7 found
Sort by:
  1. R. Eric Barnes (2012). Contractualism and the Foundations of Morality. [REVIEW] Australasian Journal of Philosophy 90 (4):815-818.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. R. Eric Barnes & Helen McCabe (2012). Should We Welcome a Cure for Autism? A Survey of the Arguments. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 15 (3):255-269.
    Substantial research efforts have been devoted to developing a cure for autism, but some advocates of people with autism claim that these efforts are misguided and even harmful. They claim that there is nothing wrong with people with autism, so there is nothing to cure. Others argue that autism is a serious and debilitating disorder and that a cure for autism would be a wonderful medical breakthrough. Our goal in this essay is to evaluate what assumptions underlie each of these (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. R. Eric Barnes (2010). Philosophy. Teaching Philosophy 33 (4):409-411.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. R. Eric Barnes (2000). Reefer Madness: Legal & Moral Issues Surrounding the Medical Prescription of Marijuana. Bioethics 14 (1):16–41.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. R. Eric Barnes (1998). Cooperation and Trust: Puzzles in Utilitarian and Contractarian Moral Theory. Dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
    An adequate moral theory must provide for cooperation and trust between moral agents, but a tension exists between cooperating and maximizing. This tension is prominent in utilitarianism and contractarianism . Various puzzles illustrate this tension, and both utilitarians and contractarians must solve these to present a coherent moral theory. These puzzles include new and resilient versions of classic objections to utilitarianism, such as the claims that utilitarian agents cannot be trusted to keep promises and cannot take rights seriously. They also (...)
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. R. Eric Barnes (1997). Rationality, Dispositions, and the Newcomb Paradox. Philosophical Studies 88 (1):1-28.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. R. Eric Barnes (1997). Constraint Games and the Orthodox Theory of Rationality. Utilitas 9 (03):329-.
    Moral theorists and game theorists are both interested in situations where rational agents are to constrain their future actions and co-operate with others instead of being free riders. These theorists have constructed a variety of hypothetical games which illuminate this problem of constraint. In this paper, I draw a distinction between like the Newcomb paradox and like Kavka's toxin puzzle, a prisoner's dilemma and Parfit's hitchhiker example. I then employ this distinction to argue that agents who subscribe to the orthodox (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation