In liberal political theory, meaningful work is conceptualised as a preference in the market. Although this strategy avoids transgressing liberal neutrality, the subsequent constraint upon state intervention aimed at promoting the social and economic conditions for widespread meaningful work is normatively unsatisfactory. Instead, meaningful work can be understood to be a fundamental human need, which all persons require in order to satisfy their inescapable interests in freedom, autonomy, and dignity. To overcome the inadequate treatment of meaningful work by liberal political (...) theory, I situate the good of meaningful work within a liberal perfectionist framework, from which standpoint I develop a normative justification for making meaningful work the object of political action. To understand the content of meaningful work, I make use of Susan Wolf’s distinct value of meaningfulness, in which she brings together the dimensions of objectivity and subjectivity into the ‘bipartite value’ of meaningfulness (BVM) (Wolf, Meaning in life and why it matters, 2010). However, in order to be able to incorporate the BVM into our lives, we must become valuers, that is, co-creators of values and meanings. This demands that we acquire the relevant capabilities and status as co-authorities in the realm of value. I conclude that meaningful work is of first importance because it is a fundamental human need, and that society ought to be arranged to allow as many people as possible to experience their work as meaningful through the development of the relevant capabilities. (shrink)

One important proposal about the nature of well-being, prudential value or the personal good is that intrinsic values for a person ought to ‘resonate’ with the person for whom they are good. Indeed, virtually everyone agrees that there is something very plausible about this necessary condition on the building blocks of a good life. Given the importance of this constraint, however, it may come as something of a surprise how little reason we actually have to believe it. In this paper, (...) I'd like to do two things: first, to illustrate just how philosophically tenuous this thesis is, despite its apparent attraction, and to correct, or at least begin to correct, this state of affairs. My argument—which I call the ‘relationship to value’ argument—focuses in part on what it means to be a valuer—specifically, the peculiar relationship valuing agents bear to objects of value. (shrink)

This paper has three aims: to define autonomism clearly and charitably, to offer a positive argument in its favour, and to defend a larger view about what is at stake in the debate between autonomism and its critics. Autonomism is here understood as the claim that a valuer does not make an error in failing to bring her moral and aesthetic judgements together, unless she herself values doing so. The paper goes on to argue that reason does not require (...) the valuer to make coherent her aesthetic and moral evaluations. Finally, the paper shows that the denial of autonomism has realist commitments that autonomism does not have, and concludes that issues of value realism and irrealism are relevant to the debates about autonomism in ways that have not hitherto been recognized. (shrink)

Nihilism is one of Nietzsche’s foremost philosophical concerns. But characterizing it proves elusive. His nihilists include those in despair in the wake of the “death of God.” Yet they also include believing Christians. We have, among these nihilists, those fervently committed to frameworks of cosmic meaning. But we also have those who lack any such commitment, epitomized in the “last man.” We have those who want to escape this life. And we have those who wouldn’t dream of such a prospect. (...) Extant accounts have shed helpful light on the particularities of these various manifestations of nihilism. Yet they have not explained what ties these together. In this paper, I propose a unifying thread. Nihilists, on my reading of Nietzsche, are those who have come unmoored from the most important values. That is not to say that there is nothing more to nihilism than being wrong. But it is to say that we don’t understand Nietzschean nihilism fully if we just focus on the descriptive psychology of valuers. The unifying thread of Nietzschean nihilism, on my reading, in fact turns out to be structurally similar to the familiar idea of it we get in a number of other 19th century thinkers and authors—and ironically with those moralists who brand Nietzsche himself a nihilist. Where he differs from them is not in his account of what nihilism fundamentally is, but in the values he sees nihilists as having come unmoored from. (shrink)

Discourse around assisted colonization focuses on the ecological risks, costs, and uncertainties associated with the practice, as well as on its technical feasibility and alternative approaches to it. Nevertheless, the ethical underpinnings of the case for assisted colonization are claims about the value of species. A complete discussion of assisted colonization needs to include assessment of these claims. For each type of value that species are thought to possess it is necessary to determine whether it is plausible that species possess (...) the type of value and, if so, to what extent their possessing it justifies assisted colonization. I conducted such an assessment for each of the predominant types of value ascribed to species: ecological, instrumental (including option value), existence, and intrinsic value (including interest‐based, objective, and valuer‐dependent intrinsic value). The vast majority of species, including several that have been proposed as candidates for assisted colonization, have much less value than is often presumed. Moreover, with respect to some types of value, assisted colonization would not fully preserve the value of the target species even if it were to keep the target species in existence. Therefore, the case for assisted colonization is significantly weaker and more qualified than its advocates often suppose. There may be exceptional species for which assisted colonization is well justified—and for this reason, case‐by‐case assessment is necessary—but in general the burden of justification generated by the ecological risks associated with assisted colonization is not met by the value potentially preserved by assisted colonization. This suggests that assisted colonization ought to have, at most, a very minor role in the portfolio of ecosystem management practices, even as it pertains to species conservation under conditions of rapid climate change. (shrink)

