Wesley Cooper opposes the traditional view of William Jamesís philosophy which dismissed it as fragmented or merely popular, arguing instead that there is a systematic philosophy to be found in James's writings. His doctrine of pure experience is the binding thread that links his earlier psychological theorizing to his later epistemological, religious, and pragmatic concerns.

Robert Nozick’s tracking account of knowledge is defended against Colin McGinn’s criticisms bydrawing on David Deutsch’s ’multiverse’ conception of possible worlds. Knowledge on the trackingaccount requires a ’method’ or ’way’ of believing. Exploiting this feature undercuts the apparent force of McGinn’s counter-examples.

The dilemma confronted by Buridan’s Ass leads into a problem about nil-preference situations, to which there is a solution in the literature that is inspired by Alan Turing: we have evolved with a computational module in our brains that comes into play in such situations by picking a random action among the alternatives that detennines the subject’s choice. We relate these Buridan’s Ass situations to a larger, theoretically interesting category in which there is no alternative that is decisively superior to (...) others with respect to expected utility, and we try to show how our emotional makeup figures in a rational response, particularly as informed by symbolic utilitythat we draw down from our culture’s shared understandings. The category is theoretically interesting because it contains moral dilemmas, as well as hard cases in which an imponant choice must be made without an option that has clearly superior expected utility. We argue that our Emotional Response Model is preferable to Turing’s Randomizer for this category, as well as more illuminating about nil-preference situations or close approximations thereto. (shrink)

I explore a connection between Robert Nozick's account of decision value/symbolic utility in The Nature of Rationality and F. P. Ramsey's discussion of ethically neutral propositions in his 1926 essay , a discussion that Brian Skyrms in Choice and Chance credits with disclosing deeper foundations for expected utility than the celebrated Theory of Games and Economic Behavior of von Neumann and Morgenstern. Ramsey's recognition of ethically non-neutral propositions is essential to his foundational work, and the similarity of these propositions to (...) symbolic utility helps make the case that the latter belongs to the apparatus that constructs expected utility, rather than being reducible to it or being part of a proposal that can be cheerfully ignored. I conclude that decision value replaces expected utility as the central idea in (normative) decision theory. Expected utility becomes an approximation that is good enough when symbolic utility is not at stake. (shrink)

A decision value alternative is proposed to the various formulations of the principle of utility, which counsel maimization of expected utility as utility is variously conceived. Decision value factors expected utility into causal expected utility and evidential expected utility, and it adds a third factor --- symbolic utility. This latter introduces deontological and a ‘perceived value’ elements into calculations of utility. It also suggests a solution to a lingering problem in population ethics, the so-called Repugnant Conclusion that consequentialist thinking demands (...) a vast population of people leading lives barely worth living. (shrink)

A rational reconstruction of James's doctrine of pure experience is attempted, showing how it can be formulated in terms of a Ramsey sentence so that its credibility is comparable to contemporary functionalism about the mind. Whereas functionalism treats only mental predicates as theoretical terms and quantifies over physical objects, Jamesian 'global-functionalism' treats both mental and physical predicates as theoretical terms and quantifies over pure experience. Rehabilitated in this way, the doctrine of pure experience is a fit partner for Jamesian pragmatism. (...) When James says that pragmatism guides us in the course of our experience, this 'experience' must be understood as ultimately pure experience. Pure experience is just what appears, pre-conceptually, and Ramsey-sentence analysis shows how James's employment of the pre-conceptual demonstrative that can refer to pure experience with conditions of identity given by its physical or mental properties, while being itself 'colourless', neither mental nor physical. It is concluded that functionalists about the mind have reason to be global-functionalists about mind and body, in just the way that James's doctrine of pure experience lays out; and Jamesian pragmatists should also accept his radical empiricism. (shrink)

The Closest-Continuer schema of identity is distinguished here from the Closest-Continuer theory of personal identity, the latter applying the former to personal identity by reference to the self's self-defining activity. Nozick's «Platonic glasses» mode of conceptualizing personal identity is defended against Parfit's objections and extended beyond hypothetical branching to the actual branching hypothesized by the «no-collapse» theories of quantum mechanics. The reader may wish to consult Lev Vaidman's Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy essay, «Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics», for an accessible (...) and sympathetic treatment of this interpretation. See also David Deutsch's philosophical essay on what he calls the «multiverse» in The Fabric of Reality. (shrink)

James’s positivism is different from Comte’s, Clifford’s, and the logical positivists’. Notably, itpresupposes a difference between natural–scientific inquiries and the metaphysical inquiry he callsradical empiricism. Equally importantly, the positivism of James’s great book, The Principles ofPsychology, studies the cerebral conditions of the will. This cerebralism is necessary background forunderstanding James’s voluntarism, the will–to–believe doctrine that came later. James’s positivismgoes hand–in–hand with his value pluralism; they are responsible for different domains of inquiry,natural-scientific and ethical, respectively. It is a mistake to impose (...) a “master moral syllogism” ontothe former, implying that all facts are constituted by the will as guided by a utilitarian moral principle.Cerebral shaping of the will occurs not only through the “front door” of experience, especially in theformation of habit, but also through the “back stairs” of mutation and natural selection, which createsbrains suited to different pursuits. The brain is no tabula rasa. (shrink)

The paper examines two forms of naturalistic moral realism, “Micro-structure realism” and “Reason realism”. The latter, as we defend it, locates the objectivity of moral facts in socially constructed reality, but the former, as exemplified by David Brink\'s model of naturalistic moral realism, secures the objectivity of moral facts in their micro- structure and a nomic supervenience relationship. We find MSR\'s parity argument for this account of moral facts implausible; it yields a relation ship between moral facts and their natural- (...) scientific constitution that has a queer, slapped- together quality. We argue that the relationship needs to be spelled out by a process of social construction, involving collective intentionality and constitutive rules. We explain how our constructivist model of RR differs from a form of it defended by Michael Smith, which analyzes moral facts by reference not to construction but rather to a hypothetical situation of full rationality. We agree with Smith, as against Bernard Williams, that a rational agent may have reasons for acting that go beyond the agent\'s “subjective motivational set,” but we locate such reasons by reference to the agent\'s member ship in an actual community, and we explore the prospects for moral objectivity given this constraint on moral reasons. (shrink)

In Reasons and Persons Derek Parfit defends the principle that it is not irrational to perform an action one believes to be morally right, even if it is no tin one’s self-interest. He calls this principle CP2 and formulates it as follows: -/- "There is at least one desire that is not irrational, and is no less rational than the bias in one’s own favor. This is a desire to do what is in the interests of other people, when this (...) is either morally admirable, or one’s moral duty." (Parfit 1984, 131) -/- I will examine his defense of this principle, which is essentially an invocation of a thought-experiment he labels My Heroic Death, with a view to clarifying its relationship to rational egoism and the principles of rational choice, as explained below. -/- . (shrink)

The paper examines two forms of naturalistic moral realism, “Micro-structure realism” and “Reason realism” . The latter, as we defend it, locates the objectivity of moral facts in socially constructed reality, but the former, as exemplified by David Brink\'s model of naturalistic moral realism, secures the objectivity of moral facts in their micro- structure and a nomic supervenience relationship. We find MSR\'s parity argument for this account of moral facts implausible; it yields a relation ship between moral facts and their (...) natural- scientific constitution that has a queer, slapped- together quality. We argue that the relationship needs to be spelled out by a process of social construction, involving collective intentionality and constitutive rules. We explain how our constructivist model of RR differs from a form of it defended by Michael Smith , which analyzes moral facts by reference not to construction but rather to a hypothetical situation of full rationality. We agree with Smith, as against Bernard Williams, that a rational agent may have reasons for acting that go beyond the agent\'s “subjective motivational set,” but we locate such reasons by reference to the agent\'s member ship in an actual community, and we explore the prospects for moral objectivity given this constraint on moral reasons. (shrink)

This is a collection of papers that develops implications of Singer’s book Operative Rights. Her theory of rights assigns a central role to community as the “context and condition of individuality and identity as well as rights,” but she considers herself “to belong to the Pragmatist tradition” in view of her debt to George Herbert Mead and John Dewey.

