Due to constraints on institutional capacity and financial resources, the road to universal health coverage (UHC) involves difficult policy choices. To assist with these choices, scholars and policy makers have done extensive work on criteria to assess the substantive fairness of health financing policies: their impact on the distribution of rights, duties, benefits and burdens on the path towards UHC. However, less attention has been paid to the procedural fairness of health financing decisions. The Accountability for Reasonableness Framework (A4R), which (...) is widely applied to assess procedural fairness, has primarily been used in priority-setting for purchasing decisions, with revenue mobilization and pooling receiving limited attention. Furthermore, the sufficiency of the A4R framework’s four criteria (publicity, relevance, revisions and appeals, and enforcement) has been questioned. Moreover, research in political theory and public administration (including deliberative democracy), public finance, environmental management, psychology, and health financing has examined the key features of procedural fairness, but these insights have not been synthesized into a comprehensive set of criteria for fair decision-making processes in health financing. A systematic study of how these criteria have been applied in decision-making situations related to health financing and in other areas is also lacking. This paper addresses these gaps through a scoping review. It argues that the literature across many disciplines can be synthesized into 10 core criteria with common philosophical foundations. These go beyond A4R and encompass equality, impartiality, consistency over time, reason-giving, transparency, accuracy of information, participation, inclusiveness, revisability and enforcement. These criteria can be used to evaluate and guide decision-making processes for financing UHC across different country income levels and health financing arrangements. The review also presents examples of how these criteria have been applied to decisions in health financing and other sectors. (shrink)

Emerging out of increased attention to gender equality within violence and HIV prevention efforts in South African society has been an intensified focus on masculinities. Garnering a deeper understanding of how men respond to shifting gender relations and rights on the ground is of urgent importance, particularly since social constructions of gender are implicated in the HIV/aids epidemic. As social scientists collaborating on a rights-based HIV and antiviolence program, we sought to understand masculinities, rights, and gender norms across six high (...) HIV/aids seroprevalence provinces in South Africa. Drawing on focus group research, we explore the ways that men who are engaged in HIV and antiviolence programming can often be simultaneously resistant to and embracing of changes in masculinities, women’s rights, and gender relations. We use our findings on men’s responses to changing gender relations to make suggestions for how to better engage men in HIV and antiviolence programs. (shrink)

This article considers the current state of the science–religion debate in the United Kingdom. It discusses the societies, groups, and individual scholars that shape that debate, including the dialogue between theology and physics, biology, and psychology. Attention is also given to theology's engagement with ecological issues. The article also reflects on the loss of influence of denominational Christianity within British society, and the impact both on the character of the debate and the role of the churches. Finally, some promising trajectories (...) of development for the future are outlined. (shrink)

Dans The Primacy of Metaphysics, paru chez Oxford University Press (2019), Christopher Peacocke interroge la relation entre la métaphysique d’un domaine et les concepts (ou, plus généralement, les façons de nous représenter les éléments) de ce domaine. Nos concepts sont-ils plus fondamentaux que la métaphysique elle-même ? Ou est-ce l’inverse ? Ou alors y-a-t-il une relation d’interdépendance entre ces deux objets ?

Unlike the grasp of metaphor in natural language, there is in music a patent confusion of roles between the ‘tenor’ and ‘vehicle’ of a metaphor: the expressive content configures the metaphorical understanding of a musical moment as much as the experience of the musical moment shapes how we perceive expressive content. This observation prompts consideration of a model (different from Peacocke’s) in which a spiralling reciprocity of invertible metaphorical operations gives rise to the specificity of the aesthetic experience. On this (...) account – it is argued – metaphorical processes in music function much like those in other art forms. (shrink)

Our use of ‘I’, or something like it, is implicated in our self-regarding emotions, in the concern to survive, and so seems basic to ordinary human life. But why does that pattern of use require a referring term? Don't Lichtenberg's formulations show how we could have our ordinary pattern of use here without the first person? I argue that what explains our compulsion to regard the first person as a referring term is our ordinary causal thinking, which requires us to (...) find a persisting object as the mechanism that underpins the causal structure we naturally ascribe to the self. I thus argue against Peacocke's picture (2012), on which it's the cogito that explains one's knowledge of one's own existence. (shrink)

In this book, Christopher Peacocke proposes a general theory about what it is for a thinker to be entitled to form a given belief. This theory is distinctively rationalist: that is, it gives a large role to the a priori, while insisting that the propositions or contents that can be known a priori are not in any way “true in virtue of meaning” (and without in any other way denigrating these propositions as “trivial”, or as propositions that “tell us (...) nothing about the world”, or the like). Peacocke then applies this theory to several classical problems in epistemology — to the problem of how our sensory experiences can entitle us to form beliefs about the external world, to the problem of induction, and to the problem of what entitles us to form moral beliefs. (shrink)

This is a review of Christopher Peacocke's book The Realm of Reason (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Peacocke introduces The Primacy of Metaphysics with the apt observation that ‘[t]here can be few issues as fundamental as the relation between the metaphysics o.

