In “The Difference Principle Would Not Be Chosen behind the Veil of Ignorance,” Johan E. Gustafsson argues that the parties in the Original Position would not choose the Difference Principle to regulate their society’s basic structure. In reply to this internal critique, we provide two arguments. First, his choice models do not serve as a counterexample to the choice of the difference principle, as the models must assume that individual rationality scales to collective contexts in a way that begs the (...) question in favor of utilitarianism. Second, the choice models he develops are incompatible with the constraints of fairness that apply in the OP, which by design subordinates claims of rationality to claims of impartiality. When the OP is modeled correctly the difference principle is indeed entailed by the conditions of the OP. (shrink)

With their charming Irish brogues, the members of the Real IRA bring a rich and sometimes sinister history to the drama of Sons of Anarchy. By discriminating among their targets and practicing military‐like discipline, the Irish Kings gain the status of freedom fighters. Admittedly, their tactics are violent, but groups like the Real IRA resort to violence only because they have no other option for effectively fighting for their political cause. On Sons of Anarchy we usually see the Belfast police (...) who are on Jimmy O's payroll—the ones who harass SAMCRO—but there is evidence that other members of the police force actively support the Crown and have used violence against the Real IRA. Some philosophers have concluded that violence may be legitimate for groups opposing an oppressive regime, but only so long as it does not directly target the civilian population. (shrink)

L’enquête conceptuelle sur la justice de Kyle Johannsen nous incite à considérer la justice comme une simple valeur, indépendante des exigences de la pratique. Dans ce qui suit, je soulève deux questions méthodologiques afin de déterminer si Johannsen fonctionne avec la compréhension ‘correcte’ de la justice et de le convaincre que des problèmes complexes, tels que ceux concernant la justice sociale, nécessitent que la justice soit comprise comme une valeur complexe. Ainsi, les contextualistes de la justice devraient embrasser la distinction (...) entre la justice et les règles de régulation. En outre, la justice, davantage qu’une valeur parmi d’autres à considérer dans nos délibérations, doit plutôt être conçue comme leur résultat. (shrink)

This chapter focuses on one of the common fallacies in Western philosophy called ' proof by verbosity (PVB)'. PVB is a favorite device among conspiracy theorists who utilize it to obfuscate the weakness of their case. By supporting their theories with so much random information (and misinformation), it gives the impression that their position is superficially well researched and supported by an avalanche of evidence. Sometimes PVB takes the form of a proof by intimidation, especially when an argument is made (...) using sophisticated insider jargon, or when a complex and long‐winded argument is made by an eminent scholar in the field. In the spirit of overwhelming the opposition, a PVB can be committed by employing a litany of numbers and statistics. Articulating your arguments in a clear and concise fashion and substantiating the position with well‐founded and mutually intelligible premises is the key to avoiding a proof by verbosity. (shrink)