Search results for 'Normative Toleration' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Melissa Williams & Jeremy Waldron (eds.) (2008). Nomos XLVIII: Toleration and Its Limits. NYU Press.score: 84.0
    Toleration has a rich tradition in Western political philosophy. It is, after all, one of the defining topics of political philosophy—historically pivotal in the development of modern liberalism, prominent in the writings of such canonical figures as John Locke and John Stuart Mill, and central to our understanding of the idea of a society in which individuals have the right to live their own lives by their own values, left alone by the state so long as they respect the (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Pauline Johnson (2000). Discourse Ethics and the Normative Justification of Tolerance. Critical Horizons 1 (2):281-305.score: 60.0
    The following paper considers the extent to which discourse ethics can adequately respond to Habermas' own call for normative justification for the expectation of tolerance. It concludes that discourse ethics is able to lend its services to the flagging fortunes of the idea of toleration, not by seeking to underscore this idea with rationally compelling argumentation,but by offering insights into the possibilities opened up to a life which accepts this principle.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Andrew Jason Cohen (2004). What Toleration Is. Ethics 115 (1):68-95.score: 54.0
    Attempting to settle various debates from recent literature regarding its precise nature, I offer a detailed conceptual analysis of toleration. I begin by isolating toleration from other notions; this provides us some guidance by introducing the eight definitional conditions of toleration that I then explicate and defend. Together, these eight conditions indicate that toleration is an agent’s intentional and principled refraining from interfering with an opposed other (or their behavior, etc.) in situations of diversity, where the (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Kevin Vallier (2013). Can Liberal Perfectionism Justify Religious Toleration? Wall on Promoting and Respecting. Philosophical Studies 162 (3):645-664.score: 54.0
    Toleration is perhaps the core commitment of liberalism, but this seemingly simple feature of liberal societies creates tension for liberal perfectionists, who are committed to justifying religious toleration primarily in terms of the goods and flourishing it promotes. Perfectionists, so it seems, should recommend restricting harmful religious practices when feasible. If such restrictions would promote liberal perfectionist values like autonomy, it is unclear how the perfectionist can object. A contemporary liberal perfectionist, Steven Wall, has advanced defense of religious (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Maria Paola Ferretti & Sune Lægaard (2013). A Multirelational Account of Toleration. Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (3):224-238.score: 54.0
    Toleration classically denotes a relation between two agents that is characterised by three components: objection, power, and acceptance overriding the objection. Against recent claims that classical toleration is not applicable in liberal democracies and that toleration must therefore either be understood purely attitudinally or purely politically, we argue that the components of classical toleration are crucial elements of contemporary cases of minority accommodation. The concept of toleration is applicable to, and is an important element of (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Andrew Shorten (2005). Toleration and Cultural Controversies. Res Publica 11 (3):275-299.score: 54.0
    Multicultural societies are far more likely than others to include minorities committed to the pursuit of practices that offend the majority, and treating the cultural commitments of all citizens fairly will require some set of guiding principles to distinguish tolerable ‘cultural controversies’ from intolerable ones. This paper does not directly address the moral question at stake here (i.e. demarcating the limits of toleration) but rather seeks to provide a politically justifiable normative argument to explain when tolerant restraint is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Andrew Jason Cohen (2007). What the Liberal State Should Tolerate Within its Borders. Canadian Journal of Philosophy 37 (4):479-513.score: 42.0
    Two normative principles of toleration are offered, one individual-regarding, the other group-regarding. The first is John Stuart Mill’s harm principle; the other is “Principle T,” meant to be the harm principle writ large. It is argued that the state should tolerate autonomous sacrifices of autonomy, including instances where an individual rationally chooses to be enslaved, lobotomized, or killed. Consistent with that, it is argued that the state should tolerate internal restrictions within minority groups even where these prevent autonomy (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Micah Schwartzman (2005). The Relevance of Locke's Religious Arguments for Toleration. Political Theory 33 (5):678 - 705.score: 42.0
    John Locke's theory of toleration has been criticized as having little relevance for politics today because it rests on controversial theological foundations. Although there have been some recent attempts to develop secular; or publicly accessible, arguments out of Locke's writings, these tend to obscure and distort the religious arguments that Locke used to defend toleration. More importantly, these efforts ignore the role that religious arguments may play in supporting the development of a normative consensus on the legitimacy (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Sune Lægaard (2013). Attitudinal Analyses of Toleration and Respect and the Problem of Institutional Applicability. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (2):n/a-n/a.score: 42.0
    Toleration and respect are types of relations between different agents. The standard analyses of toleration and respect are attitudinal; toleration and respect require subjects to have appropriate types of attitudes towards the objects of toleration or respect. The paper investigates whether states can sensibly be described as tolerant or respectful in ways theoretically relevantly similar to the standard analyses. This is a descriptive question about the applicability of concepts rather than a normative question about whether, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Emanuela Ceva (2012). Why Toleration Is Not the Appropriate Response to Dissenting Minorities' Claims. European Journal of Philosophy 21 (2).score: 42.0
    For many liberal democrats toleration has become a sort of pet-concept, to which appeal is made in the face of a myriad issues related to the treatment of minorities. Against the inflationary use of toleration, whether understood positively as recognition or negatively as forbearance, I argue that toleration may not provide the conceptual and normative tools to understand and address the claims for accommodation raised by at least one kind of significant minority: democratic dissenting minorities. These (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Andrew Sabl (2009). The Last Artificial Virtue: Hume on Toleration and Its Lessons. Political Theory 37 (4):511 - 538.score: 42.0
    David Hume’s position on religion is, broadly speaking, “politic”: instrumental and consequentialist. Religions should be tolerated or not according to their effects on political peace and order. Such theories of toleration are often rejected as immoral or unstable. The reading provided here responds by reading Hume’s position as one of radically indirect consequentialism. While religious policy should serve consequentialist ends, making direct reference to those ends merely gives free reign to religious-political bigotry and faction. Toleration, like Hume’s other (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Martha C. Nussbaum (2006). Radical Evil in the Lockean State: The Neglect of the Political Emotions. Journal of Moral Philosophy 3 (2):159-178.score: 36.0
    All modern liberal democracies have strong reasons to support an idea of toleration, understood as involving respect, not only grudging acceptance, and to extend it to all religious and secular doctrines, limiting only conduct that violates the rights of other citizens. There is no modern democracy, however, in which toleration of this sort is a stable achievement. Why is toleration, attractive in principle, so difficult to achieve? The normative case for toleration was well articulated by (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Mathieu Beirlaen, Christian Straßer & Joke Meheus (2013). An Inconsistency-Adaptive Deontic Logic for Normative Conflicts. Journal of Philosophical Logic 42 (2):285-315.score: 36.0
    We present the inconsistency-adaptive deontic logic DP r , a nonmonotonic logic for dealing with conflicts between normative statements. On the one hand, this logic does not lead to explosion in view of normative conflicts such as O A ∧ O ∼A, O A ∧ P ∼A or even O A ∧ ∼O A. On the other hand, DP r still verifies all intuitively reliable inferences valid in Standard Deontic Logic (SDL). DP r interprets a given premise set (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Ian Carter & Maria Paola Ferretti (2013). Introduction. Journal of Applied Philosophy 30 (3):191-194.score: 36.0
    In attempting to clarify both the concept of toleration and its role in contemporary society several authors have interpreted it as based on the notion of respect for persons. Persons are due respect as moral agents and as such should be allowed to make their own choices, even if the content of those choices meets with our disapproval. According to a classical understanding of toleration, one can be said to tolerate something if one disapproves of it (this is (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Magali Bessone, Gideon Calder & Federico Zuolo (forthcoming). How Groups Matter: Challenges of Toleration in Pluralistic Societies. Routledge.score: 36.0
    When groups feature in political philosophy, it is usually in one of three contexts: the redressing of past or current injustices suffered by ethnic or cultural minorities; the nature and scope of group rights; and questions around how institutions are supposed to treat a certain specific identity/cultural/ethnic group. What is missing from these debates is a comprehensive analysis of groups as both agents and objects of social policies. While this has been subject to much scrutiny by sociologists and social psychologists, (...)