My response consists essentially of an attempt to throw light on Peacocke's basic proposal as to how musical expressiveness should be understood by a comparison and contrast with a somewhat similar suggestion of mine.

A review essay on Peacocke's book A Study of Concepts. Raises questions about the role of the concept of finding an inference primitively compelling and questions of detail about the basic framework, its application to the systematicity of thought, the response to potential objections in the chapters on the metaphysics of concepts and naturalism, and the treatment of the concept of belief.

Peacocke argues that all epistemic entitlements depend at bottom on a priori entitlements, determined by "constitutive conditions" for the application of concepts. He does not address familiar doubts about the distinction between constitutive and nonconstitutive conditions of application. In addition, Peacocke conflates issues about inference with issues about implication and proof and seriously misrepresents David Lewis' view about the content of indicative conditionals.

In The Realm of Reason (2004), Christopher Peacocke develops a “generalized rationalism” concerning, among other things, what it is for someone to be “entitled”, or justified, in forming a given belief. In the course of his discussion, Peacocke offers two arguments to the best explanation that aim to undermine scepticism and establish a justification for our belief in the reliability of sense perception, respectively. If sound, these ambitious arguments would answer some of the oldest and most vexing epistemological problems. (...) In this paper I will evaluate these arguments, concluding that they are inconclusive at best. Despite offering some interestingly original arguments, Peacocke gives us no reason to think that scepticism is false, and that perception is generally reliable. (shrink)

I suggest in this paper that Professor Peacocke has given an elegant and, it seems to me, successful account of how we hear in music, metaphorically, various extra-musical properties, among them the much vexed expressive ones. I argue that what Peacocke now must do, as the next step in his project, is to tackle the normative question of when, particularly in the case of absolute music, we are justified in hearing in the music what, on his account, we can hear (...) in it. (shrink)

Peacocke's characterization of what he calls implicit conceptions recognizes the significance of a subset of contentful states in making rational behavior intelligible. What Peacocke has to offer in this paper is an account of why we need implicit conceptions; how we can discover them; what they explain; what they are; and how they can help us to better understand some issues in the theory of meaning and the theory of knowledge. The rationalist tradition in which Peacocke's project ought to be (...) located is concerned with the nature of understanding. His notion of implicit conceptions is invoked to explain non-straightforwardly inferential but rational patterns of concept-involving behavior. We come to know about implicit conceptions because we treat the thinker's practices as having a certain representational content. They are implicit in what the thinker does. I intend to focus on the question of what implicit conceptions are. I will argue for the following position: that —even at the personal level— certain inferential principles underlie the process that leads to the thinker's reliably differential responses and that subsequently point us in the direction of a notion such as that of an implicit conception. More precisely, I will argue that practical inferential processes are involved in the understanding-based capacities that support our ascription of personal-level implicit conceptions to the thinker. If I am right, then Peacocke's implicit conceptions don't preclude acceptance of personal-level conceptual role theories because that practical inferential articulation, i.e. that conceptual role, is the implicit conception itself. (shrink)

In Sense and Content , Christopher Peacocke points out that two equally-sized trees at different distances from the perceiver are normally represented to be the same size, despite the fact that in a certain sense the nearer tree looks bigger ; he concludes on the basis of this observation that visual experiences possess irreducibly phenomenal properties. This argument has received the most attention of all of Peacocke’s arguments for separatism—the view that the intentional and phenomenal properties of experiences are (...) independent of one another. However, despite its notoriety, the argument is widely misunderstood and underappreciated. I argue that once the structure of the argument is clarified and the replies that have been offered are considered closely, one must conclude that the trees argument is successful. (shrink)

How are we to define red? We seem to face a dilemma. For it seems that we must define red in terms of looks red. But looks red is semantically complex. We must therefore define looks red in terms of red. Can we avoid this dilemma? Christopher Peacocke thinks we can. He claims that we can define the concept of being red in terms of the concept of being red; the concept of a sensational property of visual experience. Peacocke (...) agrees that his definition of red makes use of a concept that those who possess the concept of being red need not possess; namely, red. But he thinks that this does not matter. For, he says, the definition is justified provided we can specify what it is to possess the concept of being red in terms of the concept of being red. What he tries to show is that this might be so even if no-one could possess the concept of being red unless he possessed the concept of being red. Peacocke has two attempts at showing this. However, both these attempts fail. What Peacocke does show is something weaker. He shows that, using red, we can construct a concept that gives what he calls the constitutive role of the concept of being red; but, importantly, that it gives the constitutive role of red does not suffice for what Peacocke says is required for giving a definition. Thus, if we accept Peacocke's standard for definition, it follows that he gives us no way of avoiding the original dilemma. If this is right then perhaps we should join with those like Colin McGinn who think that we should give up our attempts to define our secondary quality concepts. (shrink)

