The functional basis of disgust in disease avoidance is widely accepted; however, there is disagreement over what disgust is. This is a significant problem, as basic questions about disgust require...

In his book SEXUAL DESIRE, Roger Scruton wrongly maintains that human sexual experience is essential intentional. His thesis depends on his highly revisionary definition of 'sexual desire', the artificial nature of which I expose and criticise. He admits that homosexual desire is capable of the same kind of intentionality as heterosexual desire, and is therefore not intrinsically obscene or perverted, but he advances reasons why homosexuality is morally different from heterosexuality and is therefore an object of disapproval. His arguments presuppose (...) 'an impassable moral divide' between the sexes, and are, on his own admission, not very cogent. Since he allows that homosexual desire is a natural and spontaneous phenomenon and also proposes that moral education should guide us towards a state in which our sexuality is entirely integrated within a life of personal affection and responsibility, consistency requires that he adopt a sexual ideology which does not discriminate against homosexuality. For homosexuals are unlikely to achieve the 'sexual integrity' which Scruton advocates (and which I endorse) if they are constantly encouraged to disparage their own sexual nature and if social institutions make no positive provision for them. (shrink)

Philosophy has often been represented by its detractors, and even sometimes by its practitioners, as a subject which, unlike the natural sciences, exhibits a degree of progress far from commensurate with its long history. Many of the questions entertained by the ancients are still very much alive: answers proffered are put forward very tentatively, seldom meet with universal acceptance, and frequently give rise to controversy even more prolific than that which they were intended to lay low.

J Martin Stafford; In Defence of Sensualism: a reply to M. J. Newby, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 23, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 123–128, https:/.

J Martin Stafford; In Defence of Sensualism: a reply to M. J. Newby, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 23, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 123–128, https:/.

J Martin Stafford; Marxism, Neutrality and Education, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 15, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages 161–166, https://doi.org/10.111.

J Martin Stafford; A Rejoinder to Professor Edgley, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 15, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages 171–174, https://doi.org/10.1111/.

J Martin Stafford; A Rejoinder to Professor Edgley, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 15, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages 171–174, https://doi.org/10.1111/.

J Martin Stafford; John Wilson, Prophet of the Sane Society, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 13, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 169–186, https://doi.org.

J Martin Stafford; John Wilson, Prophet of the Sane Society, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 13, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 169–186, https://doi.org.

J Martin Stafford; Marxism, Neutrality and Education, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 15, Issue 2, 30 May 2006, Pages 161–166, https://doi.org/10.111.

J Martin Stafford; Public Schools, Private Privilege and Common Sense, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 19, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 137–141, https.

J Martin Stafford; Public Schools, Private Privilege and Common Sense, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 19, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 137–141, https.

Unrecognized presuppositions about patient appearance have become increasingly important in medicine, medical ethics and medical law. Symptoms of these historically conditioned assumptions include common ageism, aesthetic surgery, and litigation about ‘wrongful life’. These phenomena suggest a societal intolerance for what is considered an ‘abnormal’ appearance. Among others, eighteenth-century artists and anatomists helped to set these twentieth-century precedents, actually measuring deviations of external traits to analogous deformations of the soul, and drawing moral conclusions from physiognomic measurements. Other eighteenth-century artists countered with (...) pathognomy, recognizing that uneven physical features may indicate humanity, instead of character flaws. We suggest that there is an important and as yet unrecognized role played by visual and perceptual preferences in our judgments concerning normalcy and anomaly. We further suggest a shift away from our current fashion-magazine, youth-oriented aesthetic, and towards an aesthetic of imperfection. Physicians and medical students can be made aware of their historically conditioned reactions to ‘abnormal’ appearing patients by studying the understandings and methods with which artists have portrayed those who are considered deformed in appearance. (shrink)

This long paper (19 pages; about 7,000 words) is a trenchant critique of the first half of David Norton’s 1982 book David Hume: Common Sense Moralist, Sceptical Metaphysician. Norton claims that both Hutcheson and Hume were ‘moral realists’, and imputes to them an inflated moral ontology at sharp variance with what they actually wrote. Indeed, Norton’s interpretation is sustainable only when the texts are grossly misrepresented by paraphrases which say the opposite of what the authors actually wrote. The paper concludes: (...) I agree that Hutcheson and Hume were opposed to nihilistic scepticism, but maintain that their conception of morality was essentially a psychological one, free from metaphysical postulates of any supra-sensory or non-natural moral reality. Therefore, to call them moral realists is misleading. In view of the misunderstandings, misrepresentations, ambiguities, and contradictions which pervade Norton’s arguments, his attempt to establish that there were moral realists must be counted unsuccessful. (shrink)

Hume's essay ‘Of Luxury’ criticizes two extreme and contrasting doctrines: that luxury is always beneficial to society and that it is always baneful. Hume identifies the exponent of the first proposition as Bernard Mandeville in his book The Fable of the Bees, but does not name the second target of his essay. It is most probably John Dennis, one of Mandeville's contemporary critics. The evidence for this is that Hume challenges and contradicts three clearly defined theses advanced in Dennis's book (...) Vice and Luxury Publick Mischiefs. (shrink)

This is merely a non-commercial limited reprint of two previously published essays. No ISBN. It includes 'Hutcheson, Hume and the Ontology of Morals' (1985) and 'Hume, Spencer and the Standard of Morals' (1983). It was superseded in 1995 by the author's collected ESSAYS ON SEXUALITY AND ETHICS - ISBN 095125944X, which includes these two plus eight other articles.

In two recent pieces Roger Scruton recommends that we should instil in children feelings of revulsion towards homosexuality; whereas the corollaries of his earlier book Sexual Desire contradict this. These inconsistences are exposed and discussedand the preferability of his earlier stance defended.

The paper will show that on women and the family his writings exhibit a contradictory stance between nineteenth-century patriarchalism and progressive ideas; he appears to oscillate, as it were, between Hegel or Ruskin and Engels or J.S. Mill. This seems curious to a late twentieth-century reader, but was by no means eccentric in the context of German feminist and socialist discourse of his time. His philosophy of gender cannot be dismissed as a mere collection of tired patriarchalist cliches; like his (...) philosophy of society it is rich and still worthy of attention. (shrink)

John Wilson; Reply to J. Martin Stafford, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 13, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 187–188, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-975.

John Wilson; Reply to J. Martin Stafford, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Volume 13, Issue 1, 30 May 2006, Pages 187–188, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-975.

Of those philosophers that Hume credits with having "begun to put the science of man on a new footing", Bernard Mandeville has received relatively little attention from contemporary philosophers and Hume scholars. In contrast, Mandeville was not so neglected in his own age, a point well-chronicled in F. B. Kaye's introduction to The Fable of the Bees, and substantiated, tangibly, by this collection of writings excellently assembled and edited by J. Martin Stafford. In the eighteenth century and, more particularly, (...) in the decade between the publication of the 1723 edition of the Fable and Mandeville's death, numerous sermons, essays, letters, and books were published with the single intent of refuting what one eighteenth-century critic considered "so monstrous an Opinion", namely, that private vice might render a benefit to the public. What one discovers on reading these early critics is that it is not so much Mandeville's opinion that is monstrous as it is the incessant misinterpretations that are so often used against him. (shrink)