A rather promising value theory for environmental philosophers combines the well-known fitting attitude (FA) account of value with the rather less well-known account of value as richness. If the value of an entity is proportional to its degree of richness (which has been cashed out in terms of unified complexity and organic unity), then since natural entities, such as species or ecosystems, exhibit varying degrees of richness quite independently of what we happen to feel about them, they also possess differing (...) degrees of mind-independent and subject-independent value. In particular, their value is not dependent on the desires or preferences of humans. The fitting attitudes account of value, at least as it is standardly developed, demands isomorphic evaluative responses on the part of all valuers. In particular, it entails that all valuers should have isomorphic preferences. But this seems absurd. I consider three different strategies with which the fitting attitude theorist can deflect this challenge. The first makes use of an account of non-standard value relations in terms of permissible preference orderings. The second appeals to value appearances and the associated notions of value distance and value perspective. The third involves an account of the ultimate bearers of value as properties, rather than as propositions or states of affairs. These strategies are not all mutually incompatible. While it isn’t possible to combine the first and second strategies, it is possible to combine the first and third strategies, and also to combine the second and the third. (shrink)

I argue that Janna Thompson’s critique of environmental ethics misrepresents the work of certain proponents of non-instrumental value theory and overlooks the ways in which intrinsie values have been related to valuers and their preferences. Some of the difficulties raised for environmental ethics are real but would only be fatal if environmental ethics could not be supplemented by a wider environmental philosophy and practice. The proper context and motivation for the development of non-instrumental theories is not that of an objectivist (...) value theory but rejection of the human domination and chauvinism involved in even the broadest instrumental accounts of nature as spiritual resource. (shrink)

This paper argues that relations of mutual recognition (love, respect, esteem, trust) contribute directly and non-reductively to our flourishing as relational selves. -/- Love is important for the quality of human life. Not only do everyday experiences and analyses of pop culture and world literature attest to this; scientific research does as well. How exactly does love contribute to well-being? This chapter discusses the suggestion that it not only matters for the experiential quality of life, or for successful agency, but (...) that it actualizes our nature as “relational selves” (Chen, Boucher & Kraus 2011). I defend a hybrid or pluralist theory, which sees humans not only as subjects of experiences, or agents, or valuers, but also as relational selves. Expanding from love to other interpersonal relations, thriving relations of mutual recognition (love, respect, esteem, trust), contribute directly and non-reductively to our flourishing as relational selves. The paper will start by putting forward the proposal (Section 2), and then discussing it in relation to important alternatives. The focus is on alternatives which hold that love, and other forms of mutual recognition, are important for well-being, but only indirectly. One kind of challenge against the constitutive role of relations to others for well-being comes from the traditional theories that accommodate relations in some indirect ways (Section 3). A second kind of challenge admits that perhaps love is central to well-being in a direct way, but do we have reason to believe that other forms of mutual recognition are as well? (Section 4) Yet another kind of challenge is that love matters for the quality of lives in some other way than contributing to its prudential value: love is good, but is it good for us? (Section 5) A fourth kind of challenge concerns what we are, and the nature of “essentialism” involved in the approach stressing relational selfhood: cannot, say, motherhood contribute to one’s good life even if motherhood is contingent and not essential? (Section 6). In debates on recognition the idea that mutual recognition is also relevant for well-being has been put forward, for example in Axel Honneth’s (1992, ch.9 ) ”formal” theory of good life. Whatever else constitutes good life, relations of recognition form its backbone (cf. Ikäheimo 2014). Surprisingly little however is written about mutual recognition and well-being in detail, or recognition in comparison to traditional theories of well-being. This chapter aims to fill some of that void, and at the same time defend the view that well-being is one of the normative notions with which mutual recognition has a constitutive relationship. (shrink)

Kant is often characterised as the chief exponent of an anthropocentric ethics that can ascribe to nature only a purely instrumental value. By contrast, this paper argues that Kant′s teleological conception of nature provides the basis for a promising account of environmental ethics. According to this account we can attribute to nature a value that is independent of its usefulness to human beings without making this value independent from the judgment of the rational valuer.

