Search results for 'Priority View' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Desktop View, Desktop View.score: 120.0
    Zuckerberg almost always tells users that change is hard, often referring back to the early days of Facebook when it had barely any of the features people know and love today. He says sharing and a more open and connected world are had barely any of the features people know and love today. He says sharing and a more open and connected world are good, and often he says he appreciates all the feedback.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Thomas Porter (2012). In Defence of the Priority View. Utilitas 24 (03):349-364.score: 90.0
    In their paper ‘Why It Matters That Some Are Worse Off Than Others: An Argument against the Priority View’, Michael Otsuka and Alex Voorhoeve argue that prioritarianism is mistaken. I argue that their case against prioritarianism has much weaker foundations than it might at first seem. Their key argument is based on the claim that prioritarianism ignores the fact of the ‘separateness of persons’. However, prioritarianism, far from ignoring that fact, is a plausible response to it. It may (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. David McCarthy (2013). Risk-Free Approaches to the Priority View. Erkenntnis 78 (2):421-449.score: 90.0
    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, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Andrew Williams (2012). The Priority View Bites the Dust? Utilitas 24 (03):315-331.score: 60.0
    This article distinguishes between a telic and a deontic version of Derek Parfit's influential Priority View. Employing the distinction, it shows that the existence of variations in how intrapersonal and interpersonal conflicts should be resolved fails to provide a compelling case in favour of relational egalitarianism and against all pure versions of the Priority View. In addition, the article argues that those variations are better understood as providing counterevidence to certain distribution-sensitive versions of consequentialism.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Ingmar Persson (2001). Equality, Priority and Person-Affecting Value. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4 (1):23-39.score: 54.0
    Derek Parfit has argued that (Teleological) Egalitarianism is objectionable by breaking a person-affecting claim to the effect that an outcome cannot be better in any respect - such as that of equality - if it is better for nobody. So, he presents the Priorty View, i.e., the policy of giving priority to benefiting the worse-off, which avoids this objection. But it is here argued, first, that there is another person-affecting claim that this view violates. Secondly, Egalitarianism can (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Matthew Rendall (2013). Priority and Desert. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):939-951.score: 54.0
    Michael Otsuka, Alex Voorhoeve and Marc Fleurbaey have challenged the priority view in favour of a theory based on competing claims. The present paper shows how their argument can be used to recast the priority view. All desert claims in distributive justice are comparative. The stronger a party’s claims to a given benefit, the greater is the value of her receiving it. Ceteris paribus, the worse-off have stronger claims on welfare, and benefits to them matter more. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Michael Otsuka & Alex Voorhoeve (2009). Why It Matters That Some Are Worse Off Than Others: An Argument Against the Priority View. Philosophy and Public Affairs 37 (2):171-199.score: 45.0
  8. Derek Parfit (2012). Another Defence of the Priority View. Utilitas 24 (03):399-440.score: 45.0
    This article discusses the relation between prioritarian and egalitarian principles, whether and why we need to appeal to both kinds of principle, how prioritarians can answer various objections, especially those put forward by Michael Otsuka and Alex Voorhoeve, the moral difference between cases in which our acts could affect only one person or two or more people, veil of ignorance contractualism and utilitarianism, what prioritarians should claim about cases in which the effects of our acts are uncertain, the relative moral (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Roger Crisp (2011). In Defence of the Priority View: A Response to Otsuka and Voorhoeve. Utilitas 23 (1):105-108.score: 45.0
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. David McCarthy (2008). Utilitarianism and Prioritarianism II. Economics and Philosophy 24 (1):1-33.score: 45.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Wlodek Rabinowicz (2002). Prioritarianism for Prospects. Utilitas 14 (01):2-.score: 45.0
