There is a modal relative of Euthyphro's dilemma that goes like this: are necessary truths true b... more There is a modal relative of Euthyphro's dilemma that goes like this: are necessary truths true because God affirms them, or does God affirm them because they're true? If you accept the first horn, necessary truths are as contingent as God's free will. If you accept the second, God is less ultimate than the modal ontology that establishes certain truths as necessary. If you try to split the horns by affirming that necessary truths are somehow grounded in God's nature, Brian Leftow meets you with an argument. I will argue that Leftow's argument fails and that, contrary to his argument, there is a good reason to believe that necessary truths are grounded in God's nature.
There is a modal relative of Euthyphro's dilemma that goes like this: are necessary truths true b... more There is a modal relative of Euthyphro's dilemma that goes like this: are necessary truths true because God affirms them, or does God affirm them because they're true? If you accept the first horn, necessary truths are as contingent as God's free will. If you accept the second, God is less ultimate than the modal ontology that establishes certain truths as necessary. If you try to split the horns by affirming that necessary truths are somehow grounded in God's nature, Brian Leftow meets you with an argument. I will argue that Leftow's argument fails and that, contrary to his argument, there is a good reason to believe that necessary truths are grounded in God's nature.
This article articulates and defends an underexplored account of faith – the perspectival account... more This article articulates and defends an underexplored account of faith – the perspectival account of faith – according to which faith is a value-oriented perspective on the world towards which the subject has a pro-attitude. After describing this account of faith and outlining what it is to have faith on the perspectival account, I show that the perspectival account meets methodological criteria for an account of faith. I then show that this account of faith can be used to unify various faith locutions: having faith that p (propositional faith), having faith in something (attitudinal faith), being a person of faith (global faith), articles of faith (creedal faith), and acts of faith (praxical faith). Finally, since the perspectival account of faith is a cognitive account of faith, I defend the perspectival view against objections to cognitive accounts of faith.
Trinitarians are charged with at least two contradictions. First, the Father is God and the Son i... more Trinitarians are charged with at least two contradictions. First, the Father is God and the Son is God, so it seems to follow that the Father is the Son. Trinitarians affirm the premises but deny the conclusion, which seems contradictory. Second, the Father is a God, the Son is a God, and the Holy Spirit is a God, but the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. This argument seems to entail that there are three Gods. Again, Trinitarians affirm the premises but deny the conclusion. In this article, I present a novel Trinitarian solution to these alleged contradictions. The solution allows one to maintain that the premises in the above arguments are absolute identity statements, forestalls the need to develop a new way of counting (e.g. by sortals or numerical sameness), and is compatible with divine simplicity.
John Shook’s Systematic Atheology, “composed mainly for the edification of atheism’s defenders,” ... more John Shook’s Systematic Atheology, “composed mainly for the edification of atheism’s defenders,” (p. 37) is an attempt to understand and defend atheism in an organized way. The book is divided into three sections. The first is the attempt to define ‘atheist’, ‘atheology’, and their relationship by tracking historical uses of the terms. The second is an extensive history of atheistic and atheological western philosophers, and the third, which occupies the last half of the book, is the attempt to systematically undermine every kind of argument for the existence of a god. In this review, I state the strengths and weaknesses of the book, summarize its main points, and provide reasons to think that the atheological project in the last half of the book fails
Most businesses are aware of the costs associated with sexual harassment in the workplace-on the ... more Most businesses are aware of the costs associated with sexual harassment in the workplace-on the victim side, these costs include psychological health issues, lower organizational commitment, higher quit rates and absenteeism, decreased job satisfaction, and lost career opportunities; 1 on the company side, these costs include policy formation and implementation costs, litigation costs, productivity and turnover losses, and reputational damage. 2 Business are also concerned about limiting sexual harassment in the workplace, as is evidenced by efforts to train employees (over 70% of businesses in the U.S. have sexual harassment training programs 3) and ethics consulting companies' appeal to companies' desire to 1 For studies regarding psychological health issues, lower organizational commitment, higher quit rates, and absenteeism, see:
