Locke’s argument for God’s immateriality in _Essay_ IV x is usually interpreted as involving a principle that in some way prohibits the causation of thought by matter. I reject these causal readings in favor of one that involves a principle which says a thinking being cannot be composed out of unthinking parts. This Composition Principle, as I call it, is crucial to understanding how Locke’s theistic argument can succeed in the face of his skepticism about the substance of matter and (...) the cause of thought, as well as his belief in the possibility of thinking matter. It also explains why Locke held the soul’s immateriality to be highly probable. (shrink)

Locke establishes the primary-secondary quality distinction in two steps. First, he identifies the primary qualities by means of a separability argument that involves transdictive inference about the properties of the minute, imperceptible parts of matter. Second, he identifies the secondary qualities by means of a dispensability argument that relies on the principle that bodies normally act by ‘impulse.’ I suggest this principle is also justified through transdictive inference. This allows us to see Locke’s claims about primary and secondary qualities as (...) unified, fallibilist and rooted in empiricism and the methodology of Newtonian science. (shrink)

The author responds to a letter by D. Brendan Johnson in the July‐August 2023 issue of the Hastings Center Report concerning his and Joseph Clair's article “Love Your Patient as Yourself: On Reviving the Broken Heart of American Medical Ethics.”.

Since the late 1980s, in defiance of Sri Lanka’s major monastic fraternities and the government, Buddhist women and men have begun to organize across distinctions of national boundary and Buddhist tradition to reinstate a defunct bhikkhun? ordination lineage for renunciant women. Drawing on fieldwork from the winter of 2015–16, this article considers some of the strategies by which Sri Lanka’s bhikkhun?s and their supporters constitute the burgeoning lineage as both legitimate and necessary for the continued health and vitality of an (...) otherwise ailing Buddhist s?sana. I argue that Sri Lanka’s bhikkhun?s engage in highly-visible forms of adherence to vinaya rules and social expectations for ideal monastic behavior set against a popular discourse about the laxity of male renunciants. Such engagement is both political and soteriological; while it is aimed at fulfilling legitimizing gendered expectations of women’s piety, it is expressed primarily in terms of the eradication of personal and societal suffering through forms of practice that accord with the ideal of a pious monastic. Thus, in contrast to discourses which locate bhikkhun?s as subjects whose presence weakens the s?sana’s duration and strength, in this new discourse Sri Lanka’s bhikkhun?s become virtuous agents of social service and moral restoration. The article concludes by identifying emerging connections between this discourse and an alreadygendered xenophobic Buddhist nationalism. (shrink)

Tyler Dalton McNabb and Michael DeVito develop a thoroughly original and Orthodox model for how Christian belief, and, even specifically Eastern Christian belief, can be warranted. They do this by creatively bringing recent work on religious experience, in the context of the Divine Liturgy, into conversation with Alvin Plantinga’s well-known explication of Reformed Epistemology. What emerges is a distinctly Eastern Christian approach to warranted Christian belief, that modifies and, arguably, improves upon Plantinga’s original model.

Recent research in computational neuroscience has demonstrated that we now possess the ability to simulate neural systems in significant detail and on a large scale. Simulations on the scale of a human brain have recently been reported. The ability to simulate entire brains (or significant portions thereof) would be a revolutionary scientific advance, with substantial benefits for brain science. However, the prospect of whole-brain simulation comes with a set of new and unique ethical questions. In the present paper, we briefly (...) outline certain of those problems and emphasize the need to begin considering the ethical aspects of computational neuroscience. (shrink)

This major new study of Aristotle's natural philosophy connects it to modern theories of causation and provides fresh interpretations of classic issues. Structured around close readings of the Physics and the Metaphysics and informed by contemporary theories of causation, it offers a rich treatment of some of Aristotle's core texts.

We take canonical theology, in its most minimal form, to be the normative thesis that the final shape of a canon ought to guide how one interprets the texts contained within the canon. Within the Christian tradition, a standard objection to canonical theology goes something like this: Given the diversity of canon lists, whose canon should we endorse? Should we prefer the Masoretic ordering or the LXX? If the Greek tradition, which Greek tradition? Call this the Problem of Canon List (...) Diversity (PCLD). Appealing to scholastic hermeneutics, especially St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, and recent developments in the theology of inspiration, we develop a successful response to PCLD. (shrink)

Applying a non-developmental evolutionary metatheory to understanding the evolution of psychological capacities leads to the creation of models that mischaracterize developmental processes, misattribute genes as the source of developmental information, and ignore the myriad developmental and contextual factors involved in human decision-making. Using an evolutionary systems perspective, we argue that revenge and forgiveness cannot be understood apart from the development of foundational human psychological capacities and the contexts under which they develop.

Tyler Burge presents an original study of the most primitive ways in which individuals represent the physical world. By reflecting on the science of perception and related psychological and biological sciences, he gives an account of constitutive conditions for perceiving the physical world, and thus aims to locate origins of representational mind.

Most contemporary virtue theorists hold that fear of genuine dangers is appropriate, and that what matters is one’s ability to surmount it when necessary. To overcome fear for the sake of the good is an act of courage, while succumbing to it is the manifestation of cowardice. This orthodox view comprises a significant oversight. While it is true that overcoming one’s fear in a moment of crisis is a mark of excellence, courage is not the highest ideal toward which we (...) ought to strive. Virtue theories that give courage an exalted status fail to appreciate the excellence exhibited by those who dutifully or lovingly put themselves in harm’s way without having to overcome an inclination to avoid. While courage is certainly admirable, fearlessness is more excellent in two respects. First, the fearless agent possesses more robust psychological harmony, which includes a deeply internalized acceptance of the fact that one’s personal safety is not the most important thing in life. This attribute is valuable for its own sake. Second, the fearless agent is able to successfully act in accordance with her values with greater reliability because she never has to override a desire to avoid when she ought to confront instead. (shrink)

Kant and Sidgwick agree that genuine ethical principles must be sourced in reason rather than divine commands. Yet, despite sharing this secular starting point, both philosophers ultimately conclude that the assumption of God’s existence is necessary for the complete viability of practical reason (including principles of morality) within human beings. This mutual reintroduction of God is especially surprising given that Kant and Sidgwick advocate divergent moral theories. The central claim of this chapter is that, despite their philosophical differences, Kant’s and (...) Sidgwick’s respective appeals to the moral necessity of God have a common cause. Both philosophers perceive a deep human need to believe in cosmic justice (i.e., universal harmony between duty and happiness), and their shared hedonic account of well-being colors their conception of what such justice must involve. After explaining how these ideas give rise to the ostensible moral need for faith, I provide a brief defense of an alternative view based on the Stoic belief that the universe is ultimately just, despite the lack of a reliable connection between moral virtue and hedonic well-being. (shrink)

This article reflects on Paul’s Christology in the Epistle to the Philippians and the operative notion of humility that is both implicit and explicit in his paraenesis. Through a theological exegesis of the famous Christ-hymn in particular, three consequential aspects of humility come to the fore: its grounding in Christ’s love, as well as its definition by and distinction from Christ’s own humility. Humility thus has a Christological foundation in a twofold sense because Christ not only exemplifies this virtue but (...) constitutes the moral nature that defines those who belong to him. When the shape of humility is discerned in this light and explicated in relation to the theological virtues, it is understood as a form of eschatological belonging that finds concrete expression in faith working through love. (shrink)

Many of the world’s great wisdom traditions hold that human flourishing requires avoiding negative emotions such as anger, envy, spite, and jealousy. Thomason (2023) boldly challenges this received view. Whereas other negative emotion apologists advocate using reason to rein in our “bad feelings,” Thomason urges us to accept them just as they are. Her unqualified defense comprises two key arguments. The first draws on the idea that negative emotions are a necessary feature of healthy self-love—ceasing to feel them is tantamount (...) to no longer caring about one’s life. The second argument points to an “emotion double standard” in which anger, envy, and other bad feelings are disparaged, while emotions such as joy and gratitude are praised, even though the same objections apply in both cases. Drawing on insights from social psychology and ancient philosophy, I aim to show that neither argument succeeds. One major weakness of these arguments is that they overlook features of negative emotions that seem intrinsically disvaluable such as hostility and self-centeredness. A second issue is that Thomason’s narrow conception of self-love gives a misleading impression regarding the necessity of bad feelings for a happy and healthy life. These criticisms notwithstanding, I conclude with a qualified endorsement of Thomason’s practical advice for living well with our emotions—an issue of perennial importance. (shrink)

It is sometimes—but not always—permissible to let others do wrong. This paper is about why that is so.

In this essay, I seek to enhance eschatological perspectives on work through specific engagement with Qoheleth’s theology of time in Eccl. 2–3. I suggest that prior to a perceptual transformation in the first of the book’s so-called carpe diem passages, Qoheleth is dissatisfied with his labour because he construes it temporally-speaking within a chronology characterised by competition. Within such a construal, death poses the ultimate obstacle to the enjoyment of labour, because it strips away the promise of an immortal inheritance (...) produced by human hands. What transforms Qoheleth’s relationship to labour is a new understanding of time as kairos, defined as the opportune time in which God unexpectedly intervenes in human work ‘under the sun’ and does something paradigmatically new. Under this ‘kairological’ perspective, Qoheleth assumes a posture of receipt, declaring present labour as a gift from God, with internal as well as external goods for the worker. Qoheleth’s ‘accipe diem work ethic’ draws the eschatological ultimacy of life and peace into present labour, re-orienting eschatological understandings of work that fall prey to competitive-chronological notions of progress. (shrink)

This paper uses post-structural theory to critically interrogate the question: Does business and society (B&S) scholarship benefit society? Overall I argue that B&S scholarship may make productive contributions to society, but that these are limited in serious ways. Specifically, I argue that B&S scholarship is limited by its engagement with neoclassical discourse which leads to a number of problematic assumptions about how it is linked to social good.

Abstract: In this paper I argue that luck and fortune are distinct concepts that apply to different sets of events. I do so by suggesting that lucky events are best understood as significant events that are either modally fragile or improbable (depending on whether you accept a modal account or a probability account of luck), whereas fortunate events are best understood as significant events that are outside of our control. I call this the Pure Control Account of Fortune. I show (...) that this account of fortune forces control theorists about luck to be fortune reductionists but allows those who endorse a modal or probability account of luck to be fortune realists. Additionally, I argue that this account of fortune helps us overcome prominent counterexamples and challenges found in the luck literature. (shrink)

Non‐Humean theories of natural necessity invoke modally‐laden primitives to explain why nature exhibits lawlike regularities. However, they vary in the primitives they posit and in their subsequent accounts of laws of nature and related phenomena (including natural properties, natural kinds, causation, counterfactuals, and the like). This article provides a taxonomy of non‐Humean theories, discusses influential arguments for and against them, and describes some ways in which differences in goals and methods can motivate different versions of non‐Humeanism (and, for that matter, (...) Humeanism). In short, this article provides an introduction to non‐Humeanism concerning the metaphysics of laws of nature and natural necessity. (shrink)

Clinical ethicists are often presented with the question: Is this plan or action ethical? The simple answer, which is as predictable as it is glib, is always: “it depends.” Recognizing and analyzin...

In this commentary on Denis Noble’s paper, I focus on his use of the term “illusion,” and juxtapose it with other potential terms, in particular several others he has used for similar points in his book, Dance to the Tune of Life. His use of “illusion,” if more fully explicated, might be of even broader applicability than in his paper. I ask about potential classes of errors in science and remark about his “principle of biological relativity.”.