William Godfrey-Smith is now William Grey. It is agreed that the moral community can be justifiably extended to include sentient non-humans, however, it is claimed that it is possible to give up human chauvinism without adopting the ethic Godfrey-Smith advocates. Feinberg's interest principle is taken by Godfrey-Smith to be the most promising for demarcating the class of individuals to whom rights can be properly attributed. It is claimed that this principle does not force an extension of the class of rights-holders (...) beyond the class of sentient individuals, as claimed by Godfrey-Smith, to include individual trees, rainforests, soils and whole species. The crucial difference, it is claimed, is that sentient individuals but not plants are the subjects of experience. It is claimed that Godfrey-Smith has not provided sufficient argument to force an extension of the class of right-bearers in the way he advocates. Godfrey-Smith opposes the view that all values are grounded in human interest and concern, however, it is not necessary to accept his conclusion in order to argue against this position. Finally, it is not clear that he has produced an argument that shows there is no dependence between value and valuers analogous to the dependence between, say, lies and liars. (shrink)

This Element presents a new framework for Austrian Capital Theory, starting from the notion that capital is value. Capital is the value attributed by the valuer at any moment in time to the combination of production-goods and labor available for production. Capital is the result obtained by calculating the current value of a business-unit or business-project that employs resources over time. It is the result of a entrepreneurial calculation process that relates the flow of consumptions goods to the value (...) of the productive resources that will produce those consumptions goods. The entrepreneur is a ubiquitous calculating presence. In a review of the development of Austrian Capital Theory, by Carl Manger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig Lachmann as well as recent contributions, the Element incorporates the seminal contributions into the new framework in order to provide a more accessible perspective on Austrian Capital Theory. (shrink)

Celle de Pathos der Distanz est un notion fondamentale de la réflexion que Nietzsche, aux années 80, consacre à la généalogie des valeurs morales et à la corréspondante hiérarchie des hommes. Le Pathos der Distanz, coractérisant et distinguant la forme de vie la plus noble, excellente, est en soi un objection aux revendications d'egalité universelle, puisqu'il s'oppose à la validité universelle des valuers morales. Un aspect plus profond de la valorisation du Pathos der Distanz renvoie au travail de transformation de (...) l'expérience de soi, de récalibration des puissances individuelles ed des potentialités de l'homme . La dissolution des catéegories de la psychologie et de la morale traditionnelles comporte une revision de l'experience méme de soi: Nietzsche essaie d'articular un parcours de réapprentissage, dont l'une de voies d'accès provilégiée est le phénomène affectif d'autoperception du Pathos der Distanz.Der Begriff des Pathos der Distanz ist fundamental für die Überlegungen, die Nietzsche in den 80er Jahern der Genealogie der moarlischen Werte und der zugehörigen Hierarchie der Menschen widmet. Indem es die vornehmste und ausgezeichnete Lebensform charakterisiert, stecht das Pathos der Distanz im Gegensatz zum Anspruch auf universelle gleichheit und allgemeingültige moralische Werte. Ein tieferer Aspekt des Pathos der Distanz liegt in der Transformation der selbsterfahrung und des immer neuren Ins-Gleichgewicht-Kommens der individuellen Kräfte und der Fähigkeiten. Die Auflösung der Kategorien der traditionellen Psychologie und Moral bringt eine Revision der Selbsterfahrung mit sich: Nietzsche veruscht, einen Parcours des Wiedererlemens zu formulieren, zu dessen Hauptwegen das Pathos der Distanz als affektives Phänomen der Selbstwahrnehmung zählt.Pathos der Distanz is a fundamental notion of Nietzsche's reflexions that he concluded in the 80s on the geneology of moral values and corresponding hierarchy of man. By characterising and distinguishing the most noble and excellent form of life, Pathos der Distanz is an objection to universal equality and opposes the universal validity of moral values. A deeper aspect to the valorization of Pathos der Distanz relates to the perspective of transformation of self-experience, to recalibration of individual powers and human capacities. The dissolution of the categories of traditional psychology and morality leads to a revision of self-experience: Nietzsche tries to provide a method of relearning, one of which is the affective phenomenon of self-perception of Pathos der Distanz. (shrink)

Le livre La Volonté de puissance, faussement attribué à Friedrich Nietzsche, ainsi que la longue tradition de commentaires qui en découle ont passé sous silence le concept de "sentiment de puissance" qui précède et accompagne celui de "volonté de puissance", source de tant de méprises. Le "sentiment de puissance" est pourtant omniprésent sous la plume du philosophe, qui l'a peaufiné au fil des années, sans jamais y renoncer. Cet ouvrage, le premier consacré à ce concept central, en expose les principaux (...) enjeux et retrace ses évolutions. Il permet en outre de jeter une nouvelle lumière sur le concept de "volonté de puissance" et de réévaluer l'ensemble de la compréhension nietzschéenne du monde conçu comme rapports de forces, ainsi que les idées clés de sa philosophie."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

In this paper, I defend the view that self-deception is a moral failure. Instead of saying that self-deception is bad because it undermines our moral character or leads to morally deleterious consequences, as has been argued by Butler, Kant, Smith, and others, I argue the distinctive badness of self-deception lies in the tragic relationship that it bears to our own values. On the one hand, self-deception is motivated by what we value. On the other hand, it prevents us from valuing (...) those things properly. I argue that we owe it ourselves to take seriously our own values, by striving to properly value them. This gives us both prudential and moral reasons to avoid self-deception. (shrink)

Devant le constat du déclin toujours plus rapide de la diversité biologique et les limites des res- sources disponibles pour l’enrayer, il est nécessaire de déterminer quels moyens devraient être engagés dans sa protection. Pour ce faire, une méthode efficace serait d’évaluer les bénéfices tirés de la biodiversité afin d’estimer rationnellement les coûts légitimes de sa protection. L’évaluation économique, qui se présente d’emblée sur un mode quantitatif, serait alors un outil précieux. Dans ce texte, nous présentons différentes méthodes d’évaluation économique (...) de la biodiversité ainsi que certaines de leurs limites méthodologiques. Par la suite, nous montrons qu’en dépit de ses avantages pratiques, l’évaluation économique échoue à représenter l’ensemble des valeurs en jeu dans la protection de la biodiversité. Nous décrivons alors trois types de valeurs incommen- surables avec des bénéfices économiques : la valeur de legs, qui renvoie aux obligations de trans- mission du patrimoine naturel dont nous avons hérité ; la valeur d’existence, qui renvoie à la considération morale d’intérêts autres que ceux des êtres humains ; la valeur de transformation, qui renvoie à la capacité d’examiner et de critiquer nos préférences et inclinaisons afin d’inclure celles-ci dans une vision du monde rationnelle et cohérente. Pour conclure, nous plaidons en faveur de l’élaboration de méthodes de concertation et d’évaluation participatives et pluralistes permettant de rendre compte de la diversité et de l’hétérogénéité des valeurs de la biodiversité. (shrink)

In earlier chapters, we described debates between objectivists and relativists over methodology in the sciences, and over science and values. We have been led to talk about the role of value judgments in various areas of thought, but in this final chapter we turn more directly to the age – old question of the objectivity of values. Objectivists and relativists populate debate over this question just as we found them populating other questions we have addressed. There is a general, deep (...) – seated worry about ascribing objectivity two things human – centered. Talk of the objectivity of values seems odd in light of any notion of objectivity that draws upon a mind–independence, since values and valuings are so clearly terms of relation with the judgments of valuers. But neither are judgments of value merely subjective if they result in actions likely to affect the interests of others, or if they are responsive to reasons and criticism. (shrink)

In this paper, I address the question of engaged philosophy with an emphasis on aesthetics and the philosophy of art. Referring to some specific problems discussed in these areas – in particular climate change, ecological crisis and immoral art – I demonstrate that philosophy can be engaged in two ways: (i) in its aspiration to question social reality, culture, human experience and the strategies for making sense of and finding value in that experience; (ii) in the aspiration to contribute to (...) the well-being of individuals and society through its contribution to understanding that reality and experience. First, I point to the connection between the philosophical questions and the fundamental intellectual aspirations of human beings as social and cultural beings, but also as autonomous knowers and valuers. Second, I respond to two objections that can be directed against engaged philosophy: (i) one that points to a lack of consensus among philosophical responses (the problem of disagreement), and (ii) one that highlights the irrelevance of philosophical debates to our social practice. (shrink)

Alfred North Whitehead’s metaphysics provides a means for overcoming the dualism embedded in J. Baird Callicott’s “postmodern” axiology. Indeed, the lessons Callicott draws from the new physics and ecology imply Whitehead’s position. While Callicott holds that subjectivity and valuing require consciousness, Whitehead argues that subjectivity and valuing characterize all metaphysically basic entities, conscious and non-conscious. Removing the constraint that valuing requires consciousness is a slight shift, but it makes all the difference. By jettisoning this constraint, we can develop a robust (...) account of intrinsic value that overcomes Callicott’s duality, while retaining his insights that valuing requires a valuer and fluent energy is more fundamental than discrete entities. (shrink)

Alfred North Whitehead’s metaphysics provides a means for overcoming the dualism embedded in J. Baird Callicott’s “postmodern” axiology. Indeed, the lessons Callicott draws from the new physics and ecology imply Whitehead’s position. While Callicott holds that subjectivity and valuing require consciousness, Whitehead argues that subjectivity and valuing characterize all metaphysically basic entities, conscious and non-conscious. Removing the constraint that valuing requires consciousness is a slight shift, but it makes all the difference. By jettisoning this constraint, we can develop a robust (...) account of intrinsic value that overcomes Callicott’s duality, while retaining his insights that valuing requires a valuer and fluent energy is more fundamental than discrete entities. (shrink)