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Rainer Forst (2001). Tolerance as a Virtue of Justice. Philosophical Explorations 4 (3):193 – 206.score: 30.0
    This article argues that the civic virtue of tolerance has to be understood as a virtue of justice. Based on an analysis of the concept of toleration and its paradoxes, it shows that toleration is a 'normatively dependent concept' that needs to take recourse to a conception of justice in order to solve these paradoxes. At the center of this conception of justice lies a principle of reciprocal and general justification with the help of which a distinction between (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Enzo Rossi (2013). Can Tolerance Be Grounded in Equal Respect? European Journal of Political Theory 12 (3):240-252.score: 30.0
    In this paper I argue that equal respect-based accounts of the normative basis of tolerance are self-defeating, insofar as they are unable to specify the limits of tolerance in a way that is consistent with their own commitment to the equal treatment of all conceptions of the good. I show how this argument is a variant of the long-standing ‘conflict of freedoms’ objection to Kantian-inspired, freedom-based accounts of the justification of systems of norms. I criticize Thomas Scanlon’s defence of (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Harry L. Moore (2008). Diversity in Society: Normative and Descriptive Considerations. [REVIEW] Frontiers of Philosophy in China 3 (3):464-476.score: 30.0
    Diversity in society can be viewed from two perspectives, normative and descriptive, both of which define how we think, discuss, and live. Normatively we are called to be responsible. This notion ideally depicts the vision of people of various backgrounds and beliefs living with an attitude of tolerance, respect, and the desire for justice. Descriptively, it is to recognize that people of diverse ethnic, social, economic, and philosophical backgrounds come together to live in various geographic locations, often resulting in (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Mitch Avila (2011). Human Rights and Toleration in Rawls. Human Rights Review 12 (1):1-14.score: 30.0
    In a Society of Peoples as Rawls conceives it, human rights function as “criteria for toleration.” This paper defends the conception of human rights that appears in Rawls’ The Law of Peoples as normatively and theoretically adequate. I claim that human rights function as criteria for determining whether or not a given society or legal system can be tolerated. As such, “human rights” are not themselves basic facts or judgments or ascriptions, but rather the means by which we collectively (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Richard J. Arneson, Value Pluralism Does Not Support Liberalism.score: 24.0
    Following hints in the writings of Isaiah Berlin, some political theorists hold that the thesis of value pluralism is true and that this truth provides support for political liberalism of a sort that prescribes wide guarantees of individual liberty.1 There are many different goods, and they are incommensurable. Hence, people should be left free to live their own lives as they choose so long as they don’t harm others in certain ways. In a free society there is a strong presumption (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Blain Neufeld (2005). Civic Respect, Political Liberalism, and Non-Liberal Societies. Politics, Philosophy and Economics 4 (3):275-299.score: 24.0
    One prominent criticism of John Rawls’s The Law of Peoples is that it treats certain non-liberal societies, what Rawls calls ‘decent hierarchical societies’, as equal participants in a just international system. Rawls claims that these non-liberal societies should be respected as equals by liberal democratic societies, even though they do not grant their citizens the basic rights of democratic citizenship. This is presented by Rawls as a consequence of liberalism’s commitment to the principle of toleration. A number of critics (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Joshua Mitchell, Religion is Not a Preference.score: 24.0
    The resurgence of religion around the globe poses a challenge for both empirical and normative social scientists. For the former, the question is whether the terms at their disposal are adequate to comprehend religious self-understanding and, therefore, human motivation and conduct. For the latter, the question is whether those terms confuse or clarify the way in which religion may be brought into public dialog without violating the tenets of pluralism or toleration. How, then, do social scientists of both (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Morag Patrick (2000). Liberalism, Rights and Recognition. Philosophy and Social Criticism 26 (5):28-46.score: 24.0
    The conviction that political recognition is accomplished through the extension and completion of the Enlightenment project of toleration is shared by some of the most influential political theorists of our time. John Rawls, Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka all formulate the issue of recognition as if it were a corollary of the principle of toleration based in equal liberty or dignity. This raises important issues which political thought must confront and engage with. Above all, it means reconsidering the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Michael Hamilton (2007). Freedom of Assembly, Consequential Harms and the Rule of Law: Liberty-Limiting Principles in the Context of Transition. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 27 (1):75-100.score: 24.0
    The consequences of restricting or not restricting the right to freedom of assembly are potentially magnified in transitional societies. Yet determining whether such consequences are indeed ‘harmful’, and whether their cost should be borne despite the harms caused, requires the elaboration of criteria which define what are valid and relevant harms. While a human rights framework can perform this task, open-textured rights standards prescribe neither the threshold of legal intervention nor the goals of transition. By extension, the rule of law—underpinned (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. David M. Rasmussen (2012). Conflicted Modernity. Journal of Philosophical Research 37 (Supplement):217-222.score: 24.0
    This paper will begin by clarifying the kind of context, which requires toleration. My point of departure is a characterization of modernity that both departs from the classical modern theory of secularization and draws from the current research on multiple modernities. Because of the more or less recent resurgence of religion we can no longer characterize toleration on the basis of a theory of secularization. This will lead to the definition of conflict and tolerance within the confines of (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Xavier Landes & Morten Ebbe Juul Nielsen (2012). Intra-Family Inequality and Justice. Dialogue 51 (3):437-466.score: 24.0
    In Dalton Conley argues that inequalities between siblings are larger than inequalities at the level of the overall society. Our article discusses the normative implications for institutions of this observation. We show that the question of state intervention for curbing intra-family inequality reveals an internal tension within liberalism between autonomy and toleration, which bears on the forms that the intervention of institutions may take. Despite the pros and cons of both commitments, autonomy-based liberalism appears more compatible with the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Lawrence Pasternack (2014). Kant’s Touchstone of Communication and the Public Use of Reason. Society and Politics 8 (1):78-91.score: 24.0
    Nearly all of the work that has been done on Kant’s conception of public reason has focused on its socio-political significance. John Rawls, Onora O’Neill and others have explored its relevance to a well ordered democracy, to pluralism, to toleration, and so on. However, the relevance of public reason for Kant is not limited to the socio-political. Kant repeatedly appeals to the “touchstone of communication” in relation to the normative side of his epistemology. The purpose of this paper (...)
