26 found
Order:
See also
Andrew T. Forcehimes
Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
  1.  56
    Belief and the Error Theory.Andrew T. Forcehimes & Robert B. Talisse - 2016 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 19 (4):849-856.
    A new kind of debate about the normative error theory has emerged. Whereas longstanding debates have fixed on the error theory’s plausibility, this new debate concerns the theory’s believability. Bart Streumer is the chief proponent of the error theory’s unbelievability. In this brief essay, we argue that Streumer’s argument prevails against extant critiques, and then press a criticism of our own.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   6 citations  
  2.  40
    Beneficence: Does Agglomeration Matter?Andrew T. Forcehimes & Luke Semrau - 2019 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 36 (1):17-33.
    When it comes to the duty of beneficence, a formidable class of moderate positions holds that morally significant considerations emerge when one's actions are seen as part of a larger series. Agglomeration, according to these moderates, limits the demands of beneficence, thereby avoiding the extremely demanding view forcefully defended by Peter Singer. This idea has much appeal. What morality can demand of people is, it seems, appropriately modulated by how much they have already done or will do. Here we examine (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  3.  31
    Non-Compliance Shouldn't Be Better.Andrew T. Forcehimes & Luke Semrau - 2019 - Australasian Journal of Philosophy 97 (1):46-56.
    Agent-relative consequentialism is thought attractive because it can secure agent-centred constraints while retaining consequentialism's compelling idea—the idea that it is always permissible to bring about the best available outcome. We argue, however, that the commitments of agent-relative consequentialism lead it to run afoul of a plausibility requirement on moral theories. A moral theory must not be such that, in any possible circumstance, were every agent to act impermissibly, each would have more reason to prefer the world thereby actualized over the (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  4.  15
    Thinking Through Utilitarianism: A Guide to Contemporary Arguments.Andrew T. Forcehimes & Luke Semrau - 2019 - Hackett Publishing Company.
    _Thinking Through Utilitarianism: A Guide to Contemporary Arguments_ offers something new among texts elucidating the ethical theory known as Utilitarianism. Intended primarily for students ready to dig deeper into moral philosophy, it examines, in a dialectical and reader-friendly manner, a set of normative principles and a set of evaluative principles leading to what is perhaps the most defensible version of Utilitarianism. With the aim of laying its weaknesses bare, each principle is serially introduced, challenged, and then defended. The result is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  5.  62
    The Difference We Make.Andrew T. Forcehimes & Luke Semrau - 2015 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 9 (2):1-7.
    Felix Pinkert has proposed a solution to the no-difference problem for AC. He argues that AC should be supplemented with a requirement that agents’ optimal acts be modally robust. We disagree.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  6.  62
    Are There Distinctively Moral Reasons?Andrew T. Forcehimes & Luke Semrau - 2018 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 21 (3):699-717.
    A dogma of contemporary normative theorizing holds that some reasons are distinctively moral while others are not. Call this view Reasons Pluralism. This essay looks at four approaches to vindicating the apparent distinction between moral and non-moral reasons. In the end, however, all are found wanting. Though not dispositive, the failure of these approaches supplies strong evidence that the dogma of Reasons Pluralism is ill-founded.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  7.  75
    A Dilemma for Non‐Analytic Naturalism.Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2018 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 99 (2):228-247.
    In recent years, an impressive research program has developed around non-analytic reductions of the normative. Nevertheless, non-analytic naturalists face a damning dilemma: either they need to give the same reductive analysis for epistemic and practical reasons, or they can give a different analyses by treating epistemic and practical reasons as a species of the larger genus, reasonhood. Since, for example, a desire-based account of epistemic reasons is implausible, the reductionist must opt for the latter. Yet, if the desire-based account of (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  8. Download This Essay: A Defence of Stealing Ebooks.Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2013 - Think 12 (34):109-115.
    In this essay, I argue, on the one hand, if we think egalitarian considerations justify libraries, we should think that these same egalitarian considerations justify stealing books online. If, on the other hand, we think that economic incentives justify a prohibition against stealing books online, we should think those same economic considerations justify a prohibition against libraries.
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  9. Clarifying Cohen: A Response to Jubb and Hall.Andrew T. Forcehimes & Robert B. Talisse - 2013 - Res Publica 19 (4):371-379.
    In this brief essay, we clarify Cohen’s ‘Facts and Principles’ argument, and then argue that the objections posed by two recent critiques of Cohen—Robert Jubb (Res Publica 15:337–353, 2009) and Edward Hall (Res Publica 19:173–181, 2013)—look especially vulnerable to the charge of being self-defeating. It may still be that Cohen’s view concerning facts and principles is false. Our aim here is merely to show that two recent attempts to demonstrate its falsity are unlikely to succeed.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  10.  11
    Can Peircean Epistemic Perfectionists Bid Farewell to Deweyan Democracy?J. Caleb Clanton & Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2009 - Contemporary Pragmatism 6 (2):165-183.
    There is a tension between Robert Talisse's rejection of Deweyan democracy and his project of formulating a workable Peircean conception of democracy. If he follows Rawls in taking reasonable pluralism to be a permanent condition, then his Peircean conception of democracy is undermined. But, if he does not commit to the permanence of reasonable pluralism, then his rejection of Deweyan democracy is problematic. Since he chooses the latter interpretation, Talisse must bite the bullet and recognize that Peircean epistemic perfectionists cannot (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  11.  11
    A Peircean Epistemic Argument for a Modest Multiculturalism.J. Caleb Clanton & Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2011 - Contemporary Pragmatism 8 (2):163-185.
    Extending recent appropriations of Charles S. Peirce's work in political theory, we argue that the same epistemic norms that justify democracy offer a plausible basis for justifying multiculturalist policies aimed at protecting at-risk cultural groups. Because this epistemic argument is compatible with a full range of reasonable comprehensive doctrines, it fully accommodates the fact of reasonable pluralism, thereby skirting the Rawlsian objection to which the multiculturalisms of Charles Taylor and Will Kymlicka fall prey.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  12.  25
    From Epistemic Democracy to Epistemic Multiculturalism.J. Caleb Clanton & Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2011 - Southwest Philosophy Review 27 (1):175-184.
  13.  22
    Asymmetrism and the Magnitudes of Welfare Benefits.Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2019 - Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy 15 (2):175-185.
    One vexing question for Desire Satisfactionism is this: At what time do you benefit from a satisfied desire? Recently Eden Lin has proposed an intriguing answer. On this proposal – Asymmetrism – when past-directed desires are satisfied, the time interval during which you benefit is the time of the desire; and, when future-directed desires are satisfied, the time interval during which you benefit is the time of the object. In this essay, I argue that Asymmetrism forces us to give implausible (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14.  19
    Actualism Doesn’T Have Control Issues: A Reply to Cohen and Timmerman.Andrew T. Forcehimes & Luke Semrau - 2019 - Philosophia 47 (1):271-277.
    Recently, Cohen and Timmerman, 1–18, 2016) argue that actualism has control issues. The view should be rejected, they claim, as it recognizes a morally irrelevant distinction between counterfactuals over which agents exercise the same kind of control. Here we reply on behalf of actualism.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  15.  19
    Attitudinal strength as distance to withholding.Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2021 - Philosophical Studies 178 (3):963-981.
    How should we understand the relationship between binary belief and degree of belief? To answer this question, we should look to desire. Whatever relationship we think holds between desire and degree of desire should be used as our model for the relationship we think holds between belief and degree of belief. This parity pushes us towards an account that treats the binary attitudes as primary. But if we take binary beliefs as primary, we seem to face a serious problem. Binary (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  16.  23
    David Kaspar: Intuitionism: Bloomsbury: London, 2012 Pp. 214. $28.00. [REVIEW]Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2013 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1093-1094.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  17.  28
    Expectations and the Limits of Legal Validity.Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2015 - Utilitas 27 (3):263-278.
    Drawing on the work of Jeremy Bentham, we can forward a parity thesis concerning formal and substantive legal invalidity. Formal and substantive invalidity are, according to this thesis, traceable to the same source, namely, the sovereign's inability to adjust expectations to motivate obedience. The parity thesis, if defensible, has great appeal for positivists. Explaining why contradictory or contrary mandates yield invalidity is unproblematic. But providing an account of content-based invalidity invites the collapse of the separation between what the law is (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  19
    Luck Libertarianism? A Critique of Tan’s Institutional View.Andrew T. Forcehimes & Robert B. Talisse - 2015 - Southwest Philosophy Review 31 (1):187-196.
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19.  13
    Leviathans Restrained: International Politics for Artificial Persons.Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2015 - Hobbes Studies 28 (2):149-174.
    This essay challenges the analogy argument. The analogy argument aims to show that the international domain satisfies the conditions of a Hobbesian state of nature: There fails to be a super-sovereign to keep all in awe, and hence, like persons in the state of nature, sovereigns are in a war every sovereign against every sovereign. By turning to Hobbes’ account of authorization, however, we see that subjects are under no obligation to obey a sovereign’s commands when doing so would contradict (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  20.  36
    On L. W. Sumner’s “Normative Ethics and Metaethics”.Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2015 - Ethics 125 (4):1142-1144.
    Due largely to the influential work of Ronald Dworkin, there is an ongoing debate concerning the possibility of genuine metaethical theorizing. Dworkin, and others, argue that metaethical theories collapse into first-order normative theories. In his short and widely neglected paper, L.W. Sumner provides a compelling account of how to engage in metaethical theorizing while avoiding substantive moral commitments.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21.  75
    Putting Reasons First: A Defense of Normative Non-Naturalism.Andrew T. Forcehimes - unknown
    Against non-analytic naturalism and quietist realism, I defend a robust form of non-naturalism. The argument proceeds as follows: In the face of extensional underdetermination, quietist realism cannot non-question-beggingly respond to alternative accounts that offer formally identical but substantively different interpretations of what reasons are. They face what we might call the reasons appropriation problem. In light of this problem, quietists ought to abandon their view in favor of robust realism. By permitting substantive metaphysical claims we can then argue, based on (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22.  3
    Relationship Sensitive Consequentialism Is Regrettable in Advance.Andrew T. Forcehimes & Luke Semrau - forthcoming - Social Theory and Practice.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  23.  14
    Relationship Sensitive Consequentialism Is Regrettable.Andrew T. Forcehimes & Luke Semrau - 2020 - Social Theory and Practice 46 (2):257-276.
    Personal relationships matter. Traditional Consequentialism, given its exclusive focus on agent-neutral goodness, struggles to account for this fact. A recent variant of the theory—one incorporating agent-relativity—is thought to succeed where its traditional counterpart fails. Yet, to secure this advantage, the view must take on certain normative and evaluative commitments concerning personal relationships. As a result, the theory permits cases in which agents do as they ought, yet later ought to prefer that they had done otherwise. That a theory allows such (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  24.  40
    Well-Being: Reality's Role.Andrew T. Forcehimes & Luke Semrau - 2016 - Journal of the American Philosophical Association 2 (3):456-68.
    A familiar objection to mental state theories of well-being proceeds as follows: Describe a good life. Contrast it with one identical in mental respects, but lacking a connection to reality. Then observe that mental state theories of well-being implausibly hold both lives in equal esteem. Conclude that such views are false. Here we argue this objection fails. There are two ways reality may be thought to matter for well-being. We want to contribute to reality, and we want our experience of (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25.  3
    Weighing Unjust Lives.Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2017 - In Jens David Ohlin, Larry May & Claire Finkelstein (eds.), Weighing Lives in War. Oxford, UK: pp. 284-297.
    Are the lives of those fighting on the unjust side of a war worth less than the lives of those fighting on the just side? It is tempting to answer Yes. There is a powerful and popular rationale for this verdict: Things are intrinsically better when people get what they deserve. According to this view, the goodness of a life is the product of one’s desert-adjusted welfare. In this essay, I highlight the troubling implications that adjusting for desert has in (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  26. From Town-Halls to Wikis: Exploring Wikipedia's Implications for Deliberative Democracy.Nathaniel J. Klemp & Andrew T. Forcehimes - 2010 - Journal of Public Deliberation 6 (2).
    This essay examines the implications Wikipedia holds for theories of deliberative democracy. It argues that while similar in some respects, the mode of interaction within Wikipedia represents a distinctive form of “collaborative editing” that departs from many of the qualities traditionally associated with face-to-face deliberation. This online mode of interaction overcomes many of the problems that distort face-to-face deliberations. By mitigating problems that arise in deliberative practice, such as “group polarization” and “hidden profiles,” the wiki model often realizes the epistemic (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark