RESPONSE TO TADD RUETENIK AND JOHN CAPPS.

This article is a response to critiques of the author's book on William James's ethics. The author discusses James's Inclusivity Ideal, which emphasizes satisfying as many moral demands as possible without undermining the ideals of others. They address objections related to challenging faulty ideals and the value of autonomous choice. The article explores reflective endorsement and the subjective nature of ideals. It also discusses the implications of James's ethics in relation to cognitively disabled humans, animals, school shootings, and the war in Ukraine. The text proposes that moral philosophers should strive to synthesize views and propose radical solutions rather than compromising. It concludes by exploring the compatibility of pragmatist ethics with radical solutions and the limits of tolerance for conflicting values. The text titled "William James Studies" delves into James's ideas and perspectives on the self, providing valuable insights for readers interested in this topic. [Extracted from the article]