This essay defends the basis of morality as held by non-believers by arguing that we just like believers learn our morality by learning our language – which necessarily involves learning about the world, the “forms of life”. First other attempts by Niose, Epstein and Harris to argue for humanist morality are considered and rejected, the latter rejection based on G.E. Moore’s “open question” argument against naturalism. Contrary to Hume’s contention that it is impossible to jump the logical chasm from “is” (...) to “ought”, it is contended in this essay that to understand morally relevant concepts, one has to already understand that they are either good or bad because to learn one’s native language is to learn what sorts of actions are right or wrong. This allows critical judgment about what is right or wrong. Humanism is based on such critical judgment. That is what makes it most moral. Deciding which acts are right or wrong is a matter of deciding what relevant facts apply to the situation. Some corollaries of the fact that humanism is moral because it relies first and foremost on critical judgment are considered. (shrink)

This text attempts to show why the academic split between ethics and social sciences has been disastrous and argues that advances in vigour and sensitivity are made possible by closing this artificial divide.

(2001). A quick peek into the abyss: The game of social life in Martin Hollis's trust within reason. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy: Vol. 4, Trusting in Reason: Martin Hollis and the Philosophy of Social Action, pp. 193-206. doi: 10.1080/13698230108403371.

The publication of John Stuart Mill's Three Essays on Religion in 1873 prompted a remarkable diversity of responses. Anonymous authors in the prominent literary and theological reviews of the day joined philosophers, from empiricists to idealists, and theologians, from Anglicans to Unitarians, in commenting on the Essays . The judgements passed upon Mill himself ranged from 'honest' to 'impudent'. Dr Sell here gathers and introduces a representative selection of the reviews, essays and extracts that met this important work. The writers, (...) although diverse, are at least united in one view - that what Mill had written mattered - and their debate continued for many years - the contributions cover a quarter of a century of controversy. -- Three Essays on Religion is at the heart of the 19th-century challenge to Christianity - the responses gathered here show its enormous impact and influence --useful supplementary reading for a variety of philosophy and theology courses. (shrink)

This Response focuses on the strength of the testosterone (T) dominance relationship, the circumstances under which aggression accompanies dominance, the viability of the basal model, mediators and moderators of the T-dominance relationship, and the research that is needed.

Michael Tooley defends infanticide by analysing ‘A has a right to X’ as roughly synonymous with ‘If A desires X, then others are under a prima facie obligation to refrain from actions that would deprive him [or her] of it.’ An infant who cannot conceive of himself or herself as a continuing subject of experiences cannot desire to continue existing. Hence, on Tooley’s analysis, killing the infant is not impermissible, for it does not go against any of the infant’s desires. (...) However, Tooley’s argument in support of his analysis seems to justify, instead, a slightly more subtle analysis—namely, ‘A has a right to X’ is roughly extensionally equivalent with ‘Unless A expresses his or her desire that not‐X, then others are under a prima facie obligation to refrain from actions that would deprive him or her of X.’ But given this analysis, the infant’s purported lack of any capacity to conceive of himself or herself as a continuing subject of experiences implies that we cannot be released from any duty that we might have not to harm him or her. In short, Tooley’s argument in support of his analysis actually implies that infanticide may well be impermissible. (shrink)

(1986). Reason and Nuclear Deterrence. Canadian Journal of Philosophy: Vol. 16, Supplementary Volume 12: Nuclear Weapons, Deterrence and Disarmament, pp. 129-159.

An excellent sampling of current thinking in the theory and practice of constitutionalism. Each essay was written specifically for this volume by well-known legal and political philosophers. . . . All in all, a first-rate and provocative example of contemporary philosophical concerns. Choice In our constitutional democracy, the dissent and conflict that are the inevitable consequence of free political dialogue point to the importance of reexamining the philosophical premises on which our conceptions of society and government are based. This volume (...) of original essays reviews the foundations of constitutionalism in classical liberal thought and looks at contemporary philosophical perspectives on a wide range of constitutional issues. Written by a distinguished group of philosophers and constitutional scholars, it provides a deeper understanding of the U.S. Constitution as a political instrument and examines the idea of constitutionalism as it functions in our modern world. (shrink)

Alan Stewart - Francis Bacon and the Transformation of Early-Modern Philosophy - Journal of the History of Philosophy 40:4 Journal of the History of Philosophy 40.4 542-543 Book Review Francis Bacon and the Transformation of Early-Modern Philosophy Stephen Gaukroger. Francis Bacon and the Transformation of Early-Modern Philosophy. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Pp. xii + 249. Cloth, $59.95. Paper, $21.95. In Stephen Gaukroger's new study, Francis Bacon is lauded all too familiarly as the inaugurator of "the transformation of (...) philosophy into science, and philosophers into scientists" . But it's far from the old story: Gaukroger sees Bacon not as progenitor of the Scientific Revolution or revered Father of Modern Science, but as launching "the first systematic, comprehensive attempt to transform the early-modern.. (shrink)

Alan R. Perreiah - Renaissance Truth and the Latin Language Turn - Journal of the History of Philosophy 44:2 Journal of the History of Philosophy 44.2 319-321 Ann Moss. Renaissance Truth and the Latin Language Turn. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Pp. 306. Cloth, $74.00. Ann Moss offers an exciting and informative history of humanism from Johannes Balbus through Melanchthon, who completed the "turn" from scholastic to humanistic Latin. She marshals considerable evidence from lexicography and letters that scholastics (...) and humanists cultivated two idioms of Latin that created "two different mind-sets" , two "orders of truth-values" , and "two Latin speech communities that talked past one another" . While her main thesis that the "two linguistic universes" were "incommensurable" is questionable, it is a useful heuristic device to highlight differences between the two traditions. Moss illustrates many of her claims by controversies surrounding the legend of St. Ann, mother of Mary. Whether she is misled by the rhetoric of those heated debates on religious folklore, or whether they support her claim of "incommensurability" must be.. (shrink)

Donald Wiseman, a leading assyriologist, had a distinguished service in the RAF during the Second World War under Air Vice-Marshal Keith Park and later in the Mediterranean as Chief Intelligence Officer. After time working at the British Museum on thousands of cuneiform tablets and as a member of Mallowan's team excavating Nimrud, he took up the Chair of Assyriology at SOAS in 1961. Wiseman, who was elected Fellow of the British Academy in 1969, worked to advance archaeological work in the (...) Near East. (shrink)

As Cary J. Nederman writes in the foreword to this new edition, "Marsilius continues to speak to many of the salient issues of modern political life, expressing his doctrines in a language that has resonance and relevance. Whether in addressing the role of citizenship as a buffer between individual and community, or in explicating the foundations of religious toleration, the _Defensor pacis_ affords a distinctive theoretical perspective that rivals that of any of the great thinkers of the Western political tradition.".

In his thoughtful review of my book Absolute Knowledge, in the Fall 1984 Owl, John McCumber identifies several potentially problematic aspects of my interpretation of Hegel’s Logic as transcendental ontology. I would like to respond to several of his objections, not polemically, but rather in order to contribute to a conversation I value. The relevant issues are: 1) dialectical necessity, 2) the specificity of the philosophy of nature, 3) the historical relativity of the system, 4) the Logic as “ground,” and (...) 5) ontology and theology. (shrink)