Online research in philosophy

How can someone confidently believe that God exists, but also have moments of serious doubt about whether the belief is true? A religiously significant belief that God exists is a by-product of adopting a perceptual framing narrative which presupposes God's existence. Using such a narrative is a type of skilled performance that results in an awareness of theistic significance which may at times be disrupted. At such times, doubts may arise about theistic meanings, which can exist in tension with confidence (...) derived from using the theistic narrative as a practical guide. The relevant reflective question for believers with serious doubts is whether some alternative framing narrative is more believable and also capable of engaging them in a way of life. (shrink)

Introduction: Does anyone actually believe in God? -- Life-orienting stories -- God of the philosophers -- Reasons for believing in God -- Resistance and receptivity -- Belief as a practical issue -- Anthropomorphism and mystery -- Naturalistic stories -- Theistic and naturalistic morality -- Meaning and the limits of meaning -- Conviction, doubt, and humility.

Tom Carson’s recent paper on “Deception and Withholding Information in Sales” contains a critique of my contribution to sales ethics. In this response I outline the approach I develop in two earlier papers and address the four criticisms Carson makes. These criticisms are largely based on a misunderstanding of my position. I suggest that our fundamentally different approaches to applied ethics may lie at the root of Carson’s misunderstanding. Carson uses what I call a theory-application model in which the search (...) for justification interms of fundamental rules is central, while I attempt to contextualize ethical judgments and consider alternative ways of structuring social roles. In contrasting these approaches I raise the question of which way of doing applied ethics is likely to be more fruitful. (shrink)

Philosophical discussions of the conflict between morality and self-interest typically proceed on the assumption that we have a relatively unproblematic understanding of self-interest. That assumption can be challenged by asking how to relate acts of self-interest and acts of integrity. I argue that when we are talking about motivations, it is better to keep the motivation of self-interest distinct from the motivation of integrity. But the term “self-interest” can also be used to refer to an end, and acts of integrity (...) may sometimes serve the end of self-interest. Against an identity-independent conception of interests (which gives to acts of integrity a possible instrumental value in achieving some interests), I argue in favor of an identity-dependent conception of interests that makes interests relative to the evaluative perspective of someone with a particular identity that acts of integrity help to preserve. (shrink)

<span class='Hi'>Henry</span> Sidgwick regarded his failure to reconcile the claims of rational egoism with those of utilitarianism to reveal a fundamental contradiction within practical reason. However, the conflict that concerns him arises only in relation to a particular kind of agent. While Sidgwick construes his version of the problem to be a systematic formulation of a conflict that arises within the practical reasoning of ordinary people, it is actually an example of a worst-case scenario that reflects the common philosophical tendency (...) to deal with issues in their most challenging form. But such a transformation of ordinary conflicts between self-interest and morality into an insoluble philosophical problem obscures the nature of the more typical practical conflict. (shrink)

Moral intuitions vary with regard to how much information a salesperson needs to disclose to a potential buyer. Through an analysis of the social role of salesperson and ethical argument, it is established that there is a general obligation to disclose what a buyer would need to make a reasonable judgment about whether to purchase the product. This rule is interpreted and shown to be superior to alternatives when appropriately qualified.

Claims that life is God's property or that life is God's gift have been prominent among reasons for rejecting the choice of death as morally legitimate. This essay examines the worth of arguments based upon such claims, considering what assumptions these arguments would require and what implications an approach based on them might have for particular types of cases. The essay concludes with a reflection on the role of significant metaphors in moral judgment.