Christopher Peacocke's paper presents a characteristically rich and original theory of the so-called expressive qualities of music. It is, surely, impossible to come to a verdict on such an interesting theory quickly, and it will, no doubt, attract continuing and merited attention. The purpose of my preliminary reflections is to raise some questions about the proposal and to express some reservations, but I see these remarks as simply opening and inconclusive ones in a longer dialogue. I am going to (...) divide my comments into two parts. The first set is brief and relates to the content of Peacocke's theory. The second set expresses doubts as to the importance in our musical life of anything corresponding to Peacocke's hearing metaphorically-as (allowing that we do understand what it is). (shrink)

The paper reviews Christopher Peacocke's account of self‐knowledge. His proposal relies on the claim that first‐order mental states may be given to a subject so as to function as reasons, from his point of view, for the corresponding self‐ascriptions. Peacocke's Being Known elicits two different views of how that may be the case: a given propositional attitude is considered to be conscious if, on the one hand, there is something it is like to have it; and, on the other, (...) if it can occupy a subject's attention without being an object of attention. I examine both views and conclude that, on the latter, Peacocke's proposal risks of not offering an independent reason for the self‐ascription, and, on the former, of offering no reason at all. I then turn to some ideas from his The Realm of Reason and claim that they can help stabilise his earlier account only at the cost of surrendering internalism in the epistemology of psychological self‐ascriptions and of contaminating internalist proposals about knowledge of any subject matter with an externalist base which would betray their point. Unless one doesn't want to pay this price, then Peacocke's account offers no solution to the problem of self‐knowledge.1. (shrink)

Constitutivist accounts of self-knowledge argue that a noncontingent, conceptual relation holds between our first-order mental states and our introspective awareness of them. I explicate a constitutivist account of our knowledge of our own beliefs and defend it against criticisms recently raised by Christopher Peacocke. According to Peacocke, constitutivism says that our second-order introspective beliefs are groundless. I show that Peacocke’s arguments apply to reliabilism not to constitutivism per se, and that by adopting a functionalist account of direct accessibility a (...) constitutivist can avoid reliabilism. I then argue that the resulting view is preferable to Peacocke’s own account of self-knowledge. (shrink)

We know a great deal about what is possible, so modal knowledge must be possible, not just in principle but by ordinary methods. Christopher Peacocke’s leading thought in Chapter 4 of Being Known is that this fact places significant constraints on philosophical treatments of modality. Modal realism is ruled out on the ground that it renders modal truth “radically inaccessible”, and actualism is forced upon us. It goes without saying that any account of the modal facts must eventually dovetail (...) with some account of how we know them. But Peacocke’s approach is animated by the thought that there is a mystery about modal knowledge—a transposed version of Benacerraf’s puzzle about mathematical knowledge under Platonism. Peacocke clearly believes that modal realism renders the problem intractable. But what exactly is the mystery in the modal case? And why exactly does modal realism preclude a solution? Peacocke himself does not say. The ‘access problem’ for modal realism is clearly decisive for him; but it is very much in the background. Nonetheless, for several reasons, it will help to start here. (shrink)

In his book Worlds and Individuals: Possible and Otherwise, Takashi Yagisawa Yagisawa argues that his own theory is better than Lewis’s theory by showing that his own theory can deal with important objections to modal realism more successfully than Lewis’s. In particular, Yagisawa claims that by adopting modal tenses, he can respond to many important objections to modal realism in a uniform way. In this paper, I argue that Lewis can also successfully respond to Peacocke’s objection in an exactly parallel (...) way to Yagisawa’s by distinguishing existence at the actual world from existence at other possible worlds and that Yagisawa’s response to van Inwagen’s objection does not succeed. I conclude that Yagisawa fails to show that his own theory is better than Lewis’s. (shrink)

Chapter 4 of Being Known makes a bold and sophisticated attempt to integrate the metaphysics of modality with its epistemology. Memory sometimes enables us to know of something not happening in the present that it happened in the past; what enables us to know of something not happening in the past, present or future that it could have happened? Christopher Peacocke's answer roots the possible in the actual, more specifically in different ways of assigning actually existing items as the (...) semantic values of Thoughts and their constituent concepts. (shrink)

This is a critical notice of Christopher Peacocke's book, "The Realm of Reason" (Oxford University Press, 2004).