Nous pensons avoir souvent le choix entre plusieurs options et considérons que les personnes humaines qui exercent normalement ce pouvoir peuvent être tenues pour responsables de leurs actes. Ces croyances, en la liberté, en la responsabilité et en leur relation nécessaire, ont pu être entendues de manières différentes, voire niées. L'idée que les actions humaines sont déterminées par des facteurs qui ne dépendent pas des agents humains, comme le sont tous ou la plupart des événements de ce monde, est une (...) croyance ancienne (destin, prédestination) et moderne (déterminisme des lois de la nature). Et la pensée qu'une indétermination des actions humaines ne serait pas plus favorable à la liberté et à la responsabilité peut conduire à la conclusion que ces dernières sont impossibles. Pour affronter ce problème, il faut élucider les concepts, et évaluer les analyses ainsi que les arguments proposés de part et d'autre. En s'appuyant sur l'état contemporain de la discussion, ce livre défend la possibilité et la plausibilité de la conception "libertarienne" de la liberté. Elle serait incompatible avec le déterminisme et compatible avec l'indéterminisme, qui est la condition de la responsabilité morale."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

La référence à la nature, qu'elle soit normative ou descriptive, croise les thèmes essentiels de l'éthique d'Aristote : la fin ultime, l'acquisition des vertus, le plaisir et les émotions, les liens relationnels, la justice et la vie en cité, la responsabilité. L'éthique aristotélicienne n'est pas pour autant "naturaliste" au sens où le bien humain dériverait de tendances et de prédispositions naturelles. Cet ouvrage, en procédant à une étude systématique de la référence à la nature dans l'éthique aristotélicienne, défend une nouvelle (...) interprétation du naturalisme pratique d'Aristote : un naturalisme critique, le plus souvent dialectique, qui s'interroge sur les conditions de base du bien humain ; non pas un naturalisme scientifique, en vertu duquel la biologie serait source de prescriptions morales, mais un naturalisme problématique qui délimite des possibilités d'agir. L'une des tâches primordiales du théoricien de l'éthique, comme celle du politique actif, est précisément d'évaluer dans quelle mesure le bien humain dépend de la nature ou s'en affranchit."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

Values-based medicine derives from an approach first introduced into the philosophy of psychiatry, which aims to demonstrate that the reality of mental illness is not inconsistent with the scientific status of medicine. Associated primarily with the work of K.W.M. Fulford, the argument is that practitioners need to be ethical anti-descriptivists if they are to avoid the authoritarianism of evidence-based medicine, which overlooks the fact that genuine value conflicts can arise during all clinical encounters, and that psychiatry is just the most (...) explicit area in which these occur. This paper takes a philosophically therapeutic line and argues that, by reducing values to the status of preferences, antidescriptivism undermines the value of 'value' and leaves the practitioner with a reduced ability to discern and negotiate genuine conflicts of value. The conclusion is that patients should be respected, not as instantiations of preferences but as valuers ; and that this requires practitioners to become more cosmopolitan and sympathetic, not more theoretically sophisticated. (shrink)

The philosophical study of the environment exists because philosophers are concerned about the environmental problems. This concern may not be the only factor that motivates to do environmental philosophy. For some scholars, the topic is philosophically intriguing. This paper suggests that two approaches can be distinguished: practical and philosophical. The starting point of the practical approach is the existence of environmental problems adopted from environmental sciences and public debates. These problems are then analysed philosophically so as to increase our understanding (...) about them. According to the philosophical approach, the focus is on philosophical problems formulated in an environmentally meaningful way but the problems are independent of environmental problems. For example, Routley’s famous “last man” argument stems from the classic problem whether values are independent of valuers or not? Both approaches have their limitations. As to the philosophical approach, the problems under scrutiny are abstract and rather distant from real-life environmental concerns, whereas the practical approach may assume a naïve realist stance to the existence of problems. How to mix the philosophers’ fascination with intellectual problems with the real-life concerns over environmental degradation is a major challenge for environmental philosophy. (shrink)

Ce livre part du différend qui a opposé Frege et Husserl à propos du psychologisme. Comment ces deux pensées tournées vers une réflexion sur l'arithmétique ont-elles pu parvenir à deux conceptions si différentes de la logique? Il est apparu qu'il s'agissait d'évaluer l'idée de représentation qui est au coeur du problème. L'un et l'autre la conçoivent de manière différente : Frege pense qu'il s'agit d'une faculté psychologique indispensable à l'être humain pour agir. La pensée commence lorsque le lien avec la (...) nature est rompu : le langage naturel et les langages artificiels permettent de s'affranchir du rapport de la représentation à l'action. Husserl ne croit pas que le recours aux symboles et aux signes soit nécessaire pour s'affranchir du rapport à la sensibilité et penser. Il suffit que la représentation se réfléchisse en représentation de la représentation. Le désaccord vient donc d'une conception différente de la représentation et des symboles pour penser. Faut-il (se) représenter pour penser ou y a-t-il place pour une pensée symbolique et aveugle? Toute une métaphysique sous-jacente apparaît qui, à partir de la distinction transcendantal-symbolique, pose le problème du temps à l'intemporel, de la liberté à la loi, de l'idéal au virtuel... (shrink)

