29 found
Order:
Disambiguations
Daniel Miller [13]Daniel J. Miller [12]Daniel K. Miller [2]Daniel D. Miller [1]
Daniel W. Miller [1]
See also
Daniel J. Miller
West Virginia University
Daniel Miller
University of St. Thomas, Minnesota
Daniel Miller
University of Sheffield
1 more
  1. Hypocrisy and the Standing to Blame.Kyle G. Fritz & Daniel Miller - 2018 - Pacific Philosophical Quarterly 99 (1):118-139.
    Hypocrites are often thought to lack the standing to blame others for faults similar to their own. Although this claim is widely accepted, it is seldom argued for. We offer an argument for the claim that nonhypocrisy is a necessary condition on the standing to blame. We first offer a novel, dispositional account of hypocrisy. Our account captures the commonsense view that hypocrisy involves making an unjustified exception of oneself. This exception-making involves a rejection of the impartiality of morality and (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  2. The Unique Badness of Hypocritical Blame.Kyle G. Fritz & Daniel Miller - 2019 - Ergo: An Open Access Journal of Philosophy 6.
    It is widely agreed that hypocrisy can undermine one’s moral standing to blame. According to the Nonhypocrisy Condition on standing, R has the standing to blame some other agent S for a violation of some norm N only if R is not hypocritical with respect to blame for violations of N. Yet this condition is seldom argued for. Macalester Bell points out that the fact that hypocrisy is a moral fault does not yet explain why hypocritical blame is standingless blame. (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  3.  69
    When Hypocrisy Undermines the Standing to Blame: A Response to Rossi.Kyle G. Fritz & Daniel J. Miller - 2019 - Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 22 (2):379-384.
    In our 2018 paper, “Hypocrisy and the Standing to Blame,” we offer an argument justifying the Nonhypocrisy Condition on the standing to blame. Benjamin Rossi (2018) has recently offered several criticisms of this view. We defend our account from Rossi’s criticisms and emphasize our account’s unique advantage: explaining why hypocritical blamers lack the standing to blame.
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   7 citations  
  4.  11
    A Theory of Shopping.Daniel Miller - 1998 - Wiley.
    A Theory of Shopping offers a highly original perspective on one of our most basic everyday activities - shopping. We commonly assume that shopping is primarily concerned with individuals and materialism. But Miller rejects this assumption and follows the surprising route of analysing shopping by means of an analogy with anthropological studies of sacrificial ritual. He argues that the act of purchasing goods is almost always linked to other social relations, and most especially those based on love and care. The (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   26 citations  
  5. Material Culture and Mass Consumption.Daniel Miller - 1987 - Blackwell.
  6. A Standing Asymmetry Between Blame and Forgiveness.Kyle G. Fritz & Daniel Miller - forthcoming - Ethics.
    Sometimes it is not one's place to blame or forgive. This phenomenon is captured under the philosophical notion of standing. However, there is an asymmetry to be explained here. One can successfully blame, even if one lacks the standing to do so. Yet, one cannot successfully forgive if one lacks the standing to do so. In this paper we explain this asymmetry. We argue that a complete explanation depends upon not only a difference in the natures of the standing to (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  7.  68
    Attributionism and Degrees of Praiseworthiness.Daniel J. Miller - forthcoming - Philosophical Studies:1-17.
    An increasingly popular theory of moral responsibility, Attributionism, identifies attitudes as the locus of direct responsibility. And yet, two agents with qualitatively identical attitudes may differ in their responsibility due to a difference in whether they act on those attitudes. On the most plausible interpretation of Attributionism, attitude duplicates differ in their responsibility only with respect to the scope of what they’re responsible for: one agent is responsible for only their attitudes, while the other is responsible for their attitudes and (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  8. BCI-Mediated Behavior, Moral Luck, and Punishment.Daniel J. Miller - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics Neuroscience 11 (1):72-74.