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Samuel Scheffler (2010). Equality and Tradition: Selected Essays. OUP USA.score: 24.0
    This collection of essays by noted philosopher Samuel Scheffler combines discussion of abstract questions in moral and political theory with attention to the normative dimension of current social and political controversies. In addition to chapters on more abstract issues such as the nature of human valuing, the role of partiality in ethics, and the significance of the distinction between doing and allowing, the volume also includes essays on immigration, terrorism, toleration, political equality, and the normative significance of (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Lawrence B. Solum, Pluralism and Public Legal Reason.score: 24.0
    What role does and should religion play in the legal sphere of a modern liberal democracy? Does religion threaten to create divisions that would undermine the stability of the constitutional order? Or is religious disagreement itself a force that works to create consensus on some of the core commitments of constitutionalism--liberty of conscience, toleration, limited government, and the rule of law? This essay explores these questions from the perspectives of contemporary political philosophy and constitutional theory. The thesis of the (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. James Bohman (2003). Deliberative Toleration. Political Theory 31 (6):757-779.score: 22.0
    Political liberals now defend what Rawls calls the "inclusive view" of public reason with the appropriate ideal of reasonable pluralism. Against the application of such a liberal conception of toleration to deliberative democracy "the open view of toleration is with no constraints" is the only regime of toleration that can be democratically justified. Recent debates about the public or nonpublic character of religious reasons provide a good test case and show why liberal deliberative theories are intolerant and (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Glen Newey (2011). Toleration as Sedition. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy 14 (3):363-384.score: 22.0
    This paper examines and criticizes the defence of toleration due to John Rawls in Political Liberalism, and similar strategies mobilized in defence of toleration. It argues that the notion of the burdens of judgement, used by Rawls to defend his doctrine of reasonable pluralism, faces incoherence: schematically, either disagreement succumbs to reason, or vice versa. On similar grounds, reasonable disagreement defences of neutrality fail because of a double-mindedness about the relation between private judgements and public reason. This problem (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. H. Paetzold (2008). Review Essay: Respect and Toleration Reconsidered (Under Consideration: Rainer Forst's Toleranz Im Konflikt: Geschichte, Gehalt, Und Gegenwart Eines Umstrittenen Begriffs (Frankfurt Am Main: Suhrkamp, 2003) (English Translation Forthcoming, Cambridge University Press)). Philosophy and Social Criticism 34 (8):941-954.score: 22.0
    Toleration and respect belong to those concepts that in contemporary political debates are very frequently used, but also misused. This review article is an attempt to enter these discussions and clarify the meaning of the concepts. It is done through reference to the most advanced theory on toleration today, by the German philosopher Rainer Forst. Since his approach allows for ill-considered implications, in the final part of my article I introduce arguments that question some of them. It seems (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. M. Roshwald (2008). Toleration, Pluralism, and Truth. Diogenes 55 (3):25-34.score: 22.0
    This paper deals with three guiding principles of contemporary Western civilization. It explores the compatibility of Toleration, Pluralism and Truth, as well as their application to diverse domains of cultural activity and creation. There is no place for toleration, let alone pluralism, in the realm of logic and mathematics. Scientific conclusions allow diverse degrees of certainty. The realm of monotheistic religions excludes pluralism, but necessitates toleration. The domains of ethics and its related social institutions allow diversity in (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Maria Rosa Antognazza (2013). Leibniz’s Doctrine of Toleration: Philosophical, Theological and Pragmatic Reasons. In J. Parkin & T. Stanton (eds.), Natural Law and Toleration in the Early Enlightenment. Oxford University Press. 139-164.score: 21.0
    Leibniz is not commonly numbered amongst canonical writers on toleration. One obvious reason is that, unlike Locke, he wrote no treatise specifically devoted to that doctrine. Another is the enormous amount of energy which he famously devoted to ecclesiastical reunification. Promoting the reunification of Christian churches is an objective quite different from promoting the toleration of different religious faiths – so different, in fact, that they are sometimes even construed as mutually exclusive. Ecclesiastical reunification aims to find agreement (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Radosław Zyzik (2011). Normativity and Moral Psychology : The Social Intuitionist Model and a World Without Normative Moral Rules? In Jerzy Stelmach & Bartosz Brożek (eds.), The Normativity of Law. Copernicus Center Press.score: 19.0
    The paper pores over the recent conceptions of normative judgement developed against the background of advances in psychology and neuroscience. It begins by analyzing what normative claim of morality and law consists of before presenting and criticizing the Social Intuitionist Model of normative judgement developed by Jonathan Haidt. The model poses serious challenges for well-established normative concepts, and the concept of normativity as objective reason for action in particular. A question is asked of what the relationship (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Matthew S. Bedke (2012). Against Normative Naturalism. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (1):111 - 129.score: 18.0
    This paper considers normative naturalism, understood as the view that (i) normative sentences are descriptive of the way things are, and (ii) their truth/falsity does not require ontology beyond the ontology of the natural world. Assuming (i) for the sake of argument, I here show that (ii) is false not only as applied to ethics, but more generally as applied to practical and epistemic normativity across the board. The argument is a descendant of Moore's Open Question Argument and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Andrew Sepielli (2012). Normative Uncertainty for Non-Cognitivists. Philosophical Studies 160 (2):191-207.score: 18.0
    Normative judgments involve two gradable features. First, the judgments themselves can come in degrees; second, the strength of reasons represented in the judgments can come in degrees. Michael Smith has argued that non-cognitivism cannot accommodate both of these gradable dimensions. The degrees of a non-cognitive state can stand in for degrees of judgment, or degrees of reason strength represented in judgment, but not both. I argue that (a) there are brands of noncognitivism that can surmount Smith’s challenge, and (b) (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Bart Streumer (2008). Are There Irreducibly Normative Properties? Australasian Journal of Philosophy 86 (4):537-561.score: 18.0
    Frank Jackson has argued that, given plausible claims about supervenience, descriptive predicates and property identity, there are no irreducibly normative properties. Philosophers who think that there are such properties have made several objections to this argument. In this paper, I argue that all of these objections fail. I conclude that Jackson's argument shows that there are no irreducibly normative properties.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Thomas M. Besch (2010). Diversity and the Limits of Liberal Toleration. In Duncan Ivison (ed.), The Ashgate Research Companion to Multiculturalism. Ashgate.score: 18.0
    To fully respond to the demands of multiculturalism, a view of toleration would need to duly respect diversity both at the level of the application of principles of toleration and at the level of the justificatory foundations that a view of toleration may appeal to. The paper examines Rainer Forst’s post-Rawlsian, ‘reason-based’ attempt to provide a view of toleration that succeeds at these two levels and so allows us to tolerate tolerantly. His account turns on the (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Philippe Mongin (2006). A Concept of Progress for Normative Economics. Economics and Philosophy 22 (1):19-54.score: 18.0
    The paper discusses the sense in which the changes undergone by normative economics in the twentieth century can be said to be progressive. A simple criterion is proposed to decide whether a sequence of normative theories is progressive. This criterion is put to use on the historical transition from the new welfare economics to social choice theory. The paper reconstructs this classic case, and eventually concludes that the latter theory was progressive compared with the former. It also briefly (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Bart Streumer (2013). Why There Really Are No Irreducibly Normative Properties. In David Bakhurst, Brad Hooker & Margaret Olivia Little (eds.), Thinking about Reasons: Themes from the Philosophy of Jonathan Dancy. OUP. 310-336.score: 18.0
    Jonathan Dancy thinks that there are irreducibly normative properties. Frank Jackson has given a well-known argument against this view, and I have elsewhere defended this argument against many objections, including one made by Dancy. But Dancy remains unconvinced. In this chapter, I hope to convince him.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Pekka Väyrynen (2013). Grounding and Normative Explanation. Aristotelian Society Supplementary Volume 87 (1):155-178.score: 18.0
    This paper concerns non-causal normative explanations such as ‘This act is wrong because/in virtue of__’ (where the blank is often filled out in non-normative terms, such as ‘it causes pain’). The familiar intuition that normative facts aren't brute or ungrounded but anchored in non-normative facts seems to be in tension with the equally familiar idea that no normative fact can be fully explained in purely non-normative terms. I ask whether the tension could be resolved (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Kimberley Brownlee (2009). Normative Principles and Practical Ethics: A Response to O'Neill. Journal of Applied Philosophy 26 (3):231-237.score: 18.0
    abstract This article briefly examines Onora O'Neill's account of the relation between normative principles and practical ethical problems with an eye to suggesting that philosophers of practical ethics have reason to adopt fairly high moral ambitions to be edifying and instructive both as educators and as advisors on public policy debates.