    The Interpersonal Addition Theorem, due to John Broome, states that, given certain seemingly innocuous assumptions, the overall utility of an uncertain prospect can be represented as the sum of its individual (expected) utilities. Given ‘Bernoulli's hypothesis’ according to which individual utility coincides with individual welfare, this result appears to be incompatible with the Priority View. On that view, due to Derek Parfit, the benefits to the worse off should count for more, in the overall evaluation, than the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Wlodek Rabinowicz, Prioritarianism and Uncertainty: On the Interpersonal Addition Theorem and the Priority View.score: 45.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Thomas Porter (2011). Prioritarianism and the Levelling Down Objection. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (2):197-206.score: 30.0
    I discuss Ingmar Persson’s recent argument that the Levelling Down Objection could be worse for prioritarians than for egalitarians. Persson’s argument depends upon the claim that indifference to changes in the average prioritarian value of benefits implies indifference to changes in the overall prioritarian value of a state of affairs. As I show, however, sensible conceptions of prioritarianism have no such implication. Therefore prioritarians have nothing to fear from the Levelling Down Objection.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. David McCarthy (2006). Utilitarianism and Prioritarianism I. Economics and Philosophy 22 (3):335-363.score: 30.0
    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  
  15. Lisa L. Fuller (2012). Priority-Setting in International Non-Governmental Organizations: It is Not as Easy as ABCD. Journal of Global Ethics 8 (1):5-17.score: 27.0
    Recently theorists have demonstrated a growing interest in the ethical aspects of resource allocation in international non-governmental humanitarian, development and human rights organizations (INGOs). This article provides an analysis of Thomas Pogge's proposal for how international human rights organizations ought to choose which projects to fund. Pogge's allocation principle states that ?an INGO should govern its decision making about candidate projects by such rules and procedures as are expected to maximize its long-run cost-effectiveness, defined as the expected aggregate moral value (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Michail M. Peramatzis (2011). Priority in Aristotle's Metaphysics. Oxford University Press.score: 27.0
    Michail Peramatzis presents a new interpretation of Aristotle's view of the priority relations between fundamental and derivative parts of reality, following ...
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Sam Baron (2014). The Priority of the Now. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly:0-0.score: 27.0
    This paper motivates and develops a new theory of time: priority presentism. Priority presentism is the view according to which (i) only present entities exist fundamentally and (ii) past and future entities exist, but they are grounded in the present. The articulation of priority presentism is an exercise in applied grounding: it draws on concepts from the recent literature on ontological dependence and applies those concepts in a new way, to the philosophy of time. The result, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Bruce H. Weber & John N. Prebble (2006). An Issue of Originality and Priority: The Correspondence and Theories of Oxidative Phosphorylation of Peter Mitchell and Robert J.P. Williams, 1961-1980. [REVIEW] Journal of the History of Biology 39 (1):125 - 163.score: 27.0
    In the same year, 1961, Peter D. Mitchell and Robert R.J.P. Williams both put forward hypotheses for the mechanism of oxidative phosphorylation in mitochondria and photophosphorylation in chloroplasts. Mitchell's proposal was ultimately adopted and became known as the chemiosmotic theory. Both hypotheses were based on protons and differed markedly from the then prevailing chemical theory originally proposed by E.C. (Bill) Slater in 1953, which by 1961 was failing to account for a number of experimental observations. Immediately following the publication (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Sharon R. Ford (2007). An Analysis of Properties in John Heil’s "From an Ontological Point of View&Quot;. In G. Romano & Malatesti (eds.), From an Ontological Point of View, SWIF Philosophy of Mind Review, Symposium. SWIF Philosophy of Mind Review.score: 24.0
    In this paper I argue that the requirement for the qualitative is theory-dependent, determined by the fundamental assumptions built into the ontology. John Heil’s qualitative, in its role as individuator of objects and powers, is required only by a theory that posits a world of distinct objects or powers. Does Heil’s ‘deep’ view of the world, such that there is only one powerful object (e.g. a field containing modes or properties which we perceive as manifest everyday objects) require the (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Klemens Kappel (1997). Equality, Priority, and Time. Utilitas 9 (02):203-.score: 24.0
