Search

An important belief in African Traditional Religion holds that everything, both animate and inanimate objects, are imbued with an imperceptible energy known as life force. Since life force is the greatest value, it is the grounds of morality. However, it is undertheorized in contemporary African ethics, with work on personhood and harmonious relationships taking centerstage. I seek to fill this gap in the literature by further developing an entirely secular and naturalistic moral theory of life force that avoids metaphysical controversies and is known as liveliness, which was first gestured at by Thaddeus Metz (2012, 2022). I demonstrate that while a series of objections that Metz levels against liveliness affect teleological versions, they do not apply with equal force to deontological versions. Liveliness, particularly deontological versions, ought to be considered as a contender for the best African moral theory alongside those that focus on personhood or harmonious relationships. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While there has long been philosophical thinking on the African continent, it was not until the middle of the 20th century that professional philosophy emerged on the continent. Though traditional African cultures have rich oral histories that some contemporary philosophers explicitly draw upon, it was not until universities emerged that there was philosophy conducted by professional philosophers who published their findings in academic venues. To date, much of this work has been conducted in English. The emphasis this tradition places on the community and social harmony will probably stand out immediately to any reader steeped in the Western philosophical tradition. The articles in this issue represent different styles of conducting African philosophy, such as employing analytic methods in order to develop moral theories, questioning the use of Western epistemic standards, and mining ideas from the history of Africa. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the recent Anglo-American philosophy of religion, significant attention has been given to the nature of faith. My goal is to show that some of the recent discussion of faith can be fruitfully brought to bear on a problem for a less globally well-known version of monotheism found in African Traditional Religion. I argue that African Traditional Religion could benefit from utilizing non-doxastic accounts of faith. For a significant number of Africans questioning authority or tradition, including the tenets of African Traditional Religion is viewed as harmful to the community and hence beyond the pale. A non-doxastic account of faith would be helpful for adherents of African Traditional Religion who find themselves disbelieving yet wanting to continue in religious practice and maintain communal harmony. This is because a non-doxastic state such as hope is within one's direct control and does not require as much evidential justification as rational belief. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Deke Caiñas Gould (2021) argues that the possibility of future non‐human‐like minds who are not harmed by coming into existence poses a challenge to David Benatar's well‐known Asymmetry Argument for anti‐natalism. Since the good of these future minds has the potential to outweigh the current harms of human existence, they can be appealed to in order to justify procreation. I argue that Gould's argument rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of Benatar's argument. According to the Asymmetry Argument, if a person experiences any harm at all, then bringing them into existence is unjustified. It does not depend upon on‐balance judgments about the relative harms and benefits of existence. It therefore remains impermissible to procreate right now in our world, regardless of the prospect of future humans contributing to the successful development of beings who are not harmed by existence. I conclude by addressing two alternate readings of Gould, which, for the sake of argument, permit such on‐balance judgments, and show why they fail to rescue his case. Benatar's Asymmetry Argument might be unsound, but not for any reason identified by Gould. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anti-theism is the view that God's existence would (or does) detract from the value of the world. A distinctive argument for anti-theism says that the very best atheist worlds are better than the best theist worlds. The reason for this is that it's possible to gain most or all of the benefits associated with theism in Godless worlds. For instance, worlds with a lesser god or several lesser gods can provide many of the benefits of theism without the associated disadvantages. While some work has been done to show that the advantages of theism can be had in atheist worlds, very little has been said regarding whether the disadvantages can simultaneously be avoided in such worlds. I aim to show that it is difficult to describe a possible atheist world where the benefits of theism obtain but the harms do not. I thus problematize this particular argument for anti-theism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In his book, An African Philosophy of Personhood, Morality, and Politics, Motsamai Molefe defends a character-based ethics where the goal of morality is to achieve personhood (in the African normative sense of the term). He moves away from many in the African tradition who hold that community is intrinsically valuable, and instead contends that community is instrumentally valuable in that it is the means by which agents achieve personhood. According to Molefe, if the community is intrinsically valuable, then there will be intuitively unacceptable trade-offs between individuals and the community. I argue that Molefe faces an unpalatable dilemma: Either it is logically impossible to achieve personhood apart from community or it is not. If it is logically impossible, then the distinction between intrinsic and instrumental collapses and his account is susceptible to the unacceptable trade-offs he claims for accounts that hold community is intrinsically valuable. If it is not, then it is difficult to understand the primacy of community in his account when there are other ways of achieving personhood. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In my recent book, The Epistemic Benefits of Disagreement, I develop a defense of non-conciliationism, but one that only applies in research contexts: Epistemic benefits are more likely in the offing if inquirers stick to their guns in the face of disagreement. I aim to expand my original account by examining its implications for non-inquiry beliefs. I'm particularly interested in broader worldview disagreements. I want to examine how inquirers should react upon discovering that they disagree about the truth value of a particular proposition because they disagree about a whole host of related propositions. I argue that in many ways, worldview disagreements are easier to work with than disagreement over isolated propositions, in part because it is easier to provide a set of criteria by which to evaluate worldviews. I conclude that my original argument can, at least in part, be successfully expanded to include worldview disagreement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The epistemology of disagreement examines the question of how an agent ought to respond to awareness of epistemic peer disagreement about one of her beliefs. The literature on this topic, ironically enough, represents widespread disagreement about how we should respond to disagreement. I argue for the sceptical conclusion that the existence of widespread disagreement throughout the history of philosophy, and right up until the present day indicates that philosophers are highly unreliable at arriving at the truth. If truth convergence indicates progress in a field, then there is little progress in philosophy. This sceptical conclusion, however, need not make us give up philosophizing: That we should currently be sceptical of our philosophical beliefs is a contingent fact. We are an intellectually immature species and given the existence of the deep future we have some reason to think that there will be truth-convergence in philosophy in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Philosophers have recently wondered whether the value impact of the existence of God on the world would be positive, negative, or neutral. Thus far discussions have distinguished between the value God's impact would have overall, in certain respects, and/or for particular individuals. A commonality amongst the various positions that have been taken up is to focus on the goods and drawbacks associated with both theism and atheism. Goods associated with atheism include things like privacy, independence, and autonomy. I argue that it is better overall and for everyone to prefer a hidden God to no God. This is because it is possible to experience many of the goods attributed to atheism if God is hidden even if they do not really obtain, while also gaining many of the additional goods connected to theism. This amounts to a new solution to the problem of divine hiddenness: God might hide in order to increase or maximize the axiological value of the world. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on concept of ‘Epistemic injustice' concerns the process of credibility conferral upon knowledge claimants. The contention is that individuals belonging to marginalised or underprivileged groups may suffer from a lack of credibility when they deserve to be counted as credible knowers. The article adds problem confined to epistemology, it also resonates with debates in justice theory and epistemic injustice to cultural forms of oppression, in this case ‘cultural imperialism'.

Many religious believers do not appear to take the existence of epistemic peer disagreement as a serious challenge to the rationality of their religious beliefs. They seem to think they have different evidence for their religious beliefs and hence aren't really epistemic peers with their opponents. One underexplored potential evidential asymmetry in religious disagreements is based on investigations of religious experience attempting to offer relevant evidence for religious claims in objective and public terms. I conclude that private religious experience can provide a relevant evidential asymmetry between opponents in cases of religious disagreement. I further conclude that if a religious believer reports a private experience to a religious sceptic, the latter is pressured to conciliate in the direction of the believer, at least if they were epistemic peers prior to the experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review is the property of Cambridge University Press and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In his recent book, Disagreement, Deference, and Religious Commitment, John Pittard challenges J.L. Schellenberg's rejection of mystical experience as worthy of enjoying presumptive doxastic trust for two main reasons. First, Pittard holds that Schellenberg wrongly focuses only on avoiding error while placing no emphasis on gaining truth. I argue that, contra Pittard, Schellenberg's account nicely balances the competing epistemic goals of gaining truth and avoiding error. Second, Pittard thinks that Schellenberg's criteria for presumptive trust in that of universality and unavoidability are arbitrary. I counter that Schellenberg's criteria are not arbitrary since they are the best way of achieving these goals. I conclude that despite not enjoying presumptive doxastic trust, this in itself does not entail that mystical experiences are never trustworthy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One argument for the permissibility of euthanasia found in the African philosophical tradition suggests that the sole goal of life is to develop one's vital force, which is done by relating harmoniously with one's community. However, this is impossible for people with certain medical conditions. If the goals of life cannot be achieved, then euthanasia is permissible. I challenge this argument by showing that it overlooks the fact that severely ill patients can still be the objects of communal relationships, in addition to a way for caregivers to strengthen their own vital force. I also suggest that usual readings of vital force imply that life itself is to be preserved at all costs and that this acts as a kind of deontological constraint., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)