This essay continues Kafka’s tale of a human being who metamorphoses into a beetle. The tale is developed in the light of some recent theory about personal identity and rational choice, particularly Robert Nozick’s Closest-Continuer theory and Mark Johnston’s Relativism about the self. These are potentially complementary conceptions of relativity about the self, Nozick’s focusing on the individual’s ‘metric’ as a criterion of personal continuity, Johnston’s on social standards. When the individually authentic determination about ‘closeness’ coincides with the community’s standards (...) for continuity, the two accounts are complementary. The tale concludes with reference to applying the concept of personal identity for branching selves in the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Application of the concept of personal identity in an MWI context implies that there is a bad end in store for us all, as David Lewis argued in his last essay. (shrink)

Robert Nozick’s tracking account of knowledge is defended against Colin McGinn’s criticisms by drawing on David Deutsch’s ’multiverse’ conception of possible worlds. Knowledge on the tracking account requires a ’method’ or ’way’ of believing. Exploiting this feature undercuts the apparent force of McGinn’s counter-examples.

This essay continues Kafka’s tale of a human being who metamorphoses into a beetle. The tale is developed in the light of some recent theory about personal identity and rational choice, particularly Robert Nozick’s Closest-Continuer theory and Mark Johnston’s Relativism about the self. These are potentially complementary conceptions of relativity about the self, Nozick’s focusing on the individual’s ‘metric’ as a criterion of personal continuity, Johnston’s on social standards. When the individually authentic determination about ‘closeness’ coincides with the community’s standards (...) for continuity, the two accounts are complementary. The tale concludes with reference to applying the concept of personal identity for branching selves in the Many-Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics. Application of the concept of personal identity in an MWI context implies that there is a bad end in store for us all, as David Lewis argued in his last essay. (shrink)

James's moral theory, primarily as set out in ?The Moral Philosopher and the Moral Life? (in his The Will To Believe (1897)), is presented here as having a two-level structure, an empirical or historical level where progress toward greater moral inclusiveness is central, and a metaphysical or end-of-history level?James's ?kingdom of heaven??characterised by universal agreement on moral content that is likely to be pluralistic, including deontological elements in a broadly consequentialist endeavour to attain the greatest good, by the lights of (...) a variety of moral ideals. This consequentialism of ideals is significantly different from a straightforward consequentialism that aims to satisfy preferences. The pluralism of moral content is mirrored in the pluralism he suggests at the end of The Varieties of Religious Experience about gods. The various theisms will eventually make accommodations to each other in a greater whole, as a Science of Religion matures. The pluralistic pattern in ethics and religion gains strength from an analogy with pluralism in science. (shrink)

James’s positivism is different from Comte’s, Clifford’s, and the logical positivists’. Notably, it presupposes a difference between natural–scientific inquiries and the metaphysical inquiry he calls radical empiricism. Equally importantly, the positivism of James’s great book, The Principles of Psychology, studies the cerebral conditions of the will. This cerebralism is necessary background for understanding James’s voluntarism, the will–to–believe doctrine that came later. James’s positivism goes hand–in–hand with his value pluralism; they are responsible for different domains of inquiry, natural-scientific and ethical, respectively. (...) It is a mistake to impose a “master moral syllogism” onto the former, implying that all facts are constituted by the will as guided by a utilitarian moral principle. Cerebral shaping of the will occurs not only through the “front door” of experience, especially in the formation of habit, but also through the “back stairs” of mutation and natural selection, which creates brains suited to different pursuits. The brain is no tabula rasa. (shrink)