Online research in philosophy

The progression of theories suggested for our world, from ego- to geo- to helio-centric models to universe and multiverse theories and beyond, shows one tendency: The size of the described worlds increases, with humans being expelled from their center to ever more remote and random locations. If pushed too far, a potential theory of everything (TOE) is actually more a theories of nothing (TON). Indeed such theories have already been developed. I show that including observer localization into such theories is necessary and sufficient to avoid this problem. I develop a quantitative recipe to identify TOEs and distinguish them from TONs and theories in-between. This precisely shows what the problem is with some recently suggested universal TOEs.

This is a thesis about feasibility constraints for normative political theories. Political theorists talk about theories being 'utopian', 'ideal', 'abstracted', and more obviously pejoratively, 'impractical' and 'unrealistic'. They also talk about theories being 'non- ideal', 'practical' and 'realistic'. What exactly is at the heart of these charges? In the first chapter of this thesis, I discuss the emerging debate over ideal and non-ideal theory. I argue that the criticism of ideal theory is largely unjustified, but that it is important that theories intended to be action-guiding take feasibility constraints seriously. The main question I try to answer in the thesis is what exactly feasibility constraints for normative political theories consist in. I argue that there is a binary sense of feasibility (feasible, or not) that follows traditional discussions over the principle that 'ought implies can'. That is a useful sense, but it does not do all the work that feasibility constraints needs to do. Thus I defend a second, comparative sense of feasibility (more or less feasible). Most of the work of the thesis goes into elaborating these two senses of feasibility, establishing the kinds of facts that count against the feasibility of a proposal, and discussing the way feasibility assessments should be made in practice. In later chapters I consider whether those two senses of feasibility apply as well to collective agents as they do to individual agents. I also ask whether our cognitive and epistemic limitations affect our ability to make reliable feasibility assessments.

This paper addresses two worries that might be raised about contextualism in epistemology and that carry over to its moral analogues: that contextualism robs epistemology (and moral theory) of a proper subject-matter, and that contextualism robs knowledge claims (and moral claims) of their objectivity. Two theses are defended: (1) that these worries are appropriately directed at interestdependent theories in general rather than at contextualism in particular, and (2) that the two worries are over-stated in any case. Finally, the paper offers some considerations in favour of attributor contextualism over 'subject-sensitive invariantism', both in epistemology and in moral theory. But here we note an interesting result: the very considerations that support contextualism as a semantic thesis, threaten to rob that position of its anti-sceptical force.

An observer attempts to infer the unobserved ranking of two ideal objects, A and B, from observed rankings in which these objects are `accompanied' by `noise' components, C and D. In the first ranking, A is accompanied by C and B is accompanied by D, while in the second ranking, A is accompanied by D and B is accompanied by C. In both rankings, noisy-A is ranked above noisy-B. The observer infers that ideal-A is ranked above ideal-B. This commonly used inference rule is formalized for the case in which A,B,C,D are sets. Let X be a finite set and let be a linear ordering on 2X. The following condition is imposed on . For every quadruple (A,B,C,D)∈Y, where Y is some domain in (2X)4, if and , then . The implications and interpretation of this condition for various domains Y are discussed.

The nature of moral facts, and their relationship to rationality, imagination and sentiment, have been central and pressing issues in recent moral philosophy. In this paper, I discuss and criticise a meta-ethical theory put forward by Alison Denham, which views moral facts as being constituted by the responses of ideal, empathetic agents. I argue that Denham’s account is radically unstable, in that she has given us an account of the nature of such agents which is inconsistent with an independently plausible principle relating to concept acquisition. I go on to discuss one line of defence that Denham might employ, but argue that taking such a line entails abandoning what she takes to be an important advantage of her account over rival ideal-observer theories such as Michael Smith’s.

Part I of this essay described "Ought" and "Value" as forms of moral requiredness. Now in Part II, a description of the ideal conditions for veridical perceptions of moral requiredness are specified. This is done in the form of an ideal observer type of analysis. This analysis is defended against those who oppose naturalism by assuming a bifurcation between 'ought' and 'is' and those who accuse naturalism of a "naturalistic fallacy." It is argued that theistic versions of the ideal observer form of analysis exist in the Christian tradition in logically acceptable and plausible formulations. Specific illustrations are provided.

Examining the moral sense theories of Francis Hutcheson, David Hume, and Adam Smith, this essay shows that a moral sense or moral sentiments alone cannot identify appropriate morals. For this, the essay analyzes three defenses of sentimentalism against the relativism charge that a moral sense or moral sentiments vary across people, societies, cultures, or times. The first defense is the claim that there is a universal moral sense or universal moral sentiments. However, even if they exist, a moral sense or moral sentiments alone cannot identify appropriate morals. The second defense is to adopt a general viewpoint theory, which identifies moral principles by taking a general viewpoint. But it needs to employ reason, and even if not, it does not guarantee that we identify appropriate morals. The third defense is to adopt an ideal observer theory, which draws moral principles from sentimental reactions of an ideal observer. Yet it still does not show that a moral sense or moral sentiments alone can identify appropriate morals.

Moral response-dependent metaethical theories characterize moral properties in terms of the reactions of certain classes of individuals. Nick Zangwill has argued that such theories are flawed: they are unable to accommodate the motive of duty. That is, they are unable to provide a suitable reason for anyone to perform morally right actions simply because they are morally right. I argue that Zangwill ignores significant differences between various approvals, and various individuals, and that moral response-dependent theories can accommodate the motive of duty.

I argue that recent virtue theories (including those of Hursthouse, Slote, and Swanton) face important initial difficulties in accommodating the supererogatory. In particular, I consider several potential characterizations of the supererogatory modeled upon these familiar virtue theories (and their accounts of rightness) and argue that they fail to provide an adequate account of supererogation. In the second half of the paper I sketch an alternative virtue-based characterization of supererogation, one that is grounded in the attitudes of virtuous ideal observers, and that avoids the concerns raised in the first part of the paper.