22 found
Sort by:
See also:
Profile: David McCarthy (University of Hong Kong)
  1. David McCarthy (forthcoming). Distributive Equality. Mind.
    Egalitarians think that equality in the distribution of goods somehow matters. But what exactly is egalitarianism? This article argues for a characterization based on novel principles essentially involving risk. The characterization is used to resolve disputed questions about egalitarianism, such as its compatibility with strong separability and its relation to other distributive theories. But egalitarianism is subject to a particularly severe form of the levelling down objection, and is claimed to be false.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. David McCarthy (forthcoming). The Structure of Good. Oxford University Press.
  3. David McCarthy (2013). Risk-Free Approaches to the Priority View. Erkenntnis 78 (2):421-449.
    Parfit advertised the priority view as a new and fundamental theory in the ethics of distribution. He never discusses risk, and many writers follow suit when discussing the priority view. This article formalizes two popular arguments for a commonly accepted risk-free definition of the priority view. One is based on a direct attempt to define the priority view, the other is based on a contrast with utilitarianism and egalitarianism. But neither argument succeeds, and more generally, it is not possible to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. David McCarthy (2009). The Family in Christian Social and Political Thought – By Brent Waters. Modern Theology 25 (1):139-141.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. David McCarthy (2008). Utilitarianism and Prioritarianism II. Economics and Philosophy 24 (1):1-33.
    A natural formalization of the priority view is presented which results from adding expected utility theory to the main ideas of the priority view. The result is ex post prioritarianism. But ex post prioritarianism entails that in a world containing just one person, it is sometimes better for that person to do what is strictly worse for herself. This claim may appear to be implausible. But the deepest objection to ex post prioritarianism has to do with meaning: ex post prioritarianism (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. David McCarthy (2007). Measuring Life's Goodness. Philosophical Books 48 (4):303-319.
    Philosophers often assume that we can somehow quantitatively measure how good things are for people. But what does such talk mean? And what are the measures? In *Weighing Goods* John Broome offers one treatment of these questions. In his later *Weighing Lives* he offers a different treatment. This article discusses both positions but advocates a third. But while the three positions disagree about matters of meaning, they agree about the form of the measures. Roughly speaking, they are such that the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. David M. McCarthy (2007). Divine Likeness: Toward a Trinitarian Anthropology of the Family - By Marc Cardinal Ouellet. Modern Theology 23 (4):629-631.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. David Matzko McCarthy (2007). Human Rights and the Image of God – Roger Ruston. Modern Theology 23 (1):142-144.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. David Matzko McCarthy & M. Therese Lysaught (eds.) (2007). Gathered for the Journey: Moral Theology in Catholic Perspective. William B. Eerdmans Pub..
    Life together : moral reasoning in theological context -- Pilgrim's progress : virtues and the goal of the journey -- The imitation of Christ : issues along the way.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. David McCarthy (2006). Utilitarianism and Prioritarianism I. Economics and Philosophy 22 (3):335-363.
    Utilitarianism and prioritarianism make a strong assumption about the uniqueness of measures of how good things are for people, or for short, individual goodness measures. But it is far from obvious that the presupposition is correct. The usual response to this problem assumes that individual goodness measures are determined independently of our discourse about distributive theories. This article suggests reversing this response. What determines the set of individual goodness measures just is the body of platitudes we accept about distributive theories. (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. David Matzko McCarthy (2004). Becoming One Flesh: Marriage, Remarriage, and Sex. In Stanley Hauerwas & Samuel Wells (eds.), The Blackwell Companion to Christian Ethics. Blackwell Pub..
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. James Keating & David M. Mccarthy (2003). Moral Theology with the Saints. Modern Theology 19 (2):203-218.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. David McCarthy (2002). Intending Harm, Foreseeing Harm, and Failures of the Will. Noûs 36 (4):622–642.
    Theoretical defenses of the principle of double effect (pde) due to Quinn, Nagel and Foot are claimed to face severe difficulties. But this leaves those of us who see something in the case-based support for the pde without a way of accounting for our judgments. This article proposes a novel principle it calls the mismatch principle, and argues that the mismatch principle does better than the pde at accounting for our judgments about cases and is also theoretically defensible. However, where (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. David McCarthy (2001). Why Sex Selection Should Be Legal. Journal of Medical Ethics 27 (5):302-307.
    Reliable medically assisted sex selection which does not involve abortion or infanticide has recently become available, and has been used for non-medical reasons. This raises questions about the morality of sex selection for non-medical reasons. But reasonable people continue to disagree about the answers to these questions. So another set of questions is about what the law should be on medically assisted sex selection for non-medical reasons in the face of reasonable disagreement about the morality of sex selection. This paper (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. David McCarthy (2000). Harming and Allowing Harm. Ethics 110 (4):749-779.
    The article takes as its starting point the assumption that (a) competing accounts of moral rules should be judged by the distribution of benefits and burdens which would arise from everyone accepting these rules, and that (b) these benefits and burdens are understood in a way which has a substantial resource or freedom-based component. This starting point is compatible with contractualism and various forms of rule consequentialism, and will yield a morality in which people have significant freedoms. The main claim (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. David Matzko McCarthy (2000). Sexual Utterances and Common Life. Modern Theology 16 (4):443-459.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. David McCarthy (1998). Actions, Beliefs, and Consequences. Philosophical Studies 90 (1):57-77.
    On the agent-relativity thesis, what an agent ought to do is a function of the evidence available to her about the consequences of her potential actions. On the objectivity thesis, what an agent ought to do is a function of what the consequences of her potential actions would be, regardless of the evidence available to her. This article argues for the agent-relativity thesis. The main opposing argument, due to Thomson, points to cases where a bystander can see that an agent (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Frank Arntzenius & David McCarthy (1997). Self Torture and Group Beneficence. Erkenntnis 47 (1):129-144.
    Moral puzzles about actions which bring about very small or what are said to be imperceptible harms or benefits for each of a large number of people are well known. Less well known is an argument by Warren Quinn that standard theories of rationality can lead an agent to end up torturing himself or herself in a completely foreseeable way, and that this shows that standard theories of rationality need to be revised. We show where Quinn's argument goes wrong, and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Frank Arntzenius & David McCarthy (1997). The Two Envelope Paradox and Infinite Expectations. Analysis 57 (1):42–50.
    The two envelope paradox can be dissolved by looking closely at the connection between conditional and unconditional expectation and by being careful when summing an infinite series of positive and negative terms. The two envelope paradox is not another St. Petersburg paradox and that one does not need to ban talk of infinite expectation values in order to dissolve it. The article ends by posing a new puzzle to do with infinite expectations.
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. David McCarthy (1997). Rights, Explanation, and Risks. Ethics 107 (2):205-225.
    Theories of rights seem well equipped to explain widely accepted claims about the morality of harming. But can they explain popular claims about the morality of imposing risks of harm? Many think not. But a plausible theory of rights can explain those claims if it says we have the right that others not impose risks of harm upon us. That is a good reason to believe we have that right. There are many objections to the claim that we have that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. David McCarthy (1996). Liability and Risk. Philosophy and Public Affairs 25 (3):238-262.
    Standard theories of liability say that X is liable to Y only if Y was harmed, only if X caused Y harm, and (usually) only if X was at fault. This article offers a series of criticisms of each of these claims, and use them to construct an alternative theory of liability in which the nature of X's having imposed a risk of harm on Y is central to the question of when X is liable to Y, and for how (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation