Online research in philosophy

This essay introduces and defends a new analysis of the concept of prudential value. According to this analysis, what it is for something to be good for you is for that thing to contribute to the appeal (that is, the intrinsic appealworthiness) of being in your position. After explaining this proposal, I argue that it fits well with our ways of talking about prudential value and well-being; enables promising analyses of the related concepts of luck, selfishness, self-sacrifice, and paternalism; preserves (...) the relationship between prudential value and the attitudes of concern, love, pity, and envy; and satisfies various other desiderata. I also highlight two ways in which the analysis is informative and can lead to progress in our substantive theorizing about the good life. (shrink)

In this paper I criticize the non-consequentialist Weighted Lottery (WL) solution to the choice between saving a smaller or a larger group of people. WL aims to avoid what nonconsequentialists see as consequentialism’s unfair aggregation by giving equal consideration to each individual’s claim to be rescued. In so doing, I argue, WL runs into another common objection to consequentialism: it is excessively demanding. WL links the right action with the outcome of a fairly weighted lottery, which means that an agent (...) can only act rightly if s/he has actually run the lottery. In many actual cases, this involves epistemic demands that can be almost impossible to meet. I argue that plausible moral principles cannot make such extreme epistemic demands. (shrink)

In this paper, I shall argue that the small-improvement argument, which is the standard objection to completeness, fails since some of the comparisons involved in the argument might be indeterminate. I shall defend this view from two objections due to Ruth Chang, namely the argument from phenomenology and the argument from perplexity. There are some other objections to the small-improvement argument that also hinge on claims about indeterminacy. John Broome argues that alleged cases of value incomparability are merely examples of (...) indeterminacy in the betterness relation. The main premiss of his argument is the much discussed collapsing principle. I shall offer a new counter-example to this principle and argue that Broome’s defence of the principle is not cogent. On the other hand, Nicolas Espinoza argues that the small-improvement argument fails due to the mere possibility of evaluative indeterminacy. I shall argue that his objection is unsuccessful. (shrink)

I argue that the Doctrine of Double Effect is accepted because of unreliable processes of belief-formation, making it unacceptably likely to be mistaken. We accept the doctrine because we more vividly imagine intended consequences of our actions than merely foreseen ones, making our aversions to the intended harms more violent, and making us judge that producing the intended harms is morally worse. This explanation fits psychological evidence from Schnall and others, and recent neuroscientific research from Greene, Klein, Kahane, and Schaich (...) Borg. It explains Mikhail and Hauser’s “universal moral grammar” and an interesting phenomenon about Double Effect cases noted by Bennett. When unequally vivid representations determine our decisions, we typically misjudge the merits of our options and make mistakes. So if Double Effect is a product of unequal vividness, it is likely to be mistaken. This argument, I claim, fits Berker’s specifications for good empirically grounded arguments in ethics. (shrink)