one should do by regard to the motivational and ardoral avers of embodiments. But this is not yet a competent circumstances for estimateing as an embodiment-based advent, gone the identical circumstances get be met by constantlyy force holy averment. For a speculation to estimate as an embodiment-based fashion of force ethics it must besides be the subject that the normative properties of motivations and ardors cannot be explained in stipulations of the normative properties of colossus else (such as eudaimonia or avers of affairs) which is charmed to be aid indispensable. Beyond this basic commitment, there is capability for embodiment-based theories to be unfolded in a enumerate of contrariant directions. The most powery descrying occurrenceor has to do delay how motivations and ardors are charmed to substance for the purposes of explaining other normative qualities. For Slote what substances are this lineament embodiment’s express motives and ardors. The cheerful-naturedness of holdion A, for educement, is acquired from the embodiment’s motives when she transacts A. If those motives are cheerful-natured-natured then the holdion is cheerful-natured, if not then not. On Zagzebski’s averment, by dissimilarity, a cheerful-natured-natured or bad, lawful or inimpartiality holdion is specifyd not by this embodiment’s express motives but rather by whether this is the affection of holdion a purely motivated embodiment would perfashion (Zagzebski 2004: 160). Invite to the pure embodiment’s relatively motives and ardors strengthens Zagzebski to descry Force Ethics 12 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy among transacting the lawful holdion and doing so for the lawful concludes (a separation that, as Brady (2004) marks, Slote has sorrow draging). Another top on which embodiment-based fashions of force ethics sway disadmit concerns how one identifies pure motivations and ardors. According to Zagzebski’s exemplarist averment, “We do not entertain criteria for cheerful-naturedness in remove of identifying the exemplars of cheerful-naturedness” (Zagzebski 2004: 41). As we mark the vulgar encircling us, we discaggravate ourselves unprovided to be love some of them (in at fineest some regards) and not unprovided to be love others. The fashioner collect us delay definitive exemplars and the cessation delay privative ones. Our discernment of emend and worse motivations and pure and debased ardors is initiated in these old-fashioned responses to exemplars (2004: 53). This is not to say that constantlyy space we act we bung and ask ourselves what one of our exemplars would do in this plights. Our pure concepts behove aid accomplished aggravate space as we engagement a remoter multiformity of exemplars and arise to drag independent unions among them, noting what they entertain in niggardly, how they disagree, and which of these niggardlyalities and disagreeences substance, purely asserting. Recognizconducive motivational profiles appear and follow to be labeled as forces or sins, and these, in alter, form our discernment of the obligations we entertain and the ends we should follow. However, plain though the schemeatising of pure purpose can voyage a hanker way from our starting top, according to the exemplarist it nconstantly reaches a position where regard to exemplars is replaced by the avowal of colossus aid indispensable. At the end of the day, according to the exemplarist, our pure scheme calm?} rests on our basic bent to obtain?} a approval (or pure) to exemplars. Nevertheless, one could be an embodiment-based theorist delayout advancing the exemplarist’s averment of the origins or regard circumstancess for judgments of cheerful-natured-natured and bad, pure and debased. 2.3 Target-Centered Force Ethics Rosalind Hursthouse and Glen Pettigrove Winter 2018 Edition 13
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more