9 found
Sort by:
Disambiguations:
Peter G. Woolcock [7]Peter Woolcock [2]
  1. Peter G. Woolcock (2013). Social Humanism: A New Metaphysics [Book Review]. Australian Humanist, The 109 (109):21.
    Woolcock, Peter G Review(s) of: Social humanism: A new metaphysics, by Brian Ellis, Routledge, New York, 2012. $120.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Peter G. Woolcock (2012). Are Science and Religion Natural Enemies? Australian Humanist, The 108 (108):1.
    Woolcock, Peter G A topic much exercising the minds of religious believers at the moment is whether or not science and religion are natural enemies. The Religion and Ethics program on the ABC's Radio National, for example, has recently provided access on its website to a series of articles on the topic, with titles such as Science or Naturalism? The Contradictions of Richard Dawkins; Christianity and the Rise of Western Science; Did Darwin Defeat God?; Does Science Make Belief in God (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Peter G. Woolcock (2006). Naturalistic Metaethics, External Reasons, and the Nature of Moral Argument. Journal of Philosophical Research 31:103-121.
    Desire-based accounts of practical argument about incompatible ends seem limited either to advice about means or to coercive threats. This paper argues that this can be avoided if the parties to the dispute desire its resolution by means other than force more than they desire the satisfaction of any particular ends. In effect, this means they must argue as if in a position of equal power. This leads to an explanation of the apparent objectivity of moral claims and of why (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Peter G. Woolcock (2005). Dale Jamieson's Morality's Progress: A Critical Review. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 20 (2-3):599-609.
  5. Peter G. Woolcock (2000). Objectivity and Illusion in Evolutionary Ethics: Comments on Waller. Biology and Philosophy 15 (1):39-60.
    In this paper I argue that any adequate evolutionary ethical theory needs to account for moral belief as well as for dispositions to behave altruistically. It also needs to be clear whether it is offering us an account of the motivating reasons behind human behaviour or whether it is giving justifying reasons for a particular set of behaviours or, if both, to distinguish them clearly. I also argue that, unless there are some objective moral truths, the evolutionary ethicist cannot offer (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Peter G. Woolcock (1999). The Case Against Evolutionary Ethics Today. In Michael Ruse & Jane Maienschein (eds.), Biology and the Foundation of Ethics. Cambridge University Press. 276--306.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Peter Woolcock (1995). Hunt and Berlin on Positive and Negative Freedom. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 73 (3):458 – 464.
  8. Peter Woolcock (1993). Ruse's Darwinian Meta-Ethics: A Critique. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 8 (4):423-439.
    Michael Ruse, in Taking Darwin Seriously seeks to establish that taking Darwin seriously requires us to treat morality as subjective and naturalistic. I argue that, if morality is not objective, then we have no good reason for being moral if we can avoid detection and punishment. As a consequence, we will only continue to behave morally as long as we remain ignorant of Ruse''s theory, that is, as long as the cat is not let out of the bag. Ruse offers (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Peter G. Woolcock (1993). Public Health-Consent Health Care Rationing: The Prior Consent Approach. Bioethics Research Notes 5:1.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation