Suchergebnisse

This chapter derives and refines a novel normative moral theory and descriptive theory of moral psychology—Rightness as Fairness—from the theory of prudence defended in Chapter 2 of Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory. The chapter briefly summarizes Chapter 2's finding that prudent agents typically internalize 'moral risk-aversion'. The chapter then outlines how this prudential psychology leads prudent agents to want to know how to act in ways they will not regret in morally salient cases, as well as to regard moral actions as the only types of actions that satisfy this prudential interest. The chapter then uses these findings to defend a new derivation of Marcus Arvan's theory of morality, Rightness as Fairness, showing how the derivation successfully defends Rightness as Fairness against a variety of objections. Additionally, the chapter outlines how Arvan's theory of prudence can help substantiates the claim that Rightness as Fairness unifies a variety of competing moral frameworks: deontology, consequentialism, contractualism, and virtue ethics. Finally, the chapter shows how Chapter 2's theory of prudence entails some revisions to Rightness as Fairness, including the adoption of a series of Rawlsian original positions to settle prudential, moral, and social-political issues under ideal and nonideal circumstances.

"Philosophers across many traditions have long theorized about the relationship between prudence and morality. Few clear answers have emerged, however, in large part because of the inherently speculative nature of traditional philosophical methods. This book aims to forge a bold new path forward, outlining a theory of prudence and morality that unifies a wide variety of findings in neuroscience with philosophically sophisticated normative theorizing. The author summarizes the emerging behavioral neuroscience of prudence and morality, showing how human moral and prudential cognition and motivation are known to involve over a dozen brain regions and capacities. He then outlines a detailed philosophical theory of prudence based on neuroscience and lived human experience. The result demonstrates how this theory of prudence and morality outlined coheres with and explains the behavioral neuroscience, showing how each brain region and capacity interacts to give rise to prudential and moral behavior. Neurofunctional Prudence and Morality: A Philosophical Theory will be of interest to philosophers and psychologists working in moral psychology, neuroethics, and decision theory"--

Moral philosophy today is marked by profound, systematic disagreement. In Rightness as Fairness, Marcus Arvan argues that moral philosophy must adapt scientific principles of theory-selection in order to reliably uncover moral truth. Arvan then argues that our best empirical evidence and naturalistic observation reveal morality to be a type of prudence requiring us to act in ways that our present and future selves can rationally agree upon across time. Arvan shows that this agreement-Rightness as Fairness-requires us to be fair to ourselves and to others, including animals. Further, the Four Principles of Fairness comprising this agreement reconcile a variety of traditionally opposed moral and political frameworks. Finally,

AbstractAlex Byrne contends that women are (simply) adult human females, claiming that this thesis has considerably greater initial appeal than the justified true belief (JTB) theory of knowledge. This article refutes Byrne's thesis in the same way the JTB theory of knowledge is widely thought to have been refuted: through simple counterexamples. Lessons are drawn. One lesson is that women need not be human. A second lesson is that biology and physical phenotypes are both irrelevant to whether someone is a woman, and indeed, female in a gendered sense. A third lesson is that trans women, cis women, alien women, and robot women are all women because to be a woman is to be an adult gendered female. This article does not purport to settle complex normative questions of ethics or justice, including whether the ordinary meaning of woman ought to be retained or changed—though I do note plausible implications for these debates. This article does purport to settle what the ordinary meaning of woman is, and in that regard contribute to important conceptual ground-clearing regarding what constitutes an ameliorative or revisionary definition of woman.

This commentary contends that Larry May's Hobbesian argument for limitations on sovereignty and lawmaking in Limiting Leviathan does not succeed. First, I show that Hobbes begins with a plausible instrumental theory of normativity. Second, I show that Hobbes then attempts, unsuccessfully – by his own lights – to defend a kind of non-instrumental, moral normativity. Thus, I contend, in order to successfully "limit the Leviathan" of the state, the Hobbesian must provide a sound instrumental argument in favor of the sovereign limiting their actions and lawmaking. But, I argue, neither Hobbes nor May provides such an argument.