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Katinka Quintelier, Linda van Speybroeck & Johan Braeckman (2011). Normative Ethics Does Not Need a Foundation: It Needs More Science. Acta Biotheoretica 59 (1):29-51.score: 18.0
    The impact of science on ethics forms since long the subject of intense debate. Although there is a growing consensus that science can describe morality and explain its evolutionary origins, there is less consensus about the ability of science to provide input to the normative domain of ethics. Whereas defenders of a scientific normative ethics appeal to naturalism, its critics either see the naturalistic fallacy committed or argue that the relevance of science to normative ethics remains undemonstrated. (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Andrew Reisner (forthcoming). Normative Conflicts and the Structure of Normativity. In Iwao Hirose & Andrew Reisner (eds.), Weighing and Reasoning: A Festschrift for John Broome.score: 18.0
    This paper considers the relation between the sources of normativity, reasons, and normative conflicts. It argues that common views about how normative reasons relate to their sources have important consequences for how we can understand putative normative conflicts.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Pascal Engel (2000). Wherein Lies the Normative Dimension in Meaning and Mental Content? Philosophical Studies 100 (3):305-321.score: 18.0
    This paper argues that the normative dimension in mental and semantic content is not a categorical feature of content, but an hypothetical one, relative to the features of the interpretation of thoughts and meaning. The views of Robert Brandom are discussed. The thesis defended in this paper is not interpretationist about thought. It implies that the normative dimension of content arises from the real capacity of thinkers and speakers to self ascribe thoughts to themselves and to reach self (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Paul E. Griffiths (2004). Emotions as Natural and Normative Kinds. Philosophy of Science 71 (5):901-911.score: 18.0
    In earlier work I have claimed that emotion and some emotions are not `natural kinds'. Here I clarify what I mean by `natural kind', suggest a new and more accurate term, and discuss the objection that emotion and emotions are not descriptive categories at all, but fundamentally normative categories.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Samuel Clark (2009). No Abiding City: Hume, Naturalism, and Toleration. Philosophy 84 (1):75-94.score: 18.0
    This paper rereads David Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion as dramatising a distinctive, naturalistic account of toleration. I have two purposes in mind: first, to complete and ground Hume's fragmentary explicit discussion of toleration; second, to unearth a potentially attractive alternative to more recent, Rawlsian approaches to toleration. To make my case, I connect Dialogues and the problem of toleration to the wider themes of naturalism, scepticism and their relation in Hume's thought, before developing a new (...)
    Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Chauncey Maher (2011). Action Individuation: A Normative Functionalist Approach. Philosophical Explorations 14 (1):99-116.score: 18.0
    How or in virtue of what does any one particular action differ from another? Available views on the issue of action individuation tend to emphasize the descriptive features of actions, such as where and when they occur, or what they cause or are caused by. I contend instead that actions are individuated by their normative features, such as what licenses them and what they license in turn. In this essay, deploying a suggestion from Sellars and Brandom, I argue specifically (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Bart Streumer (2011). Are Normative Properties Descriptive Properties? Philosophical Studies 154 (3):325 - 348.score: 18.0
    Some philosophers think that normative properties are identical to descriptive properties. In this paper, I argue that this entails that it is possible to say which descriptive properties normative properties are identical to. I argue that Frank Jackson's argument to show that this is possible fails, and that the objections to this argument show that it is impossible to say which descriptive properties normative properties are identical to. I conclude that normative properties are not identical to (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000