Related categories
Siblings:
12 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
  1. Edward Andrew (1999). The Cost of Nietzschean Values. New Nietzsche Studies 3 (3-4):63-76.
  2. Samantha Brennan & Jennifer Epp (forthcoming). Children’s Rights, Well-Being, and Sexual Agency. In Alexander Bagattini and Colin MacLeod (ed.), The Wellbeing of Children in Theory and Practice.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Bruce Brower (1998). Welfare, Happiness, and Ethics. Philosophical Review 107 (2):309-312.
  4. John Martin Fischer (2005). Free Will, Death, and Immortality: The Role of Narrative. Philosophical Papers 34 (3):379-403.
    In this paper I explore in a preliminary way the interconnections among narrative explanation, narrative value, free will, an immortality. I build on the fascinating an suggestive work of David Velleman. I offer the hypothesis that our acting freely is what gives our lives a distinctive kind of value - narrative value. Free Will, then, is connected to the capacity to lead a meaningful life in a quite specific way: it is the ingredient which, when aded to others, enows us (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Christel Fricke (ed.) (2011). The Ethics of Forgiveness: A Collection of Essays. Routledge.
    We are often pressed to forgive or in need of forgiveness: Wrongdoing is common. Even after a perpetrator has been taken to court and punished, forgiveness still has a role to play. How should a victim and a perpetrator relate to each other outside the courtroom, and how should others relate to them? Communicating about forgiveness is particularly urgent in cases of civil war and crimes against humanity inside a community where, if there were no forgiveness, the community would fall (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Irwin Goldstein (2003). Malicious Pleasure Evaluated: Is Pleasure an Unconditional Good? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 84 (1):24–31.
    Pleasure is one of the strongest candidates for an occurrence that might be good, in some respect, unconditionally. Malicious pleasure is one of the most often cited alleged counter-examples to pleasure’s being an unconditional good. Correctly evaluating malicious pleasure is more complex than people realize. I defend pleasure’s unconditionally good status from critics of malicious pleasure.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Irwin Goldstein (1989). Pleasure and Pain: Unconditional Intrinsic Values. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 50 (December):255-276.
    That all pleasure is good and all pain bad in itself is an eternally true ethical principle. The common claim that some pleasure is not good, or some pain not bad, is mistaken. Strict particularism (ethical decisions must be made case by case; there are no sound universal normative principles) and relativism (all good and bad are relative to society) are among the ethical theories we may refute through an appeal to pleasure and pain. Daniel Dennett, Philippa Foot, R M (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Irwin Goldstein (1988). The Rationality of Pleasure-Seeking Animals. In Sander Lee (ed.), Inquiries Into Value. Edwin Mellen Press.
    Reason guides pleasure-seeking animals in leading them to prefer pleasure to pain.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Laurence James (2005). Achievement and the Meaningfulness of Life. Philosophical Papers 34 (3):429-442.
    In this paper I present a novel account of achievement and I argue that, all other things being equal, the presence of this particular type of achievement (an ‘m-achievement’) in a person’s life makes that life more meaningful. In arguing for this conclusion, I explore the connections between m-achievements and a person’s self-conception and especially the idea that m-achievements provide a reason for the revision of one’s self-conception.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Elinor Mason (2013). Objectivism and Prospectivism About Rightness. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 7 (2).
    In this paper I present a new argument for prospectivism: the view that, for a consequentialist, rightness depends on what is prospectively best rather than what would actually be best. Prospective bestness depends on the agent’s epistemic position, though exactly how that works is not straightforward. I clarify various possible versions of prospectivism, which differ in how far they go in relativizing to the agent’s limitations. My argument for prospectivism is an argument for moderately objective prospectivism, according to which the (...)
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Mozaffar Qizilbash (2000). Comparability of Values, Rough Equality, and Vagueness: Griffin and Broome on Incommensurability. Utilitas 12 (02):223-.
    There are several different forms of comparability involving prudential values. Comparisons of values in the abstract, of realizations of some value, and of options which realize values, are distinct, and related, though not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, if rough equality is thought of as an evaluative relation in terms of which comparisons can be made, it does not imply incomparability. If it involves epistemic vagueness, this does not imply incomparability, since our not knowing which relation holds does not imply that no (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Julie Tannenbaum (2010). Categorizing Goods. In Russ Shafer-Landau (ed.), Oxford Studies in Metaethics. Vol 5. Oxford University Press.
    Historically the terms “final,” “unconditional,” and “intrinsic” have played a foundational role in ethical theory. I argue that final/instrumental distinction is best understood in terms of the for-sake-of relation and involves a tri-part division of goods. I show that this first way of categorizing goods is more closely aligned with a second way of categorizing goods in terms of intrinsic/extrinsic goods than has thus far been acknowledged. Lastly, I distinguish yet a third way of categorizing goods: unconditional/conditional goods. While the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation