Two essays on utilitarianism, written from opposite points of view, by J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams. In the first part of the book Professor Smart advocates a modern and sophisticated version of classical utilitarianism; he tries to formulate a consistent and persuasive elaboration of the doctrine that the rightness and wrongness of actions is determined solely by their consequences, and in particular their consequences for the sum total of human happiness. In Part II Bernard Williams offers a sustained (...) and vigorous critique of utilitarian assumptions, arguments and ideals. He finds inadequate the theory of action implied by utilitarianism, and he argues that utilitarianism fails to engage at a serious level with the real problems of moral and political philosophy, and fails to make sense of notions such as integrity, or even human happiness itself. This book should be of interest to welfare economists, political scientists and decision-theorists. (shrink)

This paper begins with a Davidsonian puzzle in the epistemology of perception and introduces two solutions to that puzzle: the Truth-Maker View (TMV) and the Content Model. The paper goes on to elaborate (TMV), elements of which can be found in the work of Kalderon (2011) and Brewer (2011). The central tenant of (TMV) is the claim that one's reason for one's perceptual belief should, in all cases, be identified with some item one perceives which makes the proposition believed true. (...) I defend an argument against (TMV) which appeals to (a) the claim that the reason for which one believes should always to be identified with the explanans of the rationalising explanation to which one's belief is subject and (b) the claim that the explanantia of rationalising explanations must be identified with truths. I finish by replying to two objections to the argument. (shrink)

In this article I try to refute the so-called "libertarian" theory of free will, and to examine how our conclusion ought to modify our common attitudes of praise and blame. In attacking the libertarian view, I shall try to show that it cannot be consistently stated. That is, my dscussion will be an "analytic-philosophic" one. I shall neglect what I think is in practice an equally powerful method of attack on the libertarian: a challenge to state his theory in such (...) a way that it will fit in the modern biology and psychology, which are becoming increasingly physicalistic. (shrink)

Book reviewed in this article:F.H. Bradley, Collected Works Volumes 1–5.

La situación laboral de los países desarrollados impone a la filosofía la tarea de pensar el trabajo en cuanto que los cambios producidos pueden afectar - y de hecho afectan- a la concepción de la persona, de la sociedad y del mundo actual. En este artículo, después de cuestionar que estemos asistiendo al final del trabajo a causa de la revolución tecnológica, analizaremos dos propuestas de reducción y reorganización del tiempo de trabajo, y otras dos que hacen referencia a un (...) cambio de paradigma: una rompe la actual barrera entre trabajo asalariado y trabajo no monetarizado, y la otra defiende el subsidio universal garantizado. (shrink)

"Might this be a dream?" In this book, distinguished philosopher J. J. Valberg approaches the familiar question about dream and reality by seeking to identify its subject matter: what is it that would be the dream if "this" were a dream? It turns out to be a subject matter that contains the whole of the world, space, and time but which, like consciousness for Sartre, is nothing "in itself." This subject matter, the "personal horizon," lies at the heart of the (...) main topics--the first person, the self, and the self in time--explored at length in the book. The personal horizon is, Valberg contends, the subject matter whose center each of us occupies, and which for each of us ceases with death. This ceasing to be presents itself solipsistically not just as the end of everything "for me" but as the end of everything absolutely. Yet since it is the same for everyone, this cannot be. Death thus confronts us with an impossible fact: something that cannot be but will be. The puzzle about death is one of several extraphilosophical puzzles about the self that Valberg discusses, puzzles that can trouble everyday consciousness without any contribution from philosophy. Nor can philosophy resolve the puzzles. Its task is to get to the bottom of them, and in this respect to understand ourselves--a task philosophy has always set itself. (shrink)

Nesta obra, o propósito fundamental foi o de fornecer liberdade de investigação dentro do amplo leque tópico que, desde o início, marca a abertura problemática e problematizante do protocolo entre a UNISINOS e a FDUC. Desde as dimensões filosóficas às dimensões históricas, passando pelas dimensões teoréticas e dogmáticas do direito e do estado, aqui vem a convergir os interesses científicos do relevante número de investigadores e professores activamente comprometidos neste projecto.

The present essay grew out of an inte:rest in exploring the relationship be tween "imagination" and "reason" in the history of naturalistic thinking. The essay tries to show something of the spirit of naturalism coming to terms with the place of imagination and reason in knowing, making, and doing as activities of human experience. This spirit is discussed by taking as its point of departure the thinking of five writers: Plato, Aristotle, Giam battista Vieo, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and John Keats. Plato (...) and Aristotle are considered as spokesmen of reason in a world which appeared to be dominated by non-reason. They found it essential for human beings to try to learn how to distinguish between the work of imagin ation and the work of reason. In trying to make such a distinction, it becomes clear that imagination has its legitimate place, along with reason, in human activity. Or we might say that determining the place which each has is a continuing problem when human beings take seriously what is involved in shaping mind and character. (shrink)