Published and Forthcoming
- Divided We Fall: Fission and the Failure of Self Interest
2014, Philosophical Perspectives
Cases involving personal fission raise a challenge for the Self-Interest Thesis, i.e., the view that we have special reason to be concerned about our own welfare. Several philosophers have attempted to offer metaphysical solutions to this challenge: they have argued that, if we adopt the right view about what happens in fission cases, we can hold on to the Self-Interest Thesis while avoiding counter-intuitive implications. I argue that no such solution can succeed.
- Rethinking the Person-Affecting Principle
Forthcoming, Journal of Moral Philosophy
This paper concerns person-affecting principles (on which a first outcome can be better than a second only if it is better for someone) and their implications for the transitivity of the better-than relation. I argue that standard formulations of such principles face serious problems, and I propose an alternative formulation in their place. I conclude by arguing that plausible versions of the principle can be reconciled with the transitivity of identity.
- The Principle of Sufficient Reason and the Grand Inexplicable
2014, The Puzzle of Existence: Why is There Something Rather than Nothing, edited by Tyron Goldschmidt.
It has been argued that the Principle of Sufficient Reason must be false. For, assuming there are any contingent propositions at all, it has been argued that there must be some contingent proposition (call it the "Grand Inexplicable"), for which there is no explanation. I defend the Principle of Sufficient Reason against arguments of this kind.
- Belief, Credence and Pragmatic Encroachment
2014, Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (with Mark Schroeder)
We compare two alternative theories of outright belief and its relation to credence. We criticize one view, which we call pragmatic credal reductivism, according to which believing a proposition consists in having sufficient credence in it for practical purposes. And we propose and defend an alternative view, which we call the reasoning disposition account, according to which believing a proposition consists in having a defeasible disposition to treat it as true in reasoning.
- Reversibility or Disagreement
2013, Mind (with Mark Schroeder)
This paper concerns the debate between contextualists and relativists over a family of expressions that includes both epistemic and deontic modals (“might,” “must,” “ought,” etc.). We argue that these expressions all display an important but largely overlooked feature that we call reversibility: they give rise to sentences that one can rationally and sincerely assertively utter while knowing that one will later rationally and sincerely assertively utter their negations. We argue that this phenomenon undermines claims about disagreement that have been used to support relativism.
- On Losing Disagreements: Spencer's Attitudinal Relativism
Forthcoming, Mind (with Mark Schroeder)
Here we respond to Jack Spencer, who claims to have resolved the dilemma we posed in "Reversibility or Disagreements." His attempted solution turns on a view about belief that he calls "attitudinal relativism." we argue that this view fails to solve our dilemma. In particular, the relativist who adopt this view will sacrifice the claims about disagreement that motivate her position.
- Repeatable Artwork Sentences and Generics
2013, Art and Abstract Objects, edited by Christy Mag Uidhir (with Shieva Kleinschmidt)
This paper concerns repeatable artwork sentences, such as "the Moonlight Sonata has three movements," as well as generic sentences, such as "the polar bear has four paws." we argue that these kinds of sentences should be given a uniform treatment, and that neither one has the subject predicate form it appears to have. Consequently, the truth of these sentences does not entail that there is anything referred to by "the polar bear" or "the Moonlight Sonata."
- Rationality, Normativity, and Commitment
2012, Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume 7, edited by Russ Shafer-Landau.
I consider three challenges to the normativity of rationality: the ignorance problem (which concerns cases where we are rationally required to do what we have most objective reason not to do), the wrong kind of reasons problem (which concerns cases where we seem to have overwhelming pragmatic reason to have irrational attitudes), and the mere incoherence problem (which concerns cases where a combination of attitudes is rationally prohibited, and yet we have sufficient reason for each of the constituent attitudes). After criticizing traditional responses to each of these challenges, I offer an account of the connection between rationality and reasons that answers all of them and that has considerable explanatory power.
- Actualism, Possibilism and Beyond
2012, Oxford Studies in Normative Ethics, Volume 2, edited by Russ Shafer-Landau.
How should we act when we don't currently have perfect deliberative control over our future conduct? Actualists say that we should f when f-ing would be preferable to what we would do otherwise, whereas possibilists say that we should ? when all our maximally preferable options involve f-ing. I argue that neither of these views can succeed, and I propose an alternative view that avoids the difficulties facing each.
- Sleeping Beauty, Countable Additivity, and Rational Dilemmas
2010, Philosophical Review. (Selected for the 2010 Philosopher's Annual)
I argue that the main arguments for the 1/3 solution to the Sleeping Beauty problem entail a more general principle (what I call the Generalized Thirder Principle) which conflicts with the principle of countable additivity. I argue that the most plausible response to this conflict is to accept both principles and to maintain that, in cases where they conflict, rational dilemmas arise.
- How to Be a Cognitivist about Practical Reason
2009, Oxford Studies in Metaethics, Volume 4, edited by Russ Shafer-Landau.
Cognitivism about practical reason is the view that intentions involve beliefs and that rational norms on intentions can be explained in terms of rational norms on the beliefs they involve. This paper provides a detailed examination of the prospects of cognitivism and of the challenges it faces. In it I argue that the self-referential account of intentions typically adopted by cognitivists will not serve their purposes, and I propose an alternative account which, I argue, is more promising.
- Should Kantians Be Consequentialists?
Parfit argues that Rule Consequentialism can be derived from the most plausible formulation of Kantian ethics, and hence that Kantians should be consequentialists. I argue that there is strong reason to reject two of the assumptions that figure in this derivation.
- Derek Parfit
2009, 12 Modern Philosophers, edited by Christopher Belshaw and Gary Kemp, Wiley-Blackwell.
- Rejecting Ethical Deflationism
I consider what I call deflationary ethical theories, including Nihilism and Relativism. Drawing a distinction between practical acceptance and rejection, on the one hand, and belief and disbelief, on the other, I argue that we have strong reason to reject these theories from the practical point of view even if we don't have reason to disbelieve them.