Dirk Baltzly University of Tasmania

  • Faculty, University of Tasmania
  • PhD, Ohio State University, 1992.

Areas of specialization

Areas of interest

My philosophical views


My philosophical views

The answers shown here are not necessarily the same provided as part of the 2009 PhilPapers Survey. These answers can be updated at any time.

See also:

A priori knowledge: yes or no?Accept: yes
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Accept: Platonism
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?The question is too unclear to answerAccept that some aesthetic claims are simply true, but that the truth-makers concern how subjects of a certain sort would react. Objective in as much as it posits a fact of the matter, but subjective in as much as those facts concern how things are or would be for certain subjects.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Accept an intermediate viewQuine's criticism was never that there is no distinction to be drawn here -- only that the distinction could not bear the weight of the philosophical work it was being asked to do. So yes, we can distinguish 'red is a colour' from 'fire trucks are red'. Can this distinction be specified in a manner that allows it to do the work that Carnap wanted it to do? No.
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Accept: externalism
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Accept: non-skeptical realism
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Accept: compatibilism
God: theism or atheism?Accept: atheism
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?The question is too unclear to answer
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Lean toward: contextualism
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Accept: non-Humean
Logic: classical or non-classical?Accept: classical
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalism
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Accept: moral realism
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?Accept: naturalism
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Accept: physicalism
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Accept: cognitivism
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: internalism
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Accept another alternativeIf the Ace Predictor predicts by means of time travel then this shows how one box can be rational. The problem looks like a paradox because the causal mechanism by means of which the predictor predicts is unspecified. For some means, rational action is possible. (A solution I owe to Townsend, who points out that Newcombe was mates with Benford, who wrote Timescape.)
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Accept: virtue ethics
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Lean toward: representationalism
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Accept: biological view
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Lean toward: egalitarianism
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Lean toward: Millian
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Accept: scientific realism
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Lean toward: death
Time: A-theory or B-theory?Lean toward: B-theory
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?Accept: switch
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Accept: correspondence
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Accept: conceivable but not metaphysically possible