Recent attempts to defend Mill's account of higher and lower pleasures have overlooked a critical flaw in Mill's argument. Mill considers the question of pleasure and preference as an empirical one, but the evidence he appeals to is inconclusive. Yet, this distinction plays an essential role in Mill's utilitarianism because Mill uses this evidence to support his argument that most people actually prefer pleasures resulting from higher faculties over pleasures resulting from lower faculties. If this proves to be insufficient, then (...) Mill's claim that these pleasures are clearly of a higher quality than others is left unsubstantiated. This article highlights the problematic nature of Mill's evidence, thereby exposing a significant problem for his, and for any utilitarian system which assumes Mill's distinction without providing additional argumentation for it. (shrink)

Conceivability arguments play an important role in philosophy and especially in the mind/body debate. Although Descartes provides us with one of the best known conceivability arguments for dualism, conceivability arguments are in no way limited to historical positions. Conceivability has had a prominent role in contemporary philosophy of mind, primarily as evidence against materialism. In this dissertation I analyze these arguments and argue they are ultimately unsuccessful. ;My dissertation is divided into four main sections. In the first, I look at (...) Descartes' historical version of the conceivability argument. In the second, I analyze a contemporary version of the conceivability argument, namely Frank Jackson's knowledge argument and Thomas Nagel's discussion of the subjective nature of our experience of mind. I argue that these are unable to legitimize a move between conceivability to possibility. In the third section, I focus on David Chalmers' version of the conceivability argument, the zombie argument. Here I suggest that Chalmers' argument also depends on a supposed but unsupported link between our epistemological ability and a thing's ontological status. In the final section, I consider possible reasons for drawing a connection between conceivability and possibility and conclude that none of these are sufficient. ;Although Descartes attempts to fill in the steps between a person's ability to conceive of something and that something's possibility, he is unable to show that the connection between conceivability and possibility is strong enough to support his conclusion. Descartes, however, at least understands that he cannot simply assume the truth of this connection without first attempting to provide support for it. Because the contemporary philosophers in question do not attempt to legitimize their claim to a connection between conceivability and possibility, their versions of the conceivability argument are even more problematic. And, as I show in the fourth chapter, a general proof of the legitimacy of drawing metaphysical conclusions from something's epistemological status has yet to be given. Consequently, I conclude that the attempt to reject materialist accounts of consciousness on the basis of conceivability arguments is unsuccessful and ought to be abandoned. (shrink)

Despite a growing awareness that the philosophical canon consists almost exclusively of white male philosophers, it can be tempting to ignore the problem—especially for those who lack either the time or the expertise to fix it. Yet philosophical practice regularly requires us to raise questions and acknowledge issues even when we lack solutions. Engaging students in a discussion about dismissive or exclusionary comments that they notice in the reading is a good place to start; it provides insight into the origins (...) of the problem and acknowledges its wide-reaching impact. For example, analyzing an editorial comment about Diotima during a class on Plato’s Symposium allows us to recognize and reconsider our assumptions about the impact of women on philosophy, a reflection that becomes even more salient when we realize that neither Plato nor the Socrates depicted in his dialogues seem to find anything ridiculous about the suggestion that the theory stems from a woman. This easy intervention provides us with a blueprint for envisioning similar responses in other courses. (shrink)

Should we teach from a value-neutral position or should we disclose our positions when in the classroom? How should we approach disciplinary values, commitments, and procedures? Recent work in the epistemology of disagreement could have a profound impact on our response to these questions. While some contemporary epistemologists argue that it is possible to have rational disagreement between epistemic peers, many argue that such disagreement is indicative of a lack of rationality for one or both parties. Yet, if there is (...) something inherently irrational about peer disagreement—even amongst philosophers, then our pedagogical approaches will need to undergo significant revision. (shrink)