19 found
Sort by:
See also:
Profile: Stephen Kearns (Florida State University)
  1. Stephen Kearns & Daniel Star (forthcoming). Weighing Explanations. In Andrew Reisner & Iwao Hirose (eds.), Weighing and Reasoning: A Festschrift for John Broome. Oxford University Press.
  2. Stephen Kearns (2013). Free Will Agnosticism. Noûs 47 (2).
    I argue that no one knows whether there is free will.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Stephen Kearns (2013). Review of "Free Will and Modern Science&Quot;. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Stephen Kearns & Daniel Star (2013). Reasons, Facts‐About‐Evidence, and Indirect Evidence. Analytic Philosophy 54 (2):237-243.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Stephen Kearns & Daniel Star (2013). Weighing Reasons. Journal of Moral Philosophy 10 (1):70-86.
  6. Stephen Kearns (2012). Aborting the Zygote Argument. Philosophical Studies 160 (3):379-389.
    Alfred Mele’s zygote argument for incompatibilism is based on a case involving an agent in a deterministic world whose entire life is planned by someone else. Mele’s contention is that Ernie (the agent) is unfree and that normal determined agents are relevantly similar to him with regards to free will. In this paper, I examine four different ways of understanding this argument and then criticize each interpretation. I then extend my criticism to manipulation arguments in general. I conclude that the (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Stephen Kearns & Ofra Magidor (2012). Semantic Sovereignty. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 85 (2):322-350.
  8. Stephen Kearns (2011). Can a Thing Be Part of Itself? American Philosophical Quarterly.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Stephen Kearns (2011). Responsibility for Necessities. Philosophical Studies 155 (2):307-324.
    It is commonly held that no one can be morally responsible for a necessary truth. In this paper, I will provide various examples that cast doubt on this idea. I also show that one popular argument for the incompatibility of moral responsibility and determinism (van Inwagen’s Direct Argument) fails given my examples.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Stephen Kearns & Daniel Star (2011). On Good Advice: A Reply to McNaughton and Rawling. Analysis 71 (3):506-508.
  11. Stephen Kearns (2010). Ishtiyaque Haji, Incompatibilism's Allure: Principal Arguments for Incompatibilism. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 119 (3):391-394.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Stephen Kearns (2010). Review of Types and Tokens by Linda Wetzel. [REVIEW] Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Stephen Kearns (2009). Review of "The Metaphysics of Everday Life&Quot;. [REVIEW] Philosophical Review 118 (4):533-536.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Stephen Kearns (2009). The Metaphysics of Everyday Life. Philosophical Review 118 (4):533-535.
    No categories
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Stephen Kearns & Daniel Star (2009). Reasons as Evidence. Oxford Studies in Metaethics 4:215-42.
    In this paper, we argue for a particular informative and unified analysis of normative reasons. According to this analysis, a fact F is a reason to act in a certain way just in case it is evidence that one ought to act in that way. Similarly, F is a reason to believe a certain proposition just in case it is evidence for the truth of this proposition. Putting the relatively uncontroversial claim about reasons for belief to one side, we present (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Stephen Kearns (2008). Compatibilism Can Resist Prepunishment: A Reply to Smilansky. Analysis 68 (299):250–253.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Stephen Kearns & Ofra Magidor (2008). Epistemicism About Vagueness and Meta-Linguistic Safety. Philosophical Perspectives 22 (1):277-304.
    The paper challenges Williamson’s safety based explanation for why we cannot know the cut-off point of vague expressions. We assume throughout (most of) the paper that Williamson is correct in saying that vague expressions have sharp cut-off points, but we argue that Williamson’s explanation for why we do not and cannot know these cut-off points is unsatisfactory. -/- In sect 2 we present Williamson's position in some detail. In particular, we note that Williamson's explanation relies on taking a particular safety (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Stephen Kearns & Daniel Star (2008). Reasons: Explanations or Evidence? Ethics 119 (1):31-56.
  19. Stephen Kearns (2007). In Praise of Folly: A Reply to Blome-Tillmann. Analysis 67 (295):219–222.
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation