Value Theory


Order

Search forums
Subscribe to this forum      feed for this page

 1 - 20 / 96 
2016-10-11
Although there are quite a few lists of argumentation fallacies on the web I can't find much about these two:
1)
Julian Baggini describes to argumentation fallacy "If I don’t do it somebody else will" at 

http://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2002/if-i-dont-do-it-somebody-else-will/

I don't find it anywhere else. Does that fallacy have a special name?

2) Also I can't find the fallacy: "If you don't show me an alternative for my doing you can't criticise it."

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/21678 Reply

2016-08-26
Hi everyone.

I have recently come across a novel argument that may undermine all forms of consequentialism, and accordingly wrote a paper elaborating on that argument. I now wish to get it peer-reviewed by the experts in this area. Kindly guide on the best course of action I should follow. Thanks!
Latest replies:
  • Ian Stuart, 2016-10-03 : Submit it for publication to a peer reviewed journal.   The journal will peer review it - and if they like it will... (read more)
Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/19546 Reply

2016-08-22
The title of this piece is "Problems of Conflict," not "Problems of Conduct," and it occupies pp. 892-893, not just p. 892. (It is a letter to the editor responding to an essay by Evelyn Underhill; it discusses pacificism in the context of World War I.)

The author was a Quaker, pacifist, and educator (part of the National Adult Schools Movement in the United Kingdom). She was also one of Gilbert Ryle's older siblings.

2016-08-08
After the publication of this paper, I enjoyed personal communication with Aloysius Martinich and discovered that I misused if and only if in several places of this paper. The corrections are below:

The formula indicates the following:
1. A is relatively identical to the value, but A is not absolutely identical to the value.
2. B is relatively identical to the value, but B is not absolutely identical to the value.
3. The value of A is absolutely identical to the value of B.
4. A is not identical to B.
(page 135)

1. The expression 1 + 3 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 1 + 3 is not absolutely identical to 4.

2. The expression 2 + 2 is relatively identical to the value 4, but 2 + 2 is not absolutely identical to 4.
3. The value of 1 + 3 is absolutely identical to the value of 2 + 2.
4. The expression 1 + 3 is not identical to the expression 2 + 2.
(page 135)

1. The triumvir was relatively identical to Lepidus, but the triumvir was not absolutely identical to Lepidus.
2. The pontifex maximus ... (read more)


2016-07-20
It seems to me that this work is very much unavailable to students and professionals. Have not found it online in any form, save for a few hardcover editions for more than $500. Crazy.

2016-07-04
Not out of umbrage so much as a deep concern over ideological censorship in philosophy, I want to publicly note and respond to the negative referee reports this paper has received (when graced with a report at all----it was desk rejected multiple times without comment). I believe the comments I quote below, compared with a reading of the paper itself, will reveal that it was rejected for ideological reasons, and that the paper warrants publication and indeed engagement.  
Background: I co-authored this paper with a student, Michael Prideaux, a queer activist who is now studying non-profit management. I disagree with my coauthor on many matters, but we agree on the importance of principles, consistency, and reasoning in ethical debate. Unfortunately, our referee(s) believe in gate-keeping and stifling views they find "troubling." I waited to post a public reply until he was in grad school so as to shield him from controversy.

Below I will quote the only two referee reports I received. I wi ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/17358 Reply

2016-07-06
I have been listening to all these economic warnings against Brexit, but they leave me with a couple of worries. And I don't have the expertise to assess them properly:

(a) The arguments for very negative economic effects from Brexit seem to assume that Brexit will leave the EU perfectly intact. It can then punish us with its economic power! But the assumption is very heavy. At least 4 EU member states fear that Brexit will lead to referendums in their own countries: France, Austria, Netherlands and Denmark.


(b) David Cameron repeatedly tells us that according to 9 out of 10 economists, Brexit would be bad for the UK. But the principle “Just go with the vast majority of economic experts on what the economic consequences are” is questionable. What about the 1 out of 10? Who are they? Today I found a professor at Cardiff Business School, a professor of economics at Durham University, and a professor of pensions at Cass Business School. Also Joseph Stiglitz, one of the greatest li ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/16874 Reply

2016-04-19
Freedom of Speech and the Right to Insult

Turkish President Erdogan has filed a complaint against a German comedian who read a poem depicting him committing  sexual acts with animals. A vast majority of the German population consider this as an inalienable right to free-speech. Me? I am certainly not a fan of Erdogan, but I agree with him in this special case. The "comedian" should be legally prosecuted. I must add that I find that journalists detained in Turkish prisons should simply be freed. Criticism is certainly a democratic right. So, what is the difference between the German "perpetrator", and the Turkish victims?
Thousands of people, if not millions, throughout history, have given their lives for the freedom to speak freely. And to this day, hundreds are still dying every day for that same right. What I find absolutely disgusting are parasites who abuse this right and not only seek but also get protection from the Law. And then I wonder. Did all those people in the past die for th ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/14930 Reply

2016-04-12
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!

2016-04-12
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!

2016-04-12
If you have any thoughts, comments or questions about this paper, let me know!
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/14842 Reply

2015-12-11
In Mark Cherry’s article “Non-consensual Treatment is (nearly always) Morally Adherent” he takes a Socratic approach to the issue of involuntary hospitalization and forced treatment of psychiatric patients. Cherry believes that non-consensual treatment does not reserve the patient’s best interest, fails to respect autonomy, and uses the idea of the mentally ill being a threat to others to violate their human rights. I will challenge these ideas by exploring the “thank you theory” as it is related to a wide range of mental illnesses and respect to patient best interest, pondering how the informed consent process can ever be seen as valid with a patient having no true sense of reality, and how never considering someone a threat until they already show violent behavior can result in tragedies occurring that could have been easily prevented.

Though it is true that non-consensual treatment of the mentally ill usually does not result in a “thank you” from the patients, addicts seem to be the ... (read more)


2015-09-04
What kind of academic inquiry can best help humanity make progress towards as good a world as possible?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in this question?  Is it because most believe the kind of academic inquiry we have today, devoted primarily to the pursuit of knoweldge and technological know-how, is the best that we can have, judged from the perspective of helping humanity make progress towards a better world?  Why are philosophers apparently so uninterested in arguments which seem to show decisively that inquiry restricted to the pursuit of knowledge is both profoundly irrational, and a menace?  The successful pursuit of knowledge and technological know-how, dissociated from a more fundamental concern to help humanity resolve conflicts and problems of living in increasingly cooperatively rational ways, is almost bound to lead to trouble.  Scientific knowledge and technological know-how enormously increase our power to act - for some of us at ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/10477 Reply

2015-06-23

Normative antirealism supposes that the only normative reasons are empirical, viz. those constituted by the actual attitudes of individuals and what follows from them.  However, the empirical normative attitudes of some individuals (e.g. normative realists) posit attitude-independent standards of normative judgement:  for example, rational measures of correctness (e.g. right and wrong) that are independent of the attitudes individuals actually have.  Since it follows from the actual attitudes of realists that there are independent normative standards, at least for them antirealism entails realism.  The antirealists respond that they have proven such independent standards to be fatally compromised:  when properly scrutinized they fail to follow even from the attitudes of realists.  But that's not an empirical claim!  The antirealist is replacing the question "What attitudes do persons actually have?" with the question "What personal attitudes stand up to scrutiny?", so withstanding scrutiny be ... (read more)

Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/10194 Reply

2015-05-14
Discussion on one of the other threads (“Toward a Uniform Vocabulary for Discussing Subjectivity”) has lately turned to neuro-aesthetics where it is only marginally relevant. So I wondered if perhaps the topic might deserve its own thread, especially given that aesthetics in all its forms is such a poor relation in analytic philosophy and generally gets so little attention.

I should explain my own position. I think neuro-aesthetics is bunkum. I won’t go into why for the moment – that will doubtless emerge as time goes on. I’m happy to suggest it as a topic, however, because (a) I’m aware it has many enthusiasts, (b) who knows? I may be wrong, (c) I think it warrants closer scrutiny than it usually seems to get, and (d) as I say, aesthetics in all its form gets very little attention anyway.

To encourage contributions, I should mention that I have an Achilles heel: I have read very little of the work by “leading” neuro-aestheticians. Some intellectual movements, I feel, have folly writte ... (read more)
Latest replies: Permanent link: http://philpapers.org/post/9967 Reply

 1 - 20 / 96