    An ongoing debate in the philosophy of action concerns the prevalence of moral luck: instances in which an agent’s moral responsibility is due, at least in part, to factors beyond his control. I point to a unique problem of moral luck for agents who depend upon Brain Computer Interfaces (BCIs) for bodily movement. BCIs may misrecognize a voluntarily formed distal intention (e.g., a plan to commit some illicit act in the future) as a control command to perform some overt behavior (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  9. Reasonable Foreseeability and Blameless Ignorance.Daniel J. Miller - 2017 - Philosophical Studies 174 (6):1561-1581.
    This paper draws attention to a fundamental problem for a version of the tracing strategy defended by a number of theorists in the current literature (Rosen 2004, Fischer and Tognazzini 2009). I argue that versions of the tracing strategy that require reasonable foreseeability are in tension with the view that blameless ignorance excuses. A stronger version of the tracing strategy is consistent with the view that blameless ignorance excuses and is therefore preferable for those tracing theorists who wish to continue (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  10. Two Problems of Moral Luck for Brain‐Computer Interfaces.Daniel J. Miller - 2022 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 39 (2):266-281.
    Brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) are devices primarily intended to allow agents to use prosthetic body parts, wheelchairs, and other mechanisms by forming intentions or performing certain mental actions. In this paper I illustrate how the use of BCIs leads to two unique and unrecognized problems of moral luck. In short, it seems that agents who depend upon BCIs for bodily movement or the use of other mechanisms (henceforth “BCI-agents”) may end up deserving of blame and legal punishment more so than standard (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  11.  22
    The Mystery of Evangelical Trump Support?Daniel D. Miller - 2019 - Constellations 26 (1):43-58.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  12. Can Morally Ignorant Agents Care Enough?Daniel J. Miller - 2021 - Philosophical Explorations 24 (2):155-173.
    Theorists attending to the epistemic condition on responsibility are divided over whether moral ignorance is ever exculpatory. While those who argue that reasonable expectation is required for blameworthiness often maintain that moral ignorance can excuse, theorists who embrace a quality of will approach to blameworthiness are not sanguine about the prospect of excuses among morally ignorant wrongdoers. Indeed, it is sometimes argued that moral ignorance always reflects insufficient care for what matters morally, and therefore that moral ignorance never excuses. Furthermore, (...)
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  13. Two Problems of Self-Blame for Accounts of Moral Standing.Kyle G. Fritz & Daniel J. Miller - forthcoming - Ergo.
    Traditionally, those writing on blame have been concerned with blaming others, including when one has the standing to blame others. Yet some alleged problems for such accounts of standing arise when we focus on self-blame. First, if hypocrites lack the standing to blame others, it might seem that they also lack the standing to blame themselves. But this would lead to a bootstrapping problem, wherein hypocrites can only regain standing by doing that which they lack the standing to do. Second, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  14. Circumstantial Ignorance and Mitigated Blameworthiness.Daniel J. Miller - 2018 - Philosophical Explorations 22 (1):33-43.
    It is intuitive that circumstantial ignorance, even when culpable, can mitigate blameworthiness for morally wrong behavior. In this paper I suggest an explanation of why this is so. The explanation offered is that an agent’s degree of blameworthiness for some action depends at least in part upon the quality of will expressed in that action, and that an agent’s level of awareness when performing a morally wrong action can make a difference to the quality of will that is expressed in (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  15. Animal Ethics and Theology: The Lens of the Good Samaritan.Daniel K. Miller - 2011 - Routledge.
    In this book, Daniel K. Miller articulates a new vision of human and animal relationships based on the foundational love ethic within Christianity. Framed around Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan, Animal Ethics and Theologythoughtfully examines the shortcomings of utilitarian and rights-based approaches to animal ethics. By considering the question of animals within the Christian concept of neighbourly love, Miller provides an alternative narrative for understanding the complex relationships that humans have with other animals. This book addresses significant theological questions (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   2 citations  
  16.  97
    Answerability, Blameworthiness, and History.Daniel Miller - 2014 - Philosophia 42 (2):469-486.
    This paper focuses on a non-volitional account that has received a good deal of attention recently, Angela Smith's rational relations view. I argue that without historical conditions on blameworthiness for the non-voluntary non-volitionist accounts like Smith’s are (i) vulnerable to manipulation cases and (ii) fail to make sufficient room for the distinction between badness and blameworthiness. Towards the end of the paper I propose conditions aimed to supplement these deficiencies. The conditions that I propose are tailored to suit non-volitional accounts (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  17. Ignorance and Blame.Daniel J. Miller - 2019 - 1000-Word Philosophy.
    Sometimes ignorance is a legitimate excuse for morally wrong behavior, and sometimes it isn’t. If someone has secretly replaced my sugar with arsenic, then I’m blameless for putting arsenic in your tea. But if I put arsenic in your tea because I keep arsenic and sugar jars on the same shelf and don’t label them, then I’m plausibly blameworthy for poisoning you. Why is my ignorance in the first case a legitimate excuse, but my ignorance in the second case isn’t? (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  18.  7
    Justifying Positive Appeals to Conscience: The Debate We Can’T Avoid.Daniel J. Miller - 2021 - American Journal of Bioethics 21 (8):79-81.
    Protecting claims of conscience can function to fairly balance burdens among relevant parties without first having to resolve an underlying and intractable moral disagreement. Recently, a number of theorists have argued that the relevant criteria for protecting negative appeals to conscience in health care can (suitably modified) be equally well-satisfied in cases of positive appeals. I argue that, when it comes to certain practices, the justification of positive appeals to conscience does in fact depend upon contested claims in the debate (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  19.  13
    How Infants Grow Mothers in North London.Daniel Miller - 1997 - Theory, Culture and Society 14 (4):67-88.
  20. Culture and Domination.John Brenkman & Daniel Miller - 1989 - Ethics 99 (3):658-659.
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  21. Book Review. [REVIEW]Daniel Miller - 2007 - Journal of the American Oriental Society 127 (1):109-110.
    No categories
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  22.  49
    Homeodynamics in Consciousness.Daniel W. Miller - 2003 - Advances in Mind-Body Medicine 19 (3):35-46.
  23.  18
    Rats Classify Qualitatively Different Reinforcers as Either Similar or Different by Enumerating Them.E. J. Capaldi & Daniel J. Miller - 1988 - Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 26 (2):149-151.
  24.  20
    Killing on the Frontier: Meat Eating as an Extreme Case for Christian Ethics.Daniel K. Miller - 2012 - Modern Theology 28 (1):53-80.
    This article argues that killing animals for food represents an extreme case within Christian moral thinking comparable to Karl Barth's Grenzfall argument against such violent acts as suicide, abortion, killing in self‐defense, capital punishment, and war. This position is in contrast to the view of many environmental philosophers who hold human hunting to be comparable to animal predation. It also disputes the language of substitutionary sacrifice prevalent in some Christian discussions of meat eating.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  25.  12
    A Different View of Numerical Processes in Animals.E. J. Capaldi & Daniel J. Miller - 1988 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 11 (4):582-583.
  26.  9
    The Doctrine of the Trinity and Christian Environmental Action.Daniel Miller - 2013 - New Blackfriars 94 (1049):20-31.
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  27. Ideology, Power, and Prehistory.Daniel Miller, Christopher Y. Tilley & Theoretical Archaeology Group - 1984
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  28. Worlds Apart Modernity Through the Prism of the Local.Daniel Miller & Association of Social Anthropologists of the Commonwealth - 1995
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation  
  29.  12
    Sex and Sociality.Laura Rival, Don Slater & Daniel Miller - 1998 - Theory, Culture and Society 15 (3-4):295-321.
    This article is intended as a critique of recent theorizations of sexuality and desire, which have led performative theorists to contend that gender is an effect of discourse, and sex an effect of gender. It results from informal discussions between the three authors on the mechanisms through which sexuality gets objectified in modernity. The ideas of influential Western thinkers are confronted with field data on sexuality - as lived and imagined - that the authors have been gathering in Amazonian societies, (...)
    Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   1 citation