Search results for 'levelling down objection' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
  1. Thomas Porter (2011). Prioritarianism and the Levelling Down Objection. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (2):197-206.score: 180.0
    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  
  2. Ingmar Persson (2008). Why Levelling Down Could Be Worse for Prioritarianism Than for Egalitarianism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 11 (3):295 - 303.score: 132.0
    Derek Parfit has argued that, in contrast to prioritarianism, egalitarianism is exposed to the levelling down objection, i.e., the objection that it is absurd that a change which consists merely in the betteroff losing some of their well-being should be in one way for the better. In reply, this paper contends that (1) there is a plausible form of egalitarianism which is equivalent to another form of prioritarianism than the Parfitian one, a relational rather than an (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. Ingmar Persson (2011). Prioritarianism, Levelling Down and Welfare Diffusion. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 14 (3):307-311.score: 132.0
    I have earlier argued that, like egalitarianism, prioritarianism is exposed to the levelling down objection—which I do not find serious—but also that it faces related, more serious objections that egalitarianism avoids. In this paper I reply to Thomas Porter’s attempt to rebut this argument. I also trace the more serious objections to prioritarianism to the fact that it implies the desirability of welfare diffusion, i.e. that it is better all things considered if a quantity of welfare is (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. Brett Doran (2001). Reconsidering the Levelling-Down Objection Against Egalitarianism. Utilitas 13 (01):65-.score: 120.0
    The levelling-down objection rejects the egalitarian view that it is intrinsically good to eliminate the inequality of an outcome by lowering the relevant good of those better off to the level of those worse off. Larry Temkin suggests that the position underlying this objection is an exclusionary version of the person-affecting view, in which an outcome can be better or worse only if persons are affected for better or worse. Temkin then defends egalitarianism by rejecting this (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Joseph Raz (2009). On the Value of Distributional Equality. In Stephen De Wijze, Matthew H. Kramer & Ian Carter (eds.), Hillel Steiner and the Anatomy of Justice: Themes and Challenges. Routledge.score: 90.0
    The paper returns to the question whether equality in distribution is valuable in itself, or, if you like, whether it is intrinsically valuable. Its bulk is an examination of two familiar arguments against the intrinsic value of distributional equality: the levelling down objection and the objection that equality violates some person-affecting condition, in that its realisation does not improve the lot of people.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Nils Holtug (1998). Egalitarianism and the Levelling Down Objection. Analysis 58 (2):166–174.score: 90.0
  7. Andrew Mason (2001). Egalitarianism and the Levelling Down Objection. Analysis 61 (3):246–254.score: 90.0
    In an important piece of work Derek Parfit distinguishes two different forms of egalitarianism, ‘Deontic’ and ‘Telic’ (Parfit 1995; see also Parfit 1997). He contrasts these with what he calls the Priority View, which is not strictly a form of egalitarianism at all, since it is not essentially concerned with how well off people are relative to each other. His main aim is to generate an adequate taxonomy of the positions available, but in the process he draws attention to some (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Thomas Christiano (2005). An Argument for Egalitarian Justice and Against the Levelling-Down Objection. In Joseph Keim Campbell, Michael O'Rourke & David Shier (eds.), Law and Social Justice. Mit Press. 3--41.score: 90.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Priority Equality & Levelling Down (2004). International Journal of Ethics ISSN 1535-4776 Volume 4 Number 1, Pp. 77-88© 2004 Nova Science Publishers, Inc. International Journal of Ethics: Ije 4:77.score: 80.0
    No categories
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Thomas Christiano & Will Braynen (2008). Inequality, Injustice and Levelling Down. Ratio 21 (4):392-420.score: 72.0
    The levelling down objection is the most serious objection to the principle of equality, but we think it can be conclusively defeated. It is serious because it pits the principle of equality squarely against the welfares of the persons whose welfares or resources are equalized. It suggests that there is something perverse about the principle of equality. In this paper, we argue that levelling down is not an implication of the principle of equality. To (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Re'em Segev (2009). Second-Order Equality and Levelling Down. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (3):425 – 443.score: 72.0
    Many think that equality is an intrinsic value. However, this view, especially when based on a consequential foundation, faces familiar objections related to the claim that equality is sometimes good for none and bad for some: most notably the levelling down objection. This article explores a unique (consequential) conception of equality, as part of a more general conception of fairness concerning the resolution of interpersonal conflicts, which is not exposed to these objections.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Oscar Horta (2010). Igualitarismo, igualación a la baja, antropocentrismo y valor de la vida. Revista de Filosofía (Madrid) 35 (1):133-152.score: 58.0
    Axiological egalitarianism claims that an outcome improves at least in some respect if the value it contains is more evenly distributed. In this paper I defend this form of egalitarianism and identify some of its corollaries. First, I consider and reject the levelling down objection. I then point out that egalitarianism casts doubt on the traditional view of the value of life in terms of maximization. Further, I argue that this theory also questions anthropocentric conceptions of value.