abstract One sometimes finds leading economic thinkers expounding the metaphysical thesis that the ultimate ethical value of an object reflects nothing about the properties of the object in itself and instead reflects the subjective tastes of the valuer. Could anything in economics qua economics provide a warrant for such ethical subjectivism? And what might tempt economists to speak on such broadly meta‐ethical issues? In this paper we argue that a partial explanation for the subjectivist cast‐of‐mind of much economic theory (...) is to be found in the recent history of price formation theory. (We focus in particular on the so‐called ‘Marginalist’ and ‘Ordinalist’ Revolutions in price theory.) We argue that although such price formation theory provides no warrant for drawing ethical subjectivist conclusions, it does provide an explanation as to why such conclusions might be drawn. Thus we explore how the particular history of the development of what is called ‘value theory’ might well lead one (albeit unwarrantedly) towards ethical subjectivism. (shrink)

This chapter traces a significant strand in Ayn Rand's intellectual development, showing how an idea that figures prominently in her early vision of a hero develops into the central concept for which she named her mature philosophy. It provides a brief sketch on objectivity. Rand's earliest surviving reference to valuing as an activity occurs in notes she made in 1928 for a novel that she intended to call The Little Street. Both The Little Street and We the Living are set (...) in nightmare environments where the valuers are sacrificed to placate the petty resentments and short‐range desires of those who do not know how to value. The Fountainhead shows that the spiritual activity that Rand sees as the essence of human life is incompatible with a primary orientation toward other people. Atlas Shrugged contains Rand's presentation of her mature philosophy. This includes her moral theory and her view of character. (shrink)

In the first section I present a disagreement between a number of scholars concerning the goodness, indifference, evil or even wickedness both of nature and of nonhuman creatures. Section 2 examines and rejects the response to these diverse judgements that values are generated by human valuers employing different perspectives. In Section 3, the thesis that nonhuman animals are commonly either wicked or immoral is considered. The next two sections address the value or disvalue of predation and parasitism, and then of (...) waste, selfishness and suffering. In the Section 6 I conclude that the evolutionary system of nature has vast overall value, and that although there are widespread evils within it, the only significant alternatives are a lifeless world, a world without sentient life, and a world of constant supernatural intervention, all probably worlds without such a positive balance of value as the actual world. (shrink)

In the first section I present a disagreement between a number of scholars (including T.H. Huxley, G.J. Romanes, George C. Williams and Holmes Rolston) concerning the goodness, indifference, evil or even wickedness both of nature and of nonhuman creatures. Section 2 examines and rejects the response to these diverse judgements that values are generated by human valuers employing different perspectives. In Section 3, the thesis that nonhuman animals are commonly either wicked or immoral is considered. The next two sections address (...) the value or disvalue of predation and parasitism, and then of waste, selfishness and suffering. In the Section 6 I conclude that the evolutionary system of nature has vast overall value, and that although there are widespread evils within it, the only significant alternatives are a lifeless world, a world without sentient life, and a world of constant supernatural intervention, all probably worlds without such a positive balance of value as the actual world. (shrink)

Au premier abord, les visées et les méthodes philosophiques de Spinoza et de Sartre semblent radicalement différentes. Or, ces différences radicales se trouvent dépassées dès qu'on se penche sur une problématique commune à ces deux philosophes : la production et le maintien de la communauté libre. Une interrogation philosophique sur la question de l'articulation de l'éthique et de la politique nous donnera la possibilité d'évaluer ces philosophes comme les constituants d'une certaine théorie anticontractualiste se fondant spécifiquement sur l'idée de l'émancipation (...) perpétuelle de l'individu dans et par la communauté."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

‘...if you learn to think like Peter Cave – with freshness, humour, objectivity and penetration – you will have been amply rewarded.’ :::: Prof. Felipe Fernandez-Armesto, University of Notre Dame __________________ Chapter Titles:>>> ___ 1 Lao Tzu: The Way to Tao >>> 2 Sappho: Lover >>> 3 Zeno of Elea: Tortoise Backer, Parmenidean Helper >>> 4 Gadfly: aka ‘Socrates’ >>> 5 Plato: Charioteer, Magnificent Footnote Inspirer – ‘Nobody Does It Better’ >>> 6 Aristotle: Earth-Bound, Walking >>> 7 Epicurus: Gardener, Curing (...) the Soul, Ably Assisted by Lucretius >>> 8 Avicenna: Flying Man, Unifier >>> 9 Descartes: With Princess, With Queen >>> 10 Spinoza: God-Intoxicated Atheist >>> 11 Leibniz: Monad Man >>> 12 Bishop Berkeley, ‘That Paradoxical Irishman’: Immaterialist, Tar-Water Advocate >>> 13 David Hume: The Great Infidel or Le Bon David >>> 14 Kant: Duty Calls, Categorically >>> 15 Schopenhauer: Pessimism With Flute >>> 16 John Stuart Mill: Utility Man, With Harriet, Soul-Mate >>> 17 Søren Kierkegaard: Who? >>> 18 Karl Marx: Hegelian, Freedom-Fighter >>> 19 Lewis Carroll: Curiouser and Curiouser >>> 20 Nietzsche: God-Slaying Jester, Trans-Valuer >>>> 21 Bertrand Russell: Radical, Aristocrat >>> 22 G. E. Moore: Common-Sense Defender, Bloomsbury’s Sage >>> 23 Heidegger: Hyphenater >>> 24 Jean-Paul Sartre: Existentialist, Novelist, French >>> 25 Simone Weil: Refuser and Would-Be Rescuer >>> 26 Simone de Beauvoir: Situated, Protester, Feminist >>> 27 Ludwig Wittgenstein: Therapist >>> 28 Hannah Arendt: Controversialist, Journalist? >>> 29 Iris Murdoch: Attender >>> 30 Samuel Beckett: Not I >>>. (shrink)