Radical orthodoxy (RO) is a highly influential contemporary British academic theological movement... more Radical orthodoxy (RO) is a highly influential contemporary British academic theological movement originally set up in the late 1990s-May 1, 1997, is the official date-as a group of scholars in Cambridge mainly (but not exclusively) represented by high Church Anglicans. It developed out of a theological study group-Theory Group-related to Peterhouse College. Little St. Mary's Church, with an explicit Anglo-Catholic profile (located very close to Peterhouse in Cambridge) also played a practical role in the formation of the ecclesiological reflection of RO. The two most important defining documents are John Milbank's Theology and Social Theory. Beyond Secular Reason (1990 from now on TST) and the anthology Radical Orthodoxy. A New Theology (1999), edited by John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward who generally are held to be the central scholars of RO. General Characterization During more than a decade, RO has influenced the debate on postmodern Christian theology, especially in the English-speaking world. The reason for the success of its "sensibility" is not so much a common theology in terms of substance. It is rather the movement's general approach to theology and Christianity-its critical theoretical perspective-that has been widely appreciated and much debated. RO is often counted among the most challenging and serious expressions of postmodern theology. It is characteristic of RO scholarship to be very ambitious, learned, difficult, and deeply aware both of traditional Christian sources and the most recent debates in postmodern theory. The voice of RO scholarship is usually highly unapologetic and without any ingratiating tenor. It is interesting to notice how important works of RO, such as Milbank's TST or Graham Ward's more recent work Christ and Culture, not only make this obvious in terms of theoretical content, they also use very significant stylistic and rhetorical means in order to make the reader fully aware of the fact that they have entered a theological space where no preliminary arguments or excuses for the Christian vision have to be made. Ward, A. Runehov, L. Oviedo (eds.), Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions,
The Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge is an updated and stronger version of the Problem of C... more The Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge is an updated and stronger version of the Problem of Convergent Knowledge, which presents a problem for the traditional, binary view of knowledge in which knowledge is a two-place relation between a subject and the known proposition. The problem supports Knowledge Contrastivism, the view that knowledge is a three-place relation between a subject, the known proposition, and a proposition that disjoins the alternatives relevant to what the subject knows. For example, if knowledge is contrastive, I do not simply know that the bird in front of me is a goldfinch; instead, I know that the bird in front of me is a goldfinch rather than a raven or eagle or falcon. There is, however, a binary view of knowledge that overcomes even the Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge. I will give this binary view, show that it is motivated by the same considerations that motivate Knowledge Contrastivism, and argue that it avoids problematic consequences for our epistemic lives that Knowledge Contrastivism cannot.
A New Theist Response to the New Atheists, Nov 11, 2019
There is a massive amount of severe suffering and death in the world, and much of this suffering ... more There is a massive amount of severe suffering and death in the world, and much of this suffering and death is out of our control. The amount and severity of suffering and death in the world can be used to make an argument for (or elicit a reaction against) the existence of God: if God-an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being-exists, God would not allow such massive amounts of suffering and death. I'll propose a line of response that begins by exploring what would be involved in taking a new perspective on the suffering and death in the world. I then argue that there is no good reason not to take that new perspective. If this is correct, the argument from (or reaction to) suffering and death to the conclusion that God doesn't exist has lost much of its force; an argument that seems forceful from one perspective is weak from a different perspective that is just as reasonable, or more reasonable, to take.
In Debating Christian Religious Epistemology contains chapter length expositions from proponents ... more In Debating Christian Religious Epistemology contains chapter length expositions from proponents of five different views of religious epistemology, which is the study of whether and how subjects’ religious beliefs can have a positive epistemic status (such as knowledge, justification, warrant, or rationality). The five views proposed are 1) Phenomenal Conservativism, 2) Classical Evidentialism, 3) Proper Functionalism, 4) Covenental Epistemology, and 5) Tradition-Based Perspectivalism. In this review, I summarize and analyze each view and their relationship to one another.
John Shook’s Systematic Atheology, “composed mainly for the edification of atheism’s defenders,” ... more John Shook’s Systematic Atheology, “composed mainly for the edification of atheism’s defenders,” (p. 37) is an attempt to understand and defend atheism in an organized way. The book is divided into three sections. The first is the attempt to define ‘atheist’, ‘atheology’, and their relationship by tracking historical uses of the terms. The second is an extensive history of atheistic and atheological western philosophers, and the third, which occupies the last half of the book, is the attempt to systematically undermine every kind of argument for the existence of a god. In this review, I state the strengths and weaknesses of the book, summarize its main points, and provide reasons to think that the atheological project in the last half of the book fails.
In Faith and Humility, Jonathan Kvanvig argues for an account of two vir- tues that balance, or p... more In Faith and Humility, Jonathan Kvanvig argues for an account of two vir- tues that balance, or provide correction for, each other: faith and humility. Faith is the disposition to act in service of an ideal, a disposition that re- mains despite difficulties or setbacks. One can, however, pursue distorted ideals or pursue them in the wrong way—with unquestioning zeal, for example. Humility, which helps to correct this extreme, is the disposition to attend to the value of one’s aims and the extent of one’s contribution toward accomplishing them. To establish these accounts, Kvanvig first argues for a method that directs his arguments, and he then develops the accounts as he articulates and responds to alternative views. In what fol- lows, instead of summarizing the book chapter by chapter, I provide a summary of Kvanvig’s positions and his arguments for them as they are eventually developed throughout the book.
The Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge is an updated and stronger version of the Problem of C... more The Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge is an updated and stronger version of the Problem of Convergent Knowledge, which presents a problem for the traditional, binary view of knowledge in which knowledge is a two-place relation between a subject and the known proposition. The problem supports Knowledge Contrastivism, the view that knowledge is a three-place relation between a subject, the known proposition, and a proposition that disjoins the alternatives relevant to what the subject knows. For example, if knowledge is contrastive, I do not simply know that the bird in front of me is a goldfinch; instead, I know that the bird in front of me is a goldfinch rather than a raven or eagle or falcon. There is, however, a binary view of knowledge that overcomes even the Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge. I will give this binary view, show that it is motivated by the same considerations that motivate Knowledge Contrastivism, and argue that it avoids problematic consequences for our epistemic lives that Knowledge Contrastivism cannot.
New Theists, ed. Josh Rasmussen and Kevin Vallier, 2019
There is a massive amount of severe suffering and death in the world, and much of this suffering ... more There is a massive amount of severe suffering and death in the world, and much of this suffering and death is out of our control. The amount and severity of suffering and death in the world can be used to make an argument for (or elicit a reaction against) the existence of God: if God-an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being-exists, God would not allow such massive amounts of suffering and death. I'll propose a line of response that begins by exploring what would be involved in taking a new perspective on the suffering and death in the world. I then argue that there is no good reason not to take that new perspective. If this is correct, the argument from (or reaction to) suffering and death to the conclusion that God doesn't exist has lost much of its force; an argument that seems forceful from one perspective is weak from a different perspective that is just as reasonable, or more reasonable, to take.
Most businesses are aware of the costs associated with sexual harassment and are concerned about ... more Most businesses are aware of the costs associated with sexual harassment and are concerned about limiting its presence in the workplace. Although the business ethics literature contains work on sexual harassment, it has very little to say on chastity or its value in the workplace, even though unchaste behavior underlies the prevalence of sexual harassment. This article begins this investigation into chastity worth having in the workplace, taking typical company policies as a guide for what kind of chastity is worth having in the workplace in particular. The first question asked in this article is: for what reasons is chastity worth having in the workplace? I consider four answers—harm prevention, respect for employee consent/dissent, respect for others’ dignity, and conflict of interest avoidance—and I examine workplace policies that enforce chaste behavior in search for a unified and underlying reason for these policies. In the process of locating the primary reason for the value of being chaste in the workplace in particular, we will be given tools to develop an account of chastity worth having in the workplace, which I will argue is primarily cognitive, rather than volitional or affective. I conclude that chastity is the disposition not to construe a coworker as a satisfier of one’s sexual interest, and I argue that chastity is valuable in the workplace because it secures coworkers’ ability to have their contributions appropriately valued. The hope is that once the reason and locus of chastity is identified, the professionals who know how to train businesspeople in developing virtues will better be able to focus their attention and efforts.
According to the standard view of epistemic possibility, a proposition is epistemically possible ... more According to the standard view of epistemic possibility, a proposition is epistemically possible for a subject just in case what the subject knows doesn’t obviously entail that proposition’s negation. In this paper, I’ll argue that fallibilism and the standard view of epistemic possibility entail a conjunction that I’ll call “the abominable conjunction,” then I’ll spend the rest of the paper showing that the conjunction is, in fact, abominable. The upshot is that proponents of the standard view of epistemic possibility are committed to either the abominable conjunction or infallibilism.
The inductive argument from evil to the non-existence of God contains the premise that, probably,... more The inductive argument from evil to the non-existence of God contains the premise that, probably, there is gratuitous evil. Some skeptical theists object: one's justification for the premise that, probably, there is gratuitous evil involves an inference from the proposition that we don't see a good reason for some evil to the proposition that it appears that there is no good reason for that evil, and they use a principle, "CORNEA," to block that inference. The common sense problem of evil threatens the CORNEA move, because the common sense problem of evil does not involve any inference to justify the belief that there is gratuitous evil. In this paper, I argue that the common sense problem of evil doesn't avoid CORNEA. CORNEA, or a reformulated version of it, can still prevent one from having justification for the belief that there is gratuitous evil.
There is a modal relative of Euthyphro's dilemma that goes like this: are necessary truths true b... more There is a modal relative of Euthyphro's dilemma that goes like this: are necessary truths true because God affirms them, or does God affirm them because they're true? If you accept the first horn, necessary truths are as contingent as God's free will. If you accept the second, God is less ultimate than the modal ontology that establishes certain truths as necessary. If you try to split the horns by affirming that necessary truths are somehow grounded in God's nature, Brian Leftow meets you with an argument. I will argue that Leftow's argument fails and that, contrary to his argument, there is a good reason to believe that necessary truths are grounded in God's nature.
There is a modal relative of Euthyphro's dilemma that goes like this: are necessary truths true b... more There is a modal relative of Euthyphro's dilemma that goes like this: are necessary truths true because God affirms them, or does God affirm them because they're true? If you accept the first horn, necessary truths are as contingent as God's free will. If you accept the second, God is less ultimate than the modal ontology that establishes certain truths as necessary. If you try to split the horns by affirming that necessary truths are somehow grounded in God's nature, Brian Leftow meets you with an argument. I will argue that Leftow's argument fails and that, contrary to his argument, there is a good reason to believe that necessary truths are grounded in God's nature.
This article articulates and defends an underexplored account of faith – the perspectival account... more This article articulates and defends an underexplored account of faith – the perspectival account of faith – according to which faith is a value-oriented perspective on the world towards which the subject has a pro-attitude. After describing this account of faith and outlining what it is to have faith on the perspectival account, I show that the perspectival account meets methodological criteria for an account of faith. I then show that this account of faith can be used to unify various faith locutions: having faith that p (propositional faith), having faith in something (attitudinal faith), being a person of faith (global faith), articles of faith (creedal faith), and acts of faith (praxical faith). Finally, since the perspectival account of faith is a cognitive account of faith, I defend the perspectival view against objections to cognitive accounts of faith.
Trinitarians are charged with at least two contradictions. First, the Father is God and the Son i... more Trinitarians are charged with at least two contradictions. First, the Father is God and the Son is God, so it seems to follow that the Father is the Son. Trinitarians affirm the premises but deny the conclusion, which seems contradictory. Second, the Father is a God, the Son is a God, and the Holy Spirit is a God, but the Father is not the Son, the Father is not the Holy Spirit, and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. This argument seems to entail that there are three Gods. Again, Trinitarians affirm the premises but deny the conclusion. In this article, I present a novel Trinitarian solution to these alleged contradictions. The solution allows one to maintain that the premises in the above arguments are absolute identity statements, forestalls the need to develop a new way of counting (e.g. by sortals or numerical sameness), and is compatible with divine simplicity.
John Shook’s Systematic Atheology, “composed mainly for the edification of atheism’s defenders,” ... more John Shook’s Systematic Atheology, “composed mainly for the edification of atheism’s defenders,” (p. 37) is an attempt to understand and defend atheism in an organized way. The book is divided into three sections. The first is the attempt to define ‘atheist’, ‘atheology’, and their relationship by tracking historical uses of the terms. The second is an extensive history of atheistic and atheological western philosophers, and the third, which occupies the last half of the book, is the attempt to systematically undermine every kind of argument for the existence of a god. In this review, I state the strengths and weaknesses of the book, summarize its main points, and provide reasons to think that the atheological project in the last half of the book fails
Most businesses are aware of the costs associated with sexual harassment in the workplace-on the ... more Most businesses are aware of the costs associated with sexual harassment in the workplace-on the victim side, these costs include psychological health issues, lower organizational commitment, higher quit rates and absenteeism, decreased job satisfaction, and lost career opportunities; 1 on the company side, these costs include policy formation and implementation costs, litigation costs, productivity and turnover losses, and reputational damage. 2 Business are also concerned about limiting sexual harassment in the workplace, as is evidenced by efforts to train employees (over 70% of businesses in the U.S. have sexual harassment training programs 3) and ethics consulting companies' appeal to companies' desire to 1 For studies regarding psychological health issues, lower organizational commitment, higher quit rates, and absenteeism, see:
Radical orthodoxy (RO) is a highly influential contemporary British academic theological movement... more Radical orthodoxy (RO) is a highly influential contemporary British academic theological movement originally set up in the late 1990s-May 1, 1997, is the official date-as a group of scholars in Cambridge mainly (but not exclusively) represented by high Church Anglicans. It developed out of a theological study group-Theory Group-related to Peterhouse College. Little St. Mary's Church, with an explicit Anglo-Catholic profile (located very close to Peterhouse in Cambridge) also played a practical role in the formation of the ecclesiological reflection of RO. The two most important defining documents are John Milbank's Theology and Social Theory. Beyond Secular Reason (1990 from now on TST) and the anthology Radical Orthodoxy. A New Theology (1999), edited by John Milbank, Catherine Pickstock, and Graham Ward who generally are held to be the central scholars of RO. General Characterization During more than a decade, RO has influenced the debate on postmodern Christian theology, especially in the English-speaking world. The reason for the success of its "sensibility" is not so much a common theology in terms of substance. It is rather the movement's general approach to theology and Christianity-its critical theoretical perspective-that has been widely appreciated and much debated. RO is often counted among the most challenging and serious expressions of postmodern theology. It is characteristic of RO scholarship to be very ambitious, learned, difficult, and deeply aware both of traditional Christian sources and the most recent debates in postmodern theory. The voice of RO scholarship is usually highly unapologetic and without any ingratiating tenor. It is interesting to notice how important works of RO, such as Milbank's TST or Graham Ward's more recent work Christ and Culture, not only make this obvious in terms of theoretical content, they also use very significant stylistic and rhetorical means in order to make the reader fully aware of the fact that they have entered a theological space where no preliminary arguments or excuses for the Christian vision have to be made. Ward, A. Runehov, L. Oviedo (eds.), Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions,
The Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge is an updated and stronger version of the Problem of C... more The Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge is an updated and stronger version of the Problem of Convergent Knowledge, which presents a problem for the traditional, binary view of knowledge in which knowledge is a two-place relation between a subject and the known proposition. The problem supports Knowledge Contrastivism, the view that knowledge is a three-place relation between a subject, the known proposition, and a proposition that disjoins the alternatives relevant to what the subject knows. For example, if knowledge is contrastive, I do not simply know that the bird in front of me is a goldfinch; instead, I know that the bird in front of me is a goldfinch rather than a raven or eagle or falcon. There is, however, a binary view of knowledge that overcomes even the Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge. I will give this binary view, show that it is motivated by the same considerations that motivate Knowledge Contrastivism, and argue that it avoids problematic consequences for our epistemic lives that Knowledge Contrastivism cannot.
A New Theist Response to the New Atheists, Nov 11, 2019
There is a massive amount of severe suffering and death in the world, and much of this suffering ... more There is a massive amount of severe suffering and death in the world, and much of this suffering and death is out of our control. The amount and severity of suffering and death in the world can be used to make an argument for (or elicit a reaction against) the existence of God: if God-an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being-exists, God would not allow such massive amounts of suffering and death. I'll propose a line of response that begins by exploring what would be involved in taking a new perspective on the suffering and death in the world. I then argue that there is no good reason not to take that new perspective. If this is correct, the argument from (or reaction to) suffering and death to the conclusion that God doesn't exist has lost much of its force; an argument that seems forceful from one perspective is weak from a different perspective that is just as reasonable, or more reasonable, to take.
In Debating Christian Religious Epistemology contains chapter length expositions from proponents ... more In Debating Christian Religious Epistemology contains chapter length expositions from proponents of five different views of religious epistemology, which is the study of whether and how subjects’ religious beliefs can have a positive epistemic status (such as knowledge, justification, warrant, or rationality). The five views proposed are 1) Phenomenal Conservativism, 2) Classical Evidentialism, 3) Proper Functionalism, 4) Covenental Epistemology, and 5) Tradition-Based Perspectivalism. In this review, I summarize and analyze each view and their relationship to one another.
John Shook’s Systematic Atheology, “composed mainly for the edification of atheism’s defenders,” ... more John Shook’s Systematic Atheology, “composed mainly for the edification of atheism’s defenders,” (p. 37) is an attempt to understand and defend atheism in an organized way. The book is divided into three sections. The first is the attempt to define ‘atheist’, ‘atheology’, and their relationship by tracking historical uses of the terms. The second is an extensive history of atheistic and atheological western philosophers, and the third, which occupies the last half of the book, is the attempt to systematically undermine every kind of argument for the existence of a god. In this review, I state the strengths and weaknesses of the book, summarize its main points, and provide reasons to think that the atheological project in the last half of the book fails.
In Faith and Humility, Jonathan Kvanvig argues for an account of two vir- tues that balance, or p... more In Faith and Humility, Jonathan Kvanvig argues for an account of two vir- tues that balance, or provide correction for, each other: faith and humility. Faith is the disposition to act in service of an ideal, a disposition that re- mains despite difficulties or setbacks. One can, however, pursue distorted ideals or pursue them in the wrong way—with unquestioning zeal, for example. Humility, which helps to correct this extreme, is the disposition to attend to the value of one’s aims and the extent of one’s contribution toward accomplishing them. To establish these accounts, Kvanvig first argues for a method that directs his arguments, and he then develops the accounts as he articulates and responds to alternative views. In what fol- lows, instead of summarizing the book chapter by chapter, I provide a summary of Kvanvig’s positions and his arguments for them as they are eventually developed throughout the book.
The Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge is an updated and stronger version of the Problem of C... more The Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge is an updated and stronger version of the Problem of Convergent Knowledge, which presents a problem for the traditional, binary view of knowledge in which knowledge is a two-place relation between a subject and the known proposition. The problem supports Knowledge Contrastivism, the view that knowledge is a three-place relation between a subject, the known proposition, and a proposition that disjoins the alternatives relevant to what the subject knows. For example, if knowledge is contrastive, I do not simply know that the bird in front of me is a goldfinch; instead, I know that the bird in front of me is a goldfinch rather than a raven or eagle or falcon. There is, however, a binary view of knowledge that overcomes even the Problem of Nearly Convergent Knowledge. I will give this binary view, show that it is motivated by the same considerations that motivate Knowledge Contrastivism, and argue that it avoids problematic consequences for our epistemic lives that Knowledge Contrastivism cannot.
New Theists, ed. Josh Rasmussen and Kevin Vallier, 2019
There is a massive amount of severe suffering and death in the world, and much of this suffering ... more There is a massive amount of severe suffering and death in the world, and much of this suffering and death is out of our control. The amount and severity of suffering and death in the world can be used to make an argument for (or elicit a reaction against) the existence of God: if God-an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good being-exists, God would not allow such massive amounts of suffering and death. I'll propose a line of response that begins by exploring what would be involved in taking a new perspective on the suffering and death in the world. I then argue that there is no good reason not to take that new perspective. If this is correct, the argument from (or reaction to) suffering and death to the conclusion that God doesn't exist has lost much of its force; an argument that seems forceful from one perspective is weak from a different perspective that is just as reasonable, or more reasonable, to take.
Most businesses are aware of the costs associated with sexual harassment and are concerned about ... more Most businesses are aware of the costs associated with sexual harassment and are concerned about limiting its presence in the workplace. Although the business ethics literature contains work on sexual harassment, it has very little to say on chastity or its value in the workplace, even though unchaste behavior underlies the prevalence of sexual harassment. This article begins this investigation into chastity worth having in the workplace, taking typical company policies as a guide for what kind of chastity is worth having in the workplace in particular. The first question asked in this article is: for what reasons is chastity worth having in the workplace? I consider four answers—harm prevention, respect for employee consent/dissent, respect for others’ dignity, and conflict of interest avoidance—and I examine workplace policies that enforce chaste behavior in search for a unified and underlying reason for these policies. In the process of locating the primary reason for the value of being chaste in the workplace in particular, we will be given tools to develop an account of chastity worth having in the workplace, which I will argue is primarily cognitive, rather than volitional or affective. I conclude that chastity is the disposition not to construe a coworker as a satisfier of one’s sexual interest, and I argue that chastity is valuable in the workplace because it secures coworkers’ ability to have their contributions appropriately valued. The hope is that once the reason and locus of chastity is identified, the professionals who know how to train businesspeople in developing virtues will better be able to focus their attention and efforts.
According to the standard view of epistemic possibility, a proposition is epistemically possible ... more According to the standard view of epistemic possibility, a proposition is epistemically possible for a subject just in case what the subject knows doesn’t obviously entail that proposition’s negation. In this paper, I’ll argue that fallibilism and the standard view of epistemic possibility entail a conjunction that I’ll call “the abominable conjunction,” then I’ll spend the rest of the paper showing that the conjunction is, in fact, abominable. The upshot is that proponents of the standard view of epistemic possibility are committed to either the abominable conjunction or infallibilism.
The inductive argument from evil to the non-existence of God contains the premise that, probably,... more The inductive argument from evil to the non-existence of God contains the premise that, probably, there is gratuitous evil. Some skeptical theists object: one's justification for the premise that, probably, there is gratuitous evil involves an inference from the proposition that we don't see a good reason for some evil to the proposition that it appears that there is no good reason for that evil, and they use a principle, "CORNEA," to block that inference. The common sense problem of evil threatens the CORNEA move, because the common sense problem of evil does not involve any inference to justify the belief that there is gratuitous evil. In this paper, I argue that the common sense problem of evil doesn't avoid CORNEA. CORNEA, or a reformulated version of it, can still prevent one from having justification for the belief that there is gratuitous evil.
Uploads
Papers by Chris Tweedt
is, in fact, abominable. The upshot is that proponents of the standard view of epistemic possibility are committed to either the abominable conjunction or infallibilism.
is, in fact, abominable. The upshot is that proponents of the standard view of epistemic possibility are committed to either the abominable conjunction or infallibilism.