Order:
See also
Shawn Graves
University of Findlay
  1.  87
    The Self-Undermining Objection to the Epistemology of Disagreement.Shawn Graves - 2013 - Faith and Philosophy 30 (1):93-106.
    Disagreements about, within, and between religions are widespread. It’s no surprise, then, that there’s an enormous philosophical literature on religious diversity. But in recent years, philosophers working in mainstream epistemology have done a lot of work on disagreement in general. This work has focused in particular upon the epistemology of peer disagreement, i.e., disagreements between parties who are justifiably believed to be epistemic equals regarding the matter at hand. In this paper, I intend to defend a thesis in the epistemology (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  2. In Defense of Animal Universalism.Blake Hereth, Shawn Graves & Tyler John - 2017 - In T. Ryan Byerly & Eric Silverman (eds.), Paradise Understood: New Philosophical Essays about Heaven. New York, USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 161-192.
    This paper defends “Animal Universalism,” the thesis that all sentient non-human animals will be brought into Heaven and remain there for eternity. It assumes that God exists and is all-powerful, perfectly loving, and perfectly just. From these background theses, the authors argue that Animal Universalism follows. If God is perfectly loving, then God is concerned about the well-being of non-human animals, and God chooses to maximize the well-being of each individual animal when doing so does not harm other individual creatures (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  3. God and Moral Perfection.Shawn Graves - forthcoming - Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Religion.
    One will be hard-pressed to find a morally perfect agent in this world. It’s not that there aren’t any morally good people. It just takes a lot to be morally perfect. However, theists claim that God is morally perfect. (Atheists claim that if God exists, God is morally perfect.) Perhaps they are mistaken. This chapter presents an argument for the conclusion that God is not morally perfect. The argument depends upon two things: (1) the nature of the concept of moral (...)
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  4.  46
    Evidentialism: Feldman on Having Evidence.Shawn Graves - 2014 - Journal of Philosophical Research 39:265-283.
    Richard Feldman and Ram Neta have recently noted that philosophers give relatively little attention to specifying the conditions under which S has something as evidence at a time. This issue is significant to evidentialists. Evidentialism states that which doxastic attitude S is epistemically justified in taking toward a proposition at a time depends upon what is supported by the total evidence S has at that time. What we regard as being necessary and sufficient for S’s having something as evidence partly (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  5.  17
    Love Your Opponent as Yourself: A Christian Ethic for Sport.Shawn Graves - 2018 - Sport, Ethics and Philosophy 12 (1):50-69.
    In this paper, we’ll present, explain, and defend a Christian ethic for sport that takes loving all individuals as the fundamental moral imperative. First, we’ll begin by taking a seeming detour through views about the morality of war. More specifically, we’ll consider realism, according to which, roughly, moral requirements and rules are suspended during war such that it is misguided to attempt to apply moral terms to acts performed within the context of war. Second, by paying attention to relevant surveys (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  6.  1
    Evidentialism: Feldman on Having Evidence.Shawn Graves - 2014 - Journal of Philosophical Research 39:265-283.
    Richard Feldman and Ram Neta have recently noted that philosophers give relatively little attention to specifying the conditions under which S has something as evidence at a time. This issue is significant to evidentialists. Evidentialism states that which doxastic attitude S is epistemically justified in taking toward a proposition at a time depends upon what is supported by the total evidence S has at that time. What we regard as being necessary and sufficient for S’s having something as evidence partly (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark