Browse by Author

According to the standard philosophical definition of lying, you lie if you say something that you believe to be false with the intent to deceive. Recently, several philosophers have argued that an intention to deceive is not a necessary condition on lying. But even if they are correct, it might still be suggested that the standard philosophical definition captures the type of lie that philosophers are primarily interested in (viz., lies that are intended to deceive). In this paper, I argue that the standard philosophical definition is not adequate as a definition of deceptive lying either. I then suggest two plausible alternative definitions of this concept.

Much recent philosophical attention has been devoted to the prospects of the Best System Analysis (BSA) of chance for yielding high-level chances, including statistical mechanical and special science chances. But a foundational worry about the BSA lurks: there don’t appear to be uniquely correct measures of the degree to which a system exhibits theoretical virtues, such as simplicity, strength, and fit. Nor does there appear to be a uniquely correct exchange rate at which the theoretical virtues trade off against one another in the determination of an overall best system. I argue that there’s no robustly best system for our world – no system that comes out best under every reasonable measure of the theoretical virtues and exchange rate between them – but rather a set of ‘tied-for-best’ systems: a set of very good systems, none of which is robustly best. Among the tied-for-best systems are systems that entail differing high-level probabilities. I argue that the advocate of the BSA should conclude that the high-level chances for our world are imprecise.

The paper presents a kind of normative anti-realist view of epistemology, in the same ballpark as recent versions of expressivism. But the primary focus of the paper is less on this meta-epistemological view itself than on how it should affect ground-level issues in epistemology: for instance, how it should deal with certain forms of skepticism, and how it allows for fundamental revision in epistemic practices (deductive, inductive and perceptual). It is hoped that these methodological consequences will seem attractive independent of the normative anti-realism. Indeed, some normative realists seem to embrace the view on skepticism, but it is argued that their position is unstable: the realism undermines the methodology. The general theme of the paper is that the issue of normative realism is deeply entwined with issues of methodology, in strong contrast to the common claim that meta-epistemological views in the tradition of expressivism have no first order impact.

This article suggests that the argument of Bernard Williams’ classic paper ‘Internal and External Reasons’ has been widely misunderstood. The first section sketches four variants of the Standard Argument, catalogs their weaknesses and observes the exegetical obstacles they face. The second section proposes an alternative reading immune to all these objections and better supported by the text and charity. On this interpretation, Williams gives one consistent argument that unites his central concerns with (i) the ‘explanatory dimension’ of reasons statements, (ii) their conceptual content, and (iii) the connection between reasons and deliberation. His argument is normally thought to be based on the common claim that reasons must be capable of motivating; I argue that it rather begins from a substantive analysis of the concept of a normative reason: that to believe that R is for you a reason for action just is to believe that R is an explanation of why you would act if you were to deliberate soundly.

How can inferences from models to the phenomena they represent be justified when those models represent only imperfectly? Pierre Duhem considered just this problem, arguing that inferences from mathematical models of phenomena to real physical applications must also be demonstrated to be approximately correct when the assumptions of the model are only approximately true. Despite being little discussed among philosophers, this challenge was taken up (if only sometimes implicitly) by mathematicians and physicists both contemporaneous with and subsequent to Duhem, yielding a novel and rich mathematical theory of stability with epistemological consequences.

Frankfurt argues that self-love is the purest and -- paradoxically, perhaps -- most disinterested form of love.

In the first Critique, Kant says, "[A]ll the actions of a human being are determined in accord with the order of nature, " adding that "if we could investigate all the appearances . . . there would be no human action we could not predict with certainty. " Most Kantian treatments of human action discuss action from a practical perspective, according to which human beings are transcendentally free, and thus do not sufficiently lay out this Kant's empirical, causal description of human action. Drawing on Kant's lectures in empirical psychology and his anthropological writings, this paper offers a clear and detailed elucidation of Kant's empirical account of human action. After explaining the connection between cognitions, feelings, desires, and actions, I show how the lower faculty of desire is governed by various instincts, inclinations, and propensities, and how the higher faculty of desire is governed by (empirical) character. I also discuss how character and inclinations arise from natural human propensities combined with other empirical causes. By looking at both Kant's faculty psychology and his account of predispositions, I lay out an overall Kantian framework for explaining any kind of human action.

I propose a unified solution to two puzzles: Ross's puzzle (the apparent failure of 'ought φ' to entail 'ought [φ or ψ]') and free choice permission (the apparent fact that 'may [φ or ψ]' entails both 'may φ' and 'may ψ'). I begin with a pair of cases from the decision theory literature illustrating the phenomenon of act dependence, where what an agent ought to do depends on what she does. The notion of permissibility distilled from these cases forms the basis for my analysis of 'may' and 'ought'. This framework is then combined with a generalization of the classical semantics for disjunction — equivalent to Boolean disjunction on the diagonal, but with a different two-dimensional character — that explains the puzzling facts in terms of semantic consequence.