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. David McCarthy (forthcoming). Distributive Equality. Mind.score: 58.0
    Egalitarians think that equality in the distribution of goods somehow matters. But what exactly is egalitarianism? This article argues for a characterization based on novel principles essentially involving risk. The characterization is used to resolve disputed questions about egalitarianism, such as its compatibility with strong separability and its relation to other distributive theories. But egalitarianism is subject to a particularly severe form of the levelling down objection, and is claimed to be false.
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Campbell Brown (2003). Giving Up Levelling Down. Economics and Philosophy 19 (1):111-134.score: 42.0
  15. Jonathan Wolff, Levelling Down.score: 42.0
    No categories
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. Patrick Lenta & Douglas Farland (2008). Desert, Justice and Capital Punishment. Criminal Law and Philosophy 2 (3):273-290.score: 40.0
    Our purpose in this paper is to consider a procedural objection to the death penalty. According to this objection, even if the death penalty is deemed, substantively speaking, a morally acceptable punishment for at least some murderers, since only a small proportion of those guilty of aggravated murder are sentenced to death and executed, while the majority of murderers escape capital punishment as a result of arbitrariness and discrimination, capital punishment should be abolished. Our targets in this paper (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Larry S. Temkin (2005). Thinking About the Needy: A Reprise. [REVIEW] Journal of Ethics 8 (4):409 - 458.score: 38.7
    This article discusses Jan Narvesons Welfare and Wealth, Poverty and Justice in Todays World, and Is World Poverty a Moral Problem for the Wealthy? and their relation to my Thinking about the Needy, Justice, and International Organizations. Section 2 points out that Narvesons concerns differ from mine, so that often his claims and mine fail to engage each other. For example, his focus is on the poor, mine the needy, and while many poor are needy, and vice versa, our obligations (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Julia Tanner (2009). The Argument From Marginal Cases and the Slippery Slope Objection. Environmental Values 18 (1):51-66.score: 32.0
    Rationality (or something similar) is usually given as the relevant difference between all humans and animals; the reason humans do but animals do not deserve moral consideration. But according to the Argument from Marginal Cases not all humans are rational, yet if such (marginal) humans are morally considerable despite lacking rationality it would be arbitrary to deny animals with similar capacities a similar level of moral consideration. The slippery slope objection has it that although marginal humans are not strictly (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Ingmar Persson (2001). Equality, Priority and Person-Affecting Value. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 4 (1):23-39.score: 31.0
    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 be construed (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Larry S. Temkin (2003). Equality, Priority or What? Economics and Philosophy 19 (1):61-87.score: 30.0
    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 (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Karsten Klint Jensen (2003). What is the Difference Between (Moderate) Egalitarianism and Prioritarianism? Economics and Philosophy 19 (1):89-109.score: 30.0
    It is common to define egalitarianism in terms of an inequality ordering, which is supposed to have some weight in overall evaluations of outcomes. Egalitarianism, thus defined, implies that levelling down makes the outcome better in respect of reducing inequality; however, the levelling down objection claims there can be nothing good about levelling down. The priority view, on the other hand, does not have this implication. This paper challenges the common view. The standard (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Marc Ramsay (2005). Teleological Egalitarianism Vs. The Slogan. Utilitas 17 (1):93-116.score: 30.0
    The Slogan holds that one situation cannot be worse (or better) than another unless there is someone for whom it is worse (or better). This principle appears to provide the basis for the levelling-down objection to teleological egalitarianism. Larry Temkin, however, argues that the Slogan is not a plausible moral ideal, since it stands against not just teleological egalitarianism, but also values such as freedom, rights, autonomy, virtue and desert. I argue that the Slogan is a plausible (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Iwao Hirose (2009). Reconsidering the Value of Equality. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 87 (2):301-312.score: 30.0