    The lifetime equality view (the view that it is good if people's lives on the whole are equally worth living) has recently been met with the objection that it does not rule out simultaneous inequality: two persons may lead equally good lives on the whole and yet there may at any time be great differences in their level of well-being. And simultaneous inequality, it is held, ought to be a concern of egalitarians. The paper discusses this and related (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Nils Holtug (1999). Utility, Priority and Possible People. Utilitas 11 (01):16-.score: 24.0
    This paper discusses what the so-called Priority View implies regarding possible people. It is argued that this view is plausible when applied to fixed populations, but that, when applied to the issue of possible people, it faces certain difficulties. If it is claimed that possible people fall within the scope of the Priority View, we are led to the repugnant conclusion (and other counter-intuitive conclusions) at a faster pace than we are by, e.g., utilitarianism. And (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Benjamin Vilhauer (2008). Incompatibilism and Ontological Priority in Kant's Theory of Free Will. In Pablo Muchnik (ed.), Incompatibilism and Ontological Priority in Kant's Theory of Free Will.score: 24.0
    This paper concerns the role of the transcendental distinction between agents qua phenomena and qua noumena in Kant's theory of free will. It argues (1) that Kant's incompatibilism can be accommodated if one accepts the "ontological" interpretation of this distinction (i.e. the view that agents qua noumena are ontologically prior to agents qua phenomena), and (2) that Kant's incompatibilism cannot be accommodated by the "two-aspect" interpretation, whose defining feature is the rejection of the ontological priority of agents qua (...)
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Rui Nunes & Guilhermina Rego (2013). Priority Setting in Health Care: A Complementary Approach. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis:1-12.score: 23.0
    Explicit forms of rationing have already been implemented in some countries, and many of these prioritization systems resort to Norman Daniels’ “accountability for reasonableness” methodology. However, a question still remains: is “accountability for reasonableness” not only legitimate but also fair? The objective of this paper is to try to adjust “accountability for reasonableness” to the World Health Organization’s holistic view of health and propose an evolutionary perspective in relation to the “normal” functioning standard proposed by Norman Daniels. To accomplish (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Larry S. Temkin (2003). Equality, Priority or What? Economics and Philosophy 19 (1):61-87.score: 21.0
    This paper aims to illuminate some issues in the equality, priority, or what debate. I characterize egalitarianism and prioritarianism, respond to the view that we should care about sufficiency or compassion rather than equality or priority, discuss the levelling down objection, and illustrate the significance of the distinction between prioritarianism and egalitarianism, establishing that the former is no substitute for the latter. In addition, I respond to Bertil Tungodden's views regarding the Slogan, the levelling down objection, the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Ghislain Guigon (2011). Spinoza on Composition and Priority. In Philip Goff (ed.), Spinoza on Monism. Palgrave Macmillan.score: 21.0
    This article has two goals: a historical and a speculative one. The historical goal is to offer a coherent account of Spinoza’s view on mereological composition. The speculative goal is to show that Spinoza’s substance monism is distinct from versions of monism that are currently defended in metaphysics and that it deserves the attention of contemporary metaphysicians. Regarding the second goal, two versions of monism are currently defended and discussed in contemporary metaphysics: existence monism according to which there actually (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Anjan Chakravartty, Ontological Priority: The Conceptual Basis of Non-Eliminative, Ontic Structural Realism.score: 21.0
    The number of positions identified with structural realism in philosophical debates about scientific knowledge has grown significantly in the past decade, particularly with respect to the metaphysical or ‘ontic’ approach (OSR). In recent years, several advocates of OSR have proposed a novel understanding of it in order to side-step a serious challenge faced by its original formulation, eliminative OSR. I examine the conceptual basis of the new, noneliminative view, and conclude that it too faces a serious challenge, resulting in (...)
