Search

According to the standard version of the counterfactual comparative account of harm, an event is overall harmful for an individual if and only if she would have been on balance better off if it had not occurred. This view faces the "preemption problem." In the recent literature, there are various ingenious attempts to deal with this problem, some of which involve slight additions to, or modifications of, the counterfactual comparative account. We argue, however, that none of these attempts work, and that the preemption problem continues to haunt the counterfactual comparative account. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is it for something to be essential to an item? For some time, it was standard to think that the concept of necessity alone can provide an answer: for something to be essential to an item is for it to be strictly implied by the existence of that item. We now tend to think that this view fails because its analysans is insufficient for its analysandum. In response, some argue that we can supplement the analysis in terms of necessity with a further condition. In this paper I argue that this view is untenable in its current form. I then provide a glimmer of hope to those who think that essence is at least partially analyzable in terms of necessity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Parfit (Reasons and persons, Clarendon Press, Oxford, ) posed a challenge: provide a satisfying normative account that solves the non-identity problem, avoids the repugnant and absurd conclusions, and solves the mere-addition paradox. In response, some have suggested that we look toward person-affecting views of morality for a solution. But the person-affecting views that have been offered so far have been unable to satisfy Parfit's four requirements, and these views have been subject to a number of independent complaints. This paper describes a person-affecting account which meets Parfit's challenge. The account satisfies Parfit's four requirements, and avoids many of the criticisms that have been raised against person-affecting views. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It’s natural to say that when it’s rational for me to φ, I have reasons to φ. That is, there are reasons for φ-ing, and moreover, I have some of them. Mark Schroeder calls this view The Factoring Account of the having reasons relation. He thinks The Factoring Account is false. In this paper, I defend The Factoring Account. Not only do I provide intuitive support for the view, but I also defend it against Schroeder’s criticisms. Moreover, I show that it helps us understand the requirements of substantive rationality, or what we are rationally required to do when responding to reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Descartes held the view that a subject has infallible beliefs about the contents of her thoughts. Here, I first examine a popular contermporary defense of this claim, given by Burge, and find it lacking. I then offer my own defense appealing to a minimal thesis about the compositionality of thoughts. The argument has the virtue of refraining from claims about whether thoughts are “in the head;” thus, it is congenial to both internalists and externalists. The considerations here also illuminate how a subject may have epistemicially priviledged and a priori beliefs about her own thoughts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recent years have brought relativistic accounts of knowledge, first-person belief, and future contingents to prominence. I discuss these views, distinguish non-trivial from trivial forms of relativism, and then argue against relativism in all of its substantive varieties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I give the label “ethical pluralism” to the meta-ethical view that competing moral views are valid. I assume that validity is conferred on a moral view by its satisfying the relevant meta-ethical criteria in a maximally satisfactory way. If the relevant meta-ethical criteria are based on something roughly like the wide reflective equilibrium model, then ethical pluralism is likely to be correct. Traditional moral views do not grant exemptions from their own binding rules or principles to agents – should any exist – who adhere to a competing valid moral view. Given the usual conception of accepting a moral view, an ethical pluralist cannot honestly accept a traditional moral view. Consequently, I argue, an ethical pluralist is committed to the view that all traditional moral views are invalid. Given the likelihood of ethical pluralism, this conclusion is alarming. I set forth a weak conception of accepting a moral view that is designed to allow an ethical pluralist honestly to accept a traditional moral view. In particular, my conception is designed to explain how someone can (a) be guided by the view that she accepts; (b) accept her own moral view while rationally not accepting competing views that she thinks are equally valid; and (c) not be prepared to prescribe morally to those who are following other valid views. Central to my formulation are what I call a stance of modest respectful disapproval toward other people’s wrong behavior, together with acceptance of decisive moral reasons for oneself that are generated by the valid moral view that one accepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Presents a study on character, situationism and early Confucian thought. Assertion of John Doris regarding the East Asian cultures; Effect of Confucianism on the character view of Doris; Importance of robust character traits to Confucian thinkers.

The article presents a comment on the author Hartry Field's views on the concept of truth. Field's views on the concept of truth have evolved substantially over the years. Two major phases may be distinguished in this evolution. First, in the 1970s, Field articulated inflationist theories of truth; more particularly, he proposed a distinctive correspondence account of truth. Second, in the 1990s, Field became an advocate of deflationist theories. The theory of truth just sketched aims to 'explain the truth in terms of . . . correspondence relations between words and the extralinguistic world,' which Field takes to be the 'central' feature of correspondence theories of truth. Truth has a certain peculiar robustness. Even if the conceptual system that gives it life is destroyed, its ghost lingers on.

The article reports that the superiority in value and non-Archimedeanism are structural features that can be true of any kind of good. The author discusses some different ways in which these ideas can be applied to the aggregation of welfare. It is important to separate different applications of the superiority idea, since they will yield quite distinctive views with varying intuitive support. The author tries to give an exact and generalised statement of Strong and Weak Superiority. Using formulations, he proves a general result that can be used as an argument against the existence of superiority in value in certain contexts.