    Some people believe that the equality of people's well-being makes an outcome better, other things being constant. Call this Telic Egalitarianism. In this paper I will propose a new interpretation of Telic Egalitarianism, and compare it with the interpretation that is proposed by Derek Parfit 1995 and widely accepted by many philosophers. I will argue that my proposed interpretation is more plausible than Parfit's. One of the virtues in my interpretation is that it shows his Levelling Down (...) does not undermine Telic Egalitarianism. I also believe that my interpretation better explains the important similarity and difference between Telic Egalitarianism and his proposed Priority View. (shrink)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Nils Holtug (2007). A Note on Conditional Egalitarianism. Economics and Philosophy 23 (1):45-63.score: 30.0
    Roughly, according to conditional egalitarianism, equality is non-instrumentally valuable, but only if it benefits at least one individual. Some political theorists have argued that conditional egalitarianism has the important virtue that it allows egalitarians to avoid the so-called objection. However, in the present article I argue that conditional egalitarianism does not offer the egalitarian a plausible escape route from this objection. First, I explain the levelling down objection and suggest some particular concerns from which it (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Caj Strandberg (2001). Two Conceptions of Inequality. Philosophical Papers 30 (2):169–199.score: 30.0
    Abstract Following Temkin's Inequality I take my point of departure in an individualistic approach according to which a situation is bad in respect of inequality to the extent individuals in it have egalitarian complaints. After having criticised some of Temkin's notions of inequality, I argue that there are two proper egalitarian conceptions, the Equal Share Conception and the Place Conception. The first concerns how much welfare an individual can claim to have in order to have what she should have in (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Ingmar Persson (2012). Prioritarianism and Welfare Reductions. Journal of Applied Philosophy 29 (3):289-301.score: 30.0
    Derek Parfit has argued that egalitarianism is exposed to a levelling down objection because it implies, implausibly, that a change, which consists only in the better-off sinking to the level of the worse-off, is in one respect better, though it is better for nobody. He claims that, in contrast, the prioritarian view that benefits to the worse-off have greater moral weight escapes this objection. This article contends, first, that prioritarianism is equally affected by the levelling (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. O. F. Norheim (2009). A Note on Brock: Prioritarianism, Egalitarianism and the Distribution of Life Years. Journal of Medical Ethics 35 (9):565-569.score: 30.0
    The moral philosopher Dan Brock has argued that equality of health outcomes “even if achievable” is problematic as a goal in its own right—because it is open to the levelling down objection. The levelling down objection to egalitarianism has received surprisingly little attention in the bioethics literature on distribution of health and healthcare and deserves more attention. This paper discusses and accepts an example given by Brock showing that prioritarianism and egalitarianism may judge distributions (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Iwao Hirose, Equality, Priority, and Aggregation.score: 30.0
    In this dissertation, I discuss two distributive principles in moral philosophy: Derek Parfit's Prioritarianism and Egalitarianism. I attempt to defend a version of Egalitarianism, which I call Weighted Egalitarianism. Although Parfit claims that Egalitarianism is subject to what he calls the Levelling Down Objection, I show (a) that my proposed Weighted Egalitarianism is not subject to the Objection, and (b) that it gives priority to the worse off people. The real difference between the two principles lies (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Ben Kotzee (2013). Educational Justice, Epistemic Justice, and Leveling Down. Educational Theory 63 (4):331-350.score: 26.7
    Harry Brighouse and Adam Swift argue that education is a positional good; this, they hold, implies that there is a qualified case for leveling down educational provision. In this essay, Ben Kotzee discusses Brighouse and Swift's argument for leveling down. He holds that the argument fails in its own terms and that, in presenting the problem of educational justice as one of balancing education's positional and nonpositional benefits, Brighouse and Swift lose sight of what a consideration of the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Dean Wyatte, Seth Herd, Brian Mingus & Randall O'Reilly (2012). The Role of Competitive Inhibition and Top-Down Feedback in Binding During Object Recognition. Frontiers in Psychology 3.score: 26.0
    How does the brain bind together visual features that are processed concurrently by different neurons into a unified percept suitable for processes such as object recognition? Here, we describe how simple, commonly accepted principles of neural processing can interact over time to solve the brain's binding problem. We focus on mechanisms of neural inhibition and top-down feedback. Specifically, we describe how inhibition creates competition among neural populations that code different features, effectively suppressing irrelevant information, and thus minimizing illusory conjunctions. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. Randall O'Reilly Dean Wyatte, Seth Herd, Brian Mingus (2012). The Role of Competitive Inhibition and Top-Down Feedback in Binding During Object Recognition. Frontiers in Psychology 3.score: 26.0
    How does the brain bind together visual features that are processed concurrently by different neurons into a unified percept suitable for processes such as object recognition? Here, we describe how simple, commonly accepted principles of neural processing can interact over time to solve the brain's binding problem. We focus on mechanisms of neural inhibition and top-down feedback. Specifically, we describe how inhibition creates competition among neural populations that code different features, effectively suppressing irrelevant information, and thus minimizing illusory conjunctions. (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer, Arthur M. Glenberg, Michael P. Kaschak, Karsten Mueller & Angela D. Friederici (2010). Top-Down and Bottom-Up Contributions to Understanding Sentences Describing Objects in Motion. Frontiers in Psychology 1:183-183.score: 24.0
    Theories of embodied language comprehension propose that the neural systems used for perception, action and emotion are also engaged during language comprehension. Consistent with these theories, behavioral studies have shown that the comprehension of language that describes motion is affected by simultaneously perceiving a moving stimulus (Kaschak et al., 2005). In two neuroimaging studies, we investigate whether comprehension of sentences describing moving objects activates brain areas known to support the visual perception of moving objects (i.e., area MT/V5). Our data indicate (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. William Lauinger (2013). The Missing-Desires Objection to Hybrid Theories of Well-Being. Southern Journal of Philosophy 51 (2):270-295.score: 21.0
    Many philosophers have claimed that we might do well to adopt a hybrid theory of well-being: a theory that incorporates both an objective-value constraint and a pro-attitude constraint. Hybrid theories are attractive for two main reasons. First, unlike desire theories of well-being, hybrid theories need not worry about the problem of defective desires. This is so because, unlike desire theories, hybrid theories place an objective-value constraint on well-being. Second, unlike objectivist theories of well-being, hybrid theories need not worry about being (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Pablo Ruiz, Carmen Ruiz & Ricardo Martínez (2011). Improving the "Leader-Follower" Relationship: Top Manager or Supervisor? The Ethical Leadership Trickle-Down Effect on Follower Job Response. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 99 (4):587 - 608.score: 21.0
    Since time immemorial, the phenomenon of leadership and its understanding has attracted the attention of the business world because of its important role in human groups. Nevertheless, for years efforts to understand this concept have only been centred on people in leadership roles, thus overlooking an important aspect in its understanding: the necessary moral dimension which is implicit in the relationship between leader and follower. As an illustrative example of the importance of considering good morality in leadership, an empirical study (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Ben Saunders (2011). Parfit's Leveling Down Argument Against Egalitarianism. In Michael Bruce & Steven Barbone (eds.), Just the Arguments: 100 of the Most Important Arguments in Western Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell.score: 20.0
