My philosophical views

The answers shown here are not necessarily the same provided as part of the 2009 PhilPapers Survey. These answers can be updated at any time.

See also:

QuestionAnswerComments
A priori knowledge: yes or no?Accept: yes
Abstract objects: Platonism or nominalism?Lean toward: nominalism
Aesthetic value: objective or subjective?Lean toward: subjectiveInter-subjective would be better.
Analytic-synthetic distinction: yes or no?Lean toward: yes
Epistemic justification: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalism
External world: idealism, skepticism, or non-skeptical realism?Accept: non-skeptical realismBut Kantian, empirical realism.
Free will: compatibilism, libertarianism, or no free will?Lean toward: compatibilism
God: theism or atheism?Accept: atheism
Knowledge: empiricism or rationalism?Accept an intermediate viewKantian empiricism (which, depending on your definitions, is probably a form of rationalism).
Knowledge claims: contextualism, relativism, or invariantism?Insufficiently familiar with the issue
Laws of nature: Humean or non-Humean?Lean toward: non-Humean
Logic: classical or non-classical?Accept both
Mental content: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: externalism
Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?Accept an intermediate viewI accept that moral claims can be better or worse, or even true and false (that is, I accept objectivity in morality), but not that values themselves have a status independent of minds. So, depends what is meant by "moral realism".
Metaphilosophy: naturalism or non-naturalism?The question is too unclear to answer"Naturalism" is ill-defined. How does moral knowledge fit into this picture? I am basically Kantian about moral knowledge, but I'm also a physicalist. I don't think that moral theory can be derived from facts about the world. Instead, it is to be derived from facts about the underlying structure of practical reason and the commitments we find within the practice of practical reasoning. There are objective truths about these things, but they aren't scientific truths, in my view. However, I also don't think there's anything supernatural going on here. So, I don't know what my answer is.
Mind: physicalism or non-physicalism?Accept: physicalism
Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?Accept: cognitivism
Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?Lean toward: internalismI believe that moral judgments are intrinsically motivating, but also that they are defeasible. I think that makes me a supporter of internalism, but not on all definitions of internalism.
Newcomb's problem: one box or two boxes?Accept: one boxI think you need to *be the kind of person* who picks one box.
Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?Accept: deontology
Perceptual experience: disjunctivism, qualia theory, representationalism, or sense-datum theory?Lean toward: disjunctivism
Personal identity: biological view, psychological view, or further-fact view?Lean toward: psychological view
Politics: communitarianism, egalitarianism, or libertarianism?Accept another alternativeRawlsian liberalism. This is a kind of egalitarian view, but importantly different from views that take equality in distribution as an end of justice (like GA Cohen's egalitarianism).
Proper names: Fregean or Millian?Lean toward: Millian
Science: scientific realism or scientific anti-realism?Lean toward: scientific realism
Teletransporter (new matter): survival or death?Lean toward: survival
Time: A-theory or B-theory?Lean toward: A-theory
Trolley problem (five straight ahead, one on side track, turn requires switching, what ought one do?): switch or don't switch?Reject bothI think trolley problems are generally unhelpful.
Truth: correspondence, deflationary, or epistemic?Lean toward: correspondence
Zombies: inconceivable, conceivable but not metaphysically possible, or metaphysically possible?Lean toward: inconceivable