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Campbell Brown (2005). Priority or Sufficiency …or Both? Economics and Philosophy 21 (2):199-220.score: 21.0
    Prioritarianism is the view that we ought to give priority to benefiting those who are worse off. Sufficientism, on the other hand, is the view that we ought to give priority to benefiting those who are not sufficiently well off. This paper concerns the relative merits of these two views; in particular, it examines an argument advanced by Roger Crisp to the effect that sufficientism is the superior of the two. My aim is to show that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Hanan A. Alexander (2006). A View From Somewhere: Explaining the Paradigms of Educational Research. Journal of Philosophy of Education 40 (2):205–221.score: 21.0
    In this paper I ask how educational researchers can believe the subjective perceptions of qualitative participant-observers given the concern for objectivity and generalisability of experimental research in the behavioural and social sciences. I critique the most common answer to this question within the educational research community, which posits the existence of two (or more) equally legitimate epistemological paradigms—positivism and constructivism—and offer an alternative that places a priority in educational research on understanding the purposes and meanings humans attribute to educational (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Joel M. Potter (2012). Arguments From the Priority of Feeling From Contemporary Emotion Theory and Max Scheler's Phenomenology. Quaestiones Disputatae 3 (1):215-225.score: 21.0
    Many so-called “cognitivist” theories of the emotions account for the meaningfulness of emotions in terms of beliefs or judgments that are associated or identified with these emotions. In recent years, a number of analytic philosophers have argued against these theories by pointing out that the objects of emotions are sometimes meaningfully experienced before one can take a reflective stance toward them. Peter Goldie defends this point of view in his book The Emotions: A Philosophical Exploration. Goldie argues that emotions (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Martin Peterson & Sven Ove Hansson (2005). Equality and Priority. Utilitas 17 (3):299-309.score: 21.0
    This article argues that, contrary to the received view, prioritarianism and egalitarianism are not jointly incompatible theories in normative ethics. By introducing a distinction between weighing and aggregating, the authors show that the seemingly conflicting intuitions underlying prioritarianism and egalitarianism are consistent. The upshot is a combined position, equality-prioritarianism, which takes both prioritarian and egalitarian considerations into account in a technically precise manner. On this view, the moral value of a distribution of well-being is a product of two (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Michael Huemer (2010). Lexical Priority and the Problem of Risk. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 91 (3):332-351.score: 21.0
    Some theories of practical reasons incorporate a lexical priority structure, according to which some practical reasons have infinitely greater weight than others. This includes absolute deontological theories and axiological theories that take some goods to be categorically superior to others. These theories face problems involving cases in which there is a non-extreme probability that a given reason applies. In view of such cases, lexical-priority theories are in danger of becoming irrelevant to decision-making, becoming absurdly demanding, or generating (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Marc Fleurbaey, Bertil Tungodden & Peter Vallentyne (2009). On the Possibility of Nonaggregative Priority for the Worst Off. Social Philosophy and Policy 26 (1):258-285.score: 21.0
    We shall focus on moral theories that are solely concerned with promoting the benefits (e.g., wellbeing) of individuals and explore the possibility of such theories ascribing some priority to benefits to those who are worse off—without this priority being absolute. Utilitarianism (which evaluates alternatives on the basis of total or average benefits) ascribes no priority to the worse off, and leximin (which evaluates alternatives by giving lexical priority to the worst off, and then the second worst (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Aysel Doğan (2011). On the Priority of the Right to the Good. Kant-Studien 102 (3):316-334.score: 21.0
    Rawls's view that the right is prior to the good has been criticized by various scholars from divergent points of view. Some contend that Rawls's teleological/deontological distinction based on the priority of the right is misleading while others claim that no plausible ethical theory can determine what is right prior to the good. There is no consensus on how to interpret the priority of right to the good; nor is there an agreement on the criteria of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Shai Frogel (2010). The Soul: An Existentialist Point of View. [REVIEW] Human Studies 33 (2):191-204.score: 21.0
    The debate in relation to the soul suffers nowadays from a great lack of clarity. At least part of this cloudiness stems from a confusion among three different viewpoints that are not always reconcilable or mutually intelligible: the scientific point of view (natural sciences and empirical psychology), the therapeutic point of view (especially psychoanalysis) and the philosophical point of view. The goal of this paper is to blow away a little this cloudiness, and to introduce into the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Juan D. Moreno-Ternero & John E. Roemer (2008). The Veil of Ignorance Violates Priority. Economics and Philosophy 24 (2):233-257.score: 21.0
    The veil of ignorance has been used often as a tool for recommending what justice requires with respect to the distribution of wealth. We complete Harsanyi's model of the veil of ignorance by appending information permitting objective comparisons among persons. In order to do so, we introduce the concept of objective empathy. We show that the veil-of-ignorance conception of John Harsanyi, so completed, and Ronald Dworkin's, when modelled formally, recommend wealth allocations in conflict with the prominently espoused view that (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Claudio Calosi (2013). Quantum Mechanics and Priority Monism. Synthese:1-14.score: 21.0
    The paper address the question of whether quantum mechanics (QM) favors Priority Monism, the view according to which the Universe is the only fundamental object. It develops formal frameworks to frame rigorously the question of fundamental mereology and its answers, namely (Priority) Pluralism and Monism. It then reconstructs the quantum mechanical argument in favor of the latter and provides a detailed and thorough criticism of it that sheds furthermore new light on the relation between parthood, composition and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. K. Baeroe & B. Bringedal (2011). Just Health: On the Conditions for Acceptable and Unacceptable Priority Settings with Respect to Patients' Socioeconomic Status. Journal of Medical Ethics 37 (9):526-529.score: 21.0
    It is well documented that the higher the socioeconomic status (SES) of patients, the better their health and life expectancy. SES also influences the use of health services—the higher the patients' SES, the more time and specialised health services provided. This leads to the following question: should clinicians give priority to individual patients with low SES in order to enhance health equity? Some argue that equity is best preserved by physicians who remain loyal to ‘ordinary medical fairness’ in non-ideal (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. John McKie, Rosalind Hurworth, Bradley Shrimpton, Jeff Richardson & Catherine Bell (2013). Priority Setting and Patient Adaptation to Disability and Illness: Outcomes of a Qualitative Study. [REVIEW] Health Care Analysis:1-17.score: 21.0
    The study examined the question of who should make decisions for a National Health Scheme about the allocation of health resources when the health states of beneficiaries could change because of adaptation. Eight semi-structured small group discussions were conducted. Following focus group theory, interviews commenced with general questions followed by transition questions and ended with a ‘focus’ or ‘key’ question. Participants were presented with several scenarios in which patients adapted to their health states. They were then asked their views about (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Anders Nordgren (2012). Remote Monitoring or Close Encounters? Ethical Considerations in Priority Setting Regarding Telecare. Health Care Analysis:1-15.score: 21.0
    The proportion of elderly in society is growing rapidly, leading to increasing health care costs. New remote monitoring technologies are expected to lower these costs by reducing the number of close encounters with health care professionals, for example the number of visits to health care centres. In this paper, I discuss issues of priority setting raised by this expectation. As a starting-point, I analyse the recent debate on principles for priority setting in Sweden. The Swedish debate illustrates that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. John I. Biro (2006). A Point of View on Points of View. Philosophical Psychology 19 (1):3-12.score: 18.0
    A number of writers have deployed the notion of a point of view as a key to the allegedly theory-resistant subjective aspect of experience. I examine that notion more closely than is usually done and find that it cannot support the anti-objectivist's case. Experience may indeed have an irreducibly subjective aspect, but the notion of a point of view cannot be used to show that it does.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Robert S. Taylor (2003). Rawls’s Defense of the Priority of Liberty: A Kantian Reconstruction. Philosophy and Public Affairs 31 (3):246–271.score: 18.0
    Rawls offers three arguments for the priority of liberty in Theory, two of which share a common error: the belief that once we have shown the instrumental value of the basic liberties for some essential purpose (e.g., securing self-respect), we have automatically shown the reason for their lexical priority. The third argument, however, does not share this error and can be reconstructed along Kantian lines: beginning with the Kantian conception of autonomy endorsed by Rawls in section 40 of (...)