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Mark Schroeder, The Negative Reason Existential Fallacy.score: 19.3
    This style of argument comes up everywhere in the philosophy of practical reason, leveled against theories of the norm of means-end coherence on intention, against Humean theories of reasons, and many other places. It comes up in normative moral theory – for example, in arguments against buck-passing. It comes up in epistemology, in discussions of how to account for the rational connection between believing the premises of a valid argument and believing its conclusion. And it comes up in political philosophy, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. David Sobel (2007). The Impotence of the Demandingness Objection. Philosophers' Imprint 7 (8):1-17.score: 18.0
    Consequentialism, many philosophers have claimed, asks too much of us to be a plausible ethical theory. Indeed, the theory's severe demandingness is often claimed to be its chief flaw. My thesis is that as we come to better understand this objection, we see that, even if it signals or tracks the existence of a real problem for Consequentialism, it cannot itself be a fundamental problem with the view. The objection cannot itself provide good reason to break with Consequentialism, (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Michael McGlone, The Humphrey Objection and the Problem of De Re Modality.score: 18.0
    In this paper I consider Saul Kripke’s famous Humphrey objection to David Lewis’s views on de re modality and argue that responses to this objection currently on the market fail to mitigate its force in any significant way.
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Derk Pereboom (2012). The Disappearing Agent Objection to Event-Causal Libertarianism. Philosophical Studies (1):1-11.score: 18.0
    The question I raise is whether Mark Balaguer’s event-causal libertarianism can withstand the disappearing agent objection. The concern is that with the causal role of the events antecedent to a decision already given, nothing settles whether the decision occurs, and so the agent does not settle whether the decision occurs. Thus it would seem that in this view the agent will not have the control in making decisions required for moral responsibility. I examine whether Balaguer’s position has the resources (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. Gualtiero Piccinini (2003). Alan Turing and the Mathematical Objection. Minds and Machines 13 (1):23-48.score: 18.0
    This paper concerns Alan Turing’s ideas about machines, mathematical methods of proof, and intelligence. By the late 1930s, Kurt Gödel and other logicians, including Turing himself, had shown that no finite set of rules could be used to generate all true mathematical statements. Yet according to Turing, there was no upper bound to the number of mathematical truths provable by intelligent human beings, for they could invent new rules and methods of proof. So, the output of a human mathematician, for (...)
    Direct download (15 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Mark R. Wicclair (2008). Is Conscientious Objection Incompatible with a Physician's Professional Obligations? Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 29 (3):171--185.score: 18.0
    In response to physicians who refuse to provide medical services that are contrary to their ethical and/or religious beliefs, it is sometimes asserted that anyone who is not willing to provide legally and professionally permitted medical services should choose another profession. This article critically examines the underlying assumption that conscientious objection is incompatible with a physician’s professional obligations (the “incompatibility thesis”). Several accounts of the professional obligations of physicians are explored: general ethical theories (consequentialism, contractarianism, and rights-based theories), internal (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Mark R. Wicclair (2011). Conscientious Objection in Health Care: An Ethical Analysis. Cambridge University Press.score: 18.0
    Machine generated contents note: Preface; 1. Introduction; 2. Three approaches to conscientious objection in health care: conscience absolutism, the incompatibility thesis, and compromise; 3. Ethical limitations on the exercise of conscience; 4. Pharmacies, health care institutions, and conscientious objection; 5. Students, residents, and conscience-based exemptions; 6. Conscience clauses: too little and too much protection; References.