Peut-on sentir et expérimenter que l'on est éternel? On dit parfois que l'art, la philosophie ou la religion peuvent nous permettre d'échapper à notre condition temporelle, et nous faire accéder à l'éternité. Mais sait-on alors ce qu'on dit? Prétendre à une telle expérience de l'éternité, ne serait-ce pas plutôt une marque de folie? Ce livre ne veut pas en préjuger. À l'écoute de la littérature, de la philosophie, de la théologie, mais aussi de la clinique psychiatrique, il veut saisir les (...) contours de ces expériences de l'extrême pour les évaluer et tâcher d'en tirer les enseignements pour la compréhension de l'expérience, de l'éternité et de notre condition temporelle. De Spinoza aux tatouages des individus borderline, de la deep ecology à Simone Weil, ce livre explore les manières de faire sentir et résonner l'éternité."--Page 4 of cover. (shrink)

In this paper I defend a ‘culturalist’ but nevertheless non-relativistic moral theory, taking Charles Taylor’s writings on this topic as my guide.1 Taylor is a realist concerning natural sciences, the ontology of persons and the ontology of goods (or meanings, significances or values). Yet, his realisms in these three areas differ significantly from one another, and therefore one has to be careful not to presuppose too rigid views of what realism must be like. Taylor’s moral realism can be called culturalist, (...) phenomenological, hermeneutical or even ‘expressivist’.2 According to culturalist moral realism, cognitivism is the correct view of our ordinary moral and evaluative reactions and responses to situations. In the realm of evaluative judgements, genuinely correct and incorrect (and better and worse) judgements are possible. These judgements can be implicit in our moral emotions and tacit agent’s knowledge, or more explicit in different articulations (section 1). What makes evaluative judgements correct are evaluative properties or ‘imports’ of the situation, and both the evaluative features of situations and our correct responses to them can be further understood in terms of a plurality of (conflicting and incommensurable) goods, ideals or values (section 2). The evaluative realm is not accessible from a disengaged perspective, but only from within an engaged, lifeworldly perspective. Evaluative properties are not merely a matter of subjective projection nor merely a matter of objective properties independent of valuers. Evaluative properties are relational, and neither the objective nor the subjective pole has priority (Section 3). The evaluative realm is in some sense dependent on social forms (concepts and practices), which are historically changing. Yet the validity of goods is (potentially) universal, goods that are valid in our culture would be valid in other cultures as well and vice versa. The correctness of evaluative judgements is not restricted by one’s own (or one’s culture’s) evaluations, framework or orientation (i.e.. (shrink)

In this chapter I argue that value realism or moral realism does not, pace Charles Taylor, need “moral sources” or “constitutive goods”, and that adding these concepts distorts the basic insights of engaged value realism. -/- In section 7.1 I reconstruct the central points of Taylor’s theory of the first layer of such moral space, consisting of ordinary goods and values embodied in objects and situations, as experienced by valuers. In section 7.2, I discuss the notion of “ontological background pictures” (...) implicit in the value-experiences. I defend Taylor’s suggestion that articulating such ontological features sheds light on our moral reactions. I hope to show that Taylor’s engaged value realism can stand on these notions alone, and that there is no further step that we need to take in asking about the constitution of goods. The trick is to drive a wedge between the concepts of ontological background pictures and constitutive goods. If one manages to do that, one does not really have to argue much more, one can almost observe the credibility of constitutive goods vanish into thin air. In section 7.3, I discuss Taylor’s second level notions of “constitutive goods”, “moral sources” and “manifestation”. I hope to show that such notions are not only superfluous but also harmful for the engaged value realism that the first-level notions support. The most pernicious effect that follows from postulating such “second-level” entities is that it makes it seem possible to question moral realism simply by questioning the point, or existence, of “constitutive goods”. I suggest abandoning these notions altogether. In section 7.4 I outline a theory without them, an engaged value realism which sees the evaluative and normative realms as sui generis. In section 7.5, I take a look at how such a sui generis moral realism is related to a more Kantian understanding of “subjectivity as a source” (Korsgaard, Habermas, Pippin) or to the idea that some individual norms, decisions and promises have sources (Raz). In section 7.6, I study five other roles that the notion of constitutive goods has in Taylor’s theory, apart from allegedly “constituting” the goods. These roles are related to motivation, modernity, the ontology of humans, and theism. I try to show that alternative understandings of these are available, if we drop the notion of constitutive goods. (shrink)

In this Chapter (ch 5 of Strong Evaluation without Moral Sources), as well the following chapters, I defend a hermeneutical but nevertheless non-relativistic moral theory, taking Charles Taylor’s writings on this topic as my guide. Taylor is a realist concerning natural sciences, the ontology of persons and the ontology of goods (or meanings, significances or values). Yet, his realisms in these three areas differ significantly from one another, and therefore one has to be careful not to presuppose too rigid views (...) of what “realism” must be like. Taylor’s moral realism can be called engaged, cultural, phenomenological, hermeneutical or even “expressivist” in a sense to be clarified. According to such value realism, cognitivism is the correct view of our ordinary moral and evaluative reactions and responses to situations. In the realm of evaluative judgements, genuinely correct and incorrect (and better and worse) judgements are possible. These judgements can be implicit in our moral emotions and tacit agent’s knowledge, or more explicit in different articulations. What makes evaluative judgements correct are evaluative properties or “imports” of the situation, and both the evaluative features of situations and our correct responses to them can be further understood in terms of a plurality of (conflicting and incommensurable) goods, ideals or values (section 5.1). In 5.2 I discuss some motivations for non-cognitivism, and try to show that cognitivism can preserve these motivations. I then ask whether value-properties are metaphysically “queer” and what the perspective from which goods are accessible is. I argue for a lifeworldly, engaged access. The evaluative realm is not accessible from a disengaged perspective, but only from within an engaged, lifeworldly perspective. Evaluative properties are not merely a matter of subjective projection nor merely a matter of objective properties independent of valuers. Evaluative properties are relational, and neither the objective nor the subjective pole has priority (5.3). Then I clarify the meaning of “good” and “value”, especially in relation to the central idea that each qualitative distinction of worth expressible in thick, strongly evaluative terms specifies a “value” or a “good” or a “good-making property”. I contrast this with other meanings of “good”. (5.4) After that, I defend the irreducible plurality of such goods against more uniform principles and value monism on the one hand, and I defend their generality against more radical particularisms on the other. Further, I discuss the “lumpy” character of the evaluative realm in relation to incompatibility, incommensurability and conflicts of goods. (5.5). These theses are reconstructed from Charles Taylor’s writings, but authors like John McDowell and Joseph Raz hold similar views. Not unimportantly, Charles Taylor would add a further thesis claiming that there are “constitutive goods” which constitute the goodness of “life goods”, or which in other words bring about the fact that evaluative properties have value. I try to defend the coherence and appeal of engaged, lifeworldly moral realism without taking at first any stand on this further claim about constitutive goods. J. Schneewind (1991, 422) writes in his perceptive review of Sources of the Self that Taylor does not really pay attention to the metaethical debates of 20th century value-theorists. While Taylor’s contribution could have benefited from the work already done in the field, and while Taylor’s philosophizing often leaves it open how his views relate to the views of others, his approach manages to be remarkably original. One might add that due to the theoretically “rhapsodic” nature of Taylor’s work, his theory has received criticism from opposing directions. He tries to defend several theses, which many critics seem to think cannot be held together. Taylor seems to be both communitarian and expressive individualist stressing authenticity; both historicist and universalist; both anthropocentricist and deep ecologist; a realist and a cultural relativist. In this work, some of these seemingly contradictory combinations are defended, while some of them are criticized. (shrink)

This book traverses an incredibly wide range of topics, unified by attention to Nietzsche on value, which, Richardson writes, “has a good claim to be Nietzsche’s primary topic” (1). The challenge that Richardson takes Nietzsche to address (especially in his later work) is the establishment of a kind of compatibility thesis, namely the compatibility of accepting that values are, as Nietzsche takes them to be, essentially perspectival and dependent for their existence on valuers, and that we nonetheless ought to adopt (...) certain (life-affirming) values. This is a challenge given the temptation to move from “no valuer-independent values” to “no genuine values,” that is, a kind of nihilism that threatens to undermine... Read More. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: Semantic Externalism: A Rough Sketch and a Gesture at Motivation Interests, Values, and the Mind's End Beyond Externalism About Mental Contents Acknowledgments References.