    Direct download (11 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Hilan Bensusan & Manuel de Pinedo, Priority Monism, Physical Intentionality and the Internal Relatedness of All Things.score: 18.0
    Schaffer (2010) argues that the internal relatedness of all things, no matter how it is conceived, entails priority monism. He claims that a sufficiently pervasive internal relation among objects implies the priority of the whole, understood as a concrete object. This paper shows that at least in the case of an internal relatedness of all things conceived in terms of physical intentionality - one way to understand dispositions - priority monism not only doesn't follow but also is (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Tomas Bogardus (2009). A Vindication of the Equal-Weight View. Episteme 6 (3):324-335.score: 18.0
    Some philosophers believe that when epistemic peers disagree, each has an obligation to accord the other's assessment the same weight as her own. I first make the antecedent of this Equal-Weight View more precise, and then I motivate the View by describing cases in which it gives the intuitively correct verdict. Next I introduce some apparent counterexamples – cases of apparent peer disagreement in which, intuitively, one should not give equal weight to the other party's assessment. To defuse (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Robert S. Taylor (2012). Hate Speech, the Priority of Liberty, and the Temptations of Nonideal Theory. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 15 (3):353-68.score: 18.0
    Are government restrictions on hate speech consistent with the priority of liberty? This relatively narrow policy question will serve as the starting point for a wider discussion of the use and abuse of nonideal theory in contemporary political philosophy, especially as practiced on the academic left. I begin by showing that hate speech (understood as group libel) can undermine fair equality of opportunity for historically-oppressed groups but that the priority of liberty seems to forbid its restriction. This tension (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Brandon N. Towl, The Subset View of Realization: Five Problems.score: 18.0
    The Subset View of realization, though it has some attractive advantages, also has several problems. In particular, there are five main problems that have emerged in the literature: Double-Counting, The Part/Whole Problem, The “No Addition of Being” Problem, The Problem of Projectibility, and the Problem of Spurious Kinds. Each is reviewed here, along with solutions (or partial solutions) to them. Taking these problems seriously constrains the form that a Subset view can take, and thus limits the kinds of (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Eric Dietrich (2008). The Bishop and Priest: Toward a Point-of-View Based Epistemology of True Contradictions. Logos Architekton 2 (2):35-58..score: 18.0
    True contradictions are taken increasingly seriously by philosophers and logicians. Yet, the belief that contradictions are always false remains deeply intuitive. This paper confronts this belief head-on by explaining in detail how one specific contradiction is true. The contradiction in question derives from Priest's reworking of Berkeley's argument for idealism. However, technical aspects of the explanation offered here differ considerably from Priest's derivation. The explanation uses novel formal and epistemological tools to guide the reader through a valid argument with, not (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Susan Wolf (1999). Morality and the View From Here. Journal of Ethics 3 (3):203-223.score: 18.0
    According to one influential conception of morality, being moral is a matter of acting from or in accordance with a moral point of view, a point of view which is arrived at by abstracting from a more natural, pre-ethical, personal point of view, and recognizing that each person''s personal point of view has equal standing. The idea that, were it not for morality, rational persons would act from their respectively personal points of view is, however, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Steve Matthews (2010). Personal Identity, the Causal Condition, and the Simple View. Philosophical Papers 39 (2):183-208.score: 18.0
    Among theories of personal identity over time the simple view has not been popular among philosophers, but it nevertheless remains the default view among non philosophers. It may be construed either as the view that nothing grounds a claim of personal identity over time, or that something quite simple (a soul perhaps) is the ground. If the former construal is accepted, a conspicuous difficulty is that the condition of causal dependence between person-stages is absent. But this leaves (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Colin Klein (2013). Multiple Realizability and the Semantic View of Theories. Philosophical Studies 163 (3):683-695.score: 18.0
    Multiply realizable properties are those whose realizers are physically diverse. It is often argued that theories which contain them are ipso facto irreducible. These arguments assume that physical explanations are restricted to the most specific descriptions possible of physical entities. This assumption is descriptively false, and philosophically unmotivated. I argue that it is a holdover from the late positivist axiomatic view of theories. A semantic view of theories, by contrast, correctly allows scientific explanations to be couched in the (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000