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Elliott Louis Bedford (2012). Abortion: At the Still Point of the Turning Conscientious Objection Debate. [REVIEW] HEC Forum 24 (2):63-82.score: 18.0
    Abortion is the central issue in the conscientious objection debate. In this article I demonstrate why this is so for two philosophical viewpoints prominent in American culture. One, represented by Patrick Lee and Robert P. George, holds that the fundamental moral value of being human can be found in bare life and the other, represented by Tom Beauchamp and James Childress, holds that this fundamental value is found in the life that can choose and determine itself. First, I articulate (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Matthew Braddock (2013). Defusing the Demandingness Objection: Unreliable Intuitions. Journal of Social Philosophy 44 (2):169-191.score: 18.0
    Dogged resistance to demanding moral views frequently takes the form of The Demandingness Objection. Premise (1): Moral view V demands too much of us. Premise (2): If a moral view demands too much of us, then it is mistaken. Conclusion: Therefore, moral view V is mistaken. Objections of this form harass major theories in normative ethics as well as prominent moral views in applied ethics and political philosophy. The present paper does the following: (i) it clarifies and distinguishes between (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Lawrence B. Lombard (2006). Scope Fallacies and the “Decisive Objection” Against Endurance. Philosophia 34 (4):441-452.score: 18.0
    From time to time, the idea that enduring things can change has been challenged. The latest challenge has come in the form of what David Lewis has called a “decisive objection”, which claims to deduce a contradiction from the idea that enduring things change with respect to their temporary intrinsics, when that idea is combined with eternalism. It is my aim in this paper to explain why I think that no argument has yet appeared that deduces a contradiction from (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Simon Wigley (2012). Justicized Consequentialism: Prioritizing the Right or the Good? [REVIEW] Journal of Value Inquiry 46 (4):467-479.score: 18.0
    A standard criticism of act-utilitarianism is that it is only indirectly concerned with the distribution of welfare between individuals and, therefore, does not take adequate account of the separateness between individuals. In response a number of philosophers have argued that act-utilitarianism is only vulnerable to that objection because it adheres to a theory of the good which ignores non-welfarist sources of intrinsic value such as justice. Fred Feldman, for example, argues that intrinsic value is independently generated by the receipt (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Annabelle Lever (2013). 'Taxation, Conscientious Objection and Religious Freedom'. Ethical Perspectives 20 (1):144-153.score: 18.0
    This is part of a symposium on conscientious objection and religious freedom inspired by the US Catholic Church's claim that being forced to pay for health insurance that covers abortions (the effect of 'Obamacare')is the equivalent of forcing pacifists to fight. This article takes issue with this claim, and shows that while it would be unjust on democratic principles to force pacifists to fight, given their willingness to serve their country in other ways, there is no democratic objection (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Georg Northoff (2002). What Catatonia Can Tell Us About “Top-Down Modulation”: A Neuropsychiatric Hypothesis. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 25 (5):555-577.score: 18.0
    Differential diagnosis of motor symptoms, for example, akinesia, may be difficult in clinical neuropsychiatry. Symptoms may be either of neurologic origin, for example, Parkinson's disease, or of psychiatric origin, for example, catatonia, leading to a so-called “conflict of paradigms.” Despite their different origins, symptoms may appear more or less clinically similar. Possibility of dissociation between origin and clinical appearance may reflect functional brain organisation in general, and cortical-cortical/subcortical relations in particular. It is therefore hypothesized that similarities and differences between Parkinson's (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Lawrence Pasternack (2013). The Many Gods Objection to Pascal's Wager: A Decision Theoretic Response. Philo 15 (2):158-178.score: 18.0
    The Many Gods Objection (MGO) is widely viewed as a decisive criticism of Pascal’s Wager. By introducing a plurality of hypotheses with infinite expected utility into the decision matrix, the wagerer is left without adequate grounds to decide between them. However, some have attempted to rebut this objection by employing various criteria drawn from the theological tradition. Unfortunately, such defenses do little good for an argument that is supposed to be an apologetic aimed at atheists and agnostics. The (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Luciano Floridi (2014). Information Closure and the Sceptical Objection. Synthese 191 (6):1037-1050.score: 18.0
    In this article, I define and then defend the principle of information closure (pic) against a sceptical objection similar to the one discussed by Dretske in relation to the principle of epistemic closure. If I am successful, given that pic is equivalent to the axiom of distribution and that the latter is one of the conditions that discriminate between normal and non-normal modal logics, a main result of such a defence is that one potentially good reason to look for (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000