Order:
See also
  1.  19
    Famine, Affluence, and Philosophers’ Biases.Peter Seipel - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies.
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  2.  34
    Why Do We Disagree About Our Obligations to the Poor?Peter Seipel - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (1):121-136.
    People disagree about whether individuals in rich countries like the United States have an obligation to aid the world’s poorest people. A tempting thought is that this disagreement comes down to a non-moral matter. I argue that we should be suspicious of this view. Drawing on psychological evidence, I show that we should be more pessimistic about our ability to attribute the disagreement to a difference in factual beliefs.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. Philosophy, Famine Relief, and the Skeptical Challenge From Disagreement.Peter Seipel - 2016 - Ratio 29 (1):89-105.
    Disagreement has been grist to the mills of sceptics throughout the history of philosophy. Recently, though, some philosophers have argued that widespread philosophical disagreement supports a broad scepticism about philosophy itself. In this paper, I argue that the task for sceptics of philosophy is considerably more complex than commonly thought. The mere fact that philosophical methods fail to generate true majority views is not enough to support the sceptical challenge from disagreement. To avoid demanding something that human reasoning cannot supply, (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  50
    Aquinas and the Natural Law.Peter Seipel - 2015 - Journal of Religious Ethics 43 (1):28-50.
    Recent decades have seen a shift away from the traditional view that Aquinas's theory of the natural law is meant to supply us with normative guidance grounded in a substantive theory of human nature. In the present essay, I argue that this is a mistake. Expanding on the suggestions of Jean Porter and Ralph McInerny, I defend a derivationist reading of ST I-II, Q. 94, A. 2 according to which Aquinas takes our knowledge of the genuine goods of human life (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  25
    Reason, Tradition and the Good: MacIntyre’s Tradition-Constituted Reason and Frankfurt School Critical Theory. By Jeffery L. Nicholas. [REVIEW]Peter Seipel - 2013 - International Philosophical Quarterly 53 (2):207-211.
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  26
    Nietzsche’s Perspectivism, Internal Reasons, and the Problem of Justification.Peter Seipel - 2015 - International Philosophical Quarterly 55 (1):49-65.
    Recent years have seen a number of interpreters defend the claim that Nietzsche’s perspectivism is an epistemological doctrine. This interpretation of perspectivism leads to the worry that Nietzsche cannot offer any arguments for his view by means of which he may convince his opponents. To rescue Nietzsche from this justificatory problem, some interpreters have recently turned to the notion of “internal reasons,” or reasons that have force within multiple perspectives because they are based on shared standards. In this paper I (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  22
    In Defense of the Rationality of Traditions.Peter Seipel - 2015 - Canadian Journal of Philosophy 45 (3):257-277.
    Alasdair MacIntyre has developed a theory of the rationality of traditions that is designed to show how we can maintain both the tradition-bound nature of rationality, on the one hand, and non-relativism, on the other. However, his theory has been widely criticized. A number of recent commentators have argued that the theory is either inconsistent with his own conception of rationality or else is dependent on the standards of his particular tradition and therefore fails to defuse the threat of relativism. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8.  22
    Is There Sufficient Common Ground to Resolve the Abortion Debate?Peter Seipel - 2014 - Journal of Value Inquiry 48 (3):517-531.
    A common response to ongoing disagreement about abortion has been to look for overlap between the prolife and prochoice sides of the debate. In recent years, however, both opposing camps in the debate have claimed to be able to establish their respective positions on the basis of the same common ground. Faced with the apparent failure of philosophers to settle their differences about abortion by means of shared values, the question naturally arises: what should we do about this? It is (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark