Love and sex provide a fertile ground for philosophical inquiry, both conceptual analysis of the ... more Love and sex provide a fertile ground for philosophical inquiry, both conceptual analysis of the nature of love and sex and discussion of the many ethical issues that they raise. Moral issues arising from love include the permissibility of romantically loving more than one person at the same time (assuming that this is even possible) and the moral value of romantic love and friendship. Moral issues arising from sex vary from the most fundamental question-the one addressed by Alan Soble in his paper in this issue-of whether sex can be reconciled with respect for persons, to questions about the permissibility of sex in particular circumstances. Much current work in philosophy of love and sex concerns precisely such issues in applied ethics, for instance the topics addressed by the authors of four more papers in this collection-homosexuality, prostitution, relationships that cross power lines in academia, and the wrongness of rape and other sexual misdeeds. Other ethical issues about sex include the morality of casual sex, adultery and open marriage, sadomasochism, and pornography.
Between the Species: An Online Journal for the Study of Philosophy and Animals, 1995
Alex Wellington has provided an invaluable survey of feminist arguments for and against vegetaria... more Alex Wellington has provided an invaluable survey of feminist arguments for and against vegetarianism. My utilitarian defense of vegetarianism was intended to preclude neither rights-based nor feminist justifications. Its goal, rather, was to show that the least controversial ground for vegetarianism-{)ne that extends moral concern to nonhumans on the basis of their ability to suffer and feel pleasure-is sufficient to respond to two well-known defenses of meat eating. Whereas most of the feminist philosophers whom Wellington discusses reach similar conclusions to those ofmy utilitarian argument, or else disagree because they reject traditional utilitarian or rights-based frameworks, one of them-Kathryn Paxton George-raises an objection that is directly relevant to my utilitarian case. George argues that certain biological facts about women and ecological and economic realities about the poor and people who live in some developing countries would make the demand that they become vegetarians unfairly burdensome. If George has her empirical data right, then, as Wellington correctly observes, utilitarian advocates of vegetarianism may have to carve out wide exceptions to the demand that we all become vegetarians. Women who lack the resources to
Abstract J.S. Russell, Stephen Mumford, and Randolph Feezell have criticized my view that zealous... more Abstract J.S. Russell, Stephen Mumford, and Randolph Feezell have criticized my view that zealous partisans of a particular team are superior to purists, who derive an esthetic pleasure from good play by any team. All three philosophers extol the virtues of purism and Russell defends a pluralistic view that rejects the very idea of an ideal type of fan. In response, I renounce the claim that partisans are superior to purists and instead propose a more modest defense of partisanship. Moderate partisan fans, who constrain their support by moral and esthetic criteria, exhibit admirable concern for their team’s wellbeing, have unique opportunities to display moral virtue, and are necessary for the welfare of competitive sport. Partisans’ choice of team is influenced by arbitrary factors but arbitrariness is built into the very nature of sport and applies equally to purists’ admiration of athletic excellence. It diminishes neither the value of athletic excellence nor the value of partisans’ devotion to their team.
Both attorneys and philosophers in many countries participate in a type of adversary system. Wher... more Both attorneys and philosophers in many countries participate in a type of adversary system. Whereas, for instance, the American Bar Association's Code explicitly assigns to attorneys the role of zealous advocates of their clients-"as advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system" 1-no similar code of professional ethics imposes on philosophers the duty to adopt an adversarial stance. However, the practice of philosophers in Western countries clearly follows an adversarial pattern of argument and counter-argument. We routinely define and defend our position by surveying the literature and criticizing those with whose views we disagree. Journals encourage critical notes on articles they have published, and sometimes allow authors to respond to criticisms. Presenters at professional meetings are followed by commentators, whose usual goal is to point out weaknesses in the paper. Some philosophers refer disparagingly to sessions in which the commentator agrees with the presenter as "lovefests." The legal and philosophical uses of the adversary method have at least one rationale in common: the belief that the truth, or the most reasonable position, is most likely to emerge from unfettered debate between alternative views. While genuine freedom of expression in the modern world may require more than freedom from governmental and social constraints, 2 few philosophers would challenge Mill's argument that open debate is the intellectual climate most conducive to the emergence of truth. 3 Similarly, a major justification of the adversary system in law is that the truth-seeking goal of trials-the conviction of the factually guilty and the acquittal of the factually innocent 4-is best achieved by allowing the prosecutor and defense attorney to eschew impartiality and act as strict partisans of their own side of the case. According to this view, both sides of the case will be given an optimal presentation, and the jury and judge will then have the best possible information on which to base the verdict and
... 1. Soft Paternalism. ... Since their decision to use PEDs is the result of this de facto coer... more ... 1. Soft Paternalism. ... Since their decision to use PEDs is the result of this de facto coercion, and since absence of coercion is a necessary condition of autonomy, so this argument goes, they are not acting autonomously and soft paternalism justifies continuing the ban. ...
Menzel and Light have argued that the conservative principle of self-sufficiency gives good reaso... more Menzel and Light have argued that the conservative principle of self-sufficiency gives good reasons to strive for universal health coverage. This paper gives further reasons for connecting universal health care with self-sufficiency and continues Menzel's and Light's project in four more ways. First, a more extended analysis of a conservative conception of government shows how a general opposition to welfare programs is consistent with guaranteeing universal basic health care. Second, common fears about the abuse of health care when universal access is guaranteed are unfounded. Third, worldwide experience shows that the most effective way to bring high quality health care to a population is through a government mandate, not the free market. Fourth, while socioeconomic status is an important determinant of health independent of the accessibility of health care itself, this does not undermine the case for universal health care based on a minimal, conservative conception of equality of opportunity.
N. Dixon is with the Philosophy Department at Alma College, Alma, MI 48801. This article was deli... more N. Dixon is with the Philosophy Department at Alma College, Alma, MI 48801. This article was delivered as the presidential address at the 2002 meeting of the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport and underwent the same blind review process—handled by the associate editor to avoid conflict of interest—as other submissions to JPS. Canadian Figure Skaters, French Judges, and Realism in Sport
L'Association Medicale Americaine (AMA) mene une campagne en faveur de l'interdiction de ... more L'Association Medicale Americaine (AMA) mene une campagne en faveur de l'interdiction de la boxe, en raison des dommages corporels engendres par ce sport. En s'attachant plus particulierement a la boxe professionnelle, cet article confronte les arguments du paternalisme legal des adversaires de la boxe aux arguments liberaux de Joel Feinberg qui s'oppose a tout moralisme legal au nom de l'autonomie de l'individu. L'A. se montre favorable a une restriction legale face au principal risque medical de la boxe : il s'agirait simplement d'interdire les coups portes a la tete
Love and sex provide a fertile ground for philosophical inquiry, both conceptual analysis of the ... more Love and sex provide a fertile ground for philosophical inquiry, both conceptual analysis of the nature of love and sex and discussion of the many ethical issues that they raise. Moral issues arising from love include the permissibility of romantically loving more than one person at the same time (assuming that this is even possible) and the moral value of romantic love and friendship. Moral issues arising from sex vary from the most fundamental question-the one addressed by Alan Soble in his paper in this issue-of whether sex can be reconciled with respect for persons, to questions about the permissibility of sex in particular circumstances. Much current work in philosophy of love and sex concerns precisely such issues in applied ethics, for instance the topics addressed by the authors of four more papers in this collection-homosexuality, prostitution, relationships that cross power lines in academia, and the wrongness of rape and other sexual misdeeds. Other ethical issues about sex include the morality of casual sex, adultery and open marriage, sadomasochism, and pornography.
Between the Species: An Online Journal for the Study of Philosophy and Animals, 1995
Alex Wellington has provided an invaluable survey of feminist arguments for and against vegetaria... more Alex Wellington has provided an invaluable survey of feminist arguments for and against vegetarianism. My utilitarian defense of vegetarianism was intended to preclude neither rights-based nor feminist justifications. Its goal, rather, was to show that the least controversial ground for vegetarianism-{)ne that extends moral concern to nonhumans on the basis of their ability to suffer and feel pleasure-is sufficient to respond to two well-known defenses of meat eating. Whereas most of the feminist philosophers whom Wellington discusses reach similar conclusions to those ofmy utilitarian argument, or else disagree because they reject traditional utilitarian or rights-based frameworks, one of them-Kathryn Paxton George-raises an objection that is directly relevant to my utilitarian case. George argues that certain biological facts about women and ecological and economic realities about the poor and people who live in some developing countries would make the demand that they become vegetarians unfairly burdensome. If George has her empirical data right, then, as Wellington correctly observes, utilitarian advocates of vegetarianism may have to carve out wide exceptions to the demand that we all become vegetarians. Women who lack the resources to
Abstract J.S. Russell, Stephen Mumford, and Randolph Feezell have criticized my view that zealous... more Abstract J.S. Russell, Stephen Mumford, and Randolph Feezell have criticized my view that zealous partisans of a particular team are superior to purists, who derive an esthetic pleasure from good play by any team. All three philosophers extol the virtues of purism and Russell defends a pluralistic view that rejects the very idea of an ideal type of fan. In response, I renounce the claim that partisans are superior to purists and instead propose a more modest defense of partisanship. Moderate partisan fans, who constrain their support by moral and esthetic criteria, exhibit admirable concern for their team’s wellbeing, have unique opportunities to display moral virtue, and are necessary for the welfare of competitive sport. Partisans’ choice of team is influenced by arbitrary factors but arbitrariness is built into the very nature of sport and applies equally to purists’ admiration of athletic excellence. It diminishes neither the value of athletic excellence nor the value of partisans’ devotion to their team.
Both attorneys and philosophers in many countries participate in a type of adversary system. Wher... more Both attorneys and philosophers in many countries participate in a type of adversary system. Whereas, for instance, the American Bar Association's Code explicitly assigns to attorneys the role of zealous advocates of their clients-"as advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client's position under the rules of the adversary system" 1-no similar code of professional ethics imposes on philosophers the duty to adopt an adversarial stance. However, the practice of philosophers in Western countries clearly follows an adversarial pattern of argument and counter-argument. We routinely define and defend our position by surveying the literature and criticizing those with whose views we disagree. Journals encourage critical notes on articles they have published, and sometimes allow authors to respond to criticisms. Presenters at professional meetings are followed by commentators, whose usual goal is to point out weaknesses in the paper. Some philosophers refer disparagingly to sessions in which the commentator agrees with the presenter as "lovefests." The legal and philosophical uses of the adversary method have at least one rationale in common: the belief that the truth, or the most reasonable position, is most likely to emerge from unfettered debate between alternative views. While genuine freedom of expression in the modern world may require more than freedom from governmental and social constraints, 2 few philosophers would challenge Mill's argument that open debate is the intellectual climate most conducive to the emergence of truth. 3 Similarly, a major justification of the adversary system in law is that the truth-seeking goal of trials-the conviction of the factually guilty and the acquittal of the factually innocent 4-is best achieved by allowing the prosecutor and defense attorney to eschew impartiality and act as strict partisans of their own side of the case. According to this view, both sides of the case will be given an optimal presentation, and the jury and judge will then have the best possible information on which to base the verdict and
... 1. Soft Paternalism. ... Since their decision to use PEDs is the result of this de facto coer... more ... 1. Soft Paternalism. ... Since their decision to use PEDs is the result of this de facto coercion, and since absence of coercion is a necessary condition of autonomy, so this argument goes, they are not acting autonomously and soft paternalism justifies continuing the ban. ...
Menzel and Light have argued that the conservative principle of self-sufficiency gives good reaso... more Menzel and Light have argued that the conservative principle of self-sufficiency gives good reasons to strive for universal health coverage. This paper gives further reasons for connecting universal health care with self-sufficiency and continues Menzel's and Light's project in four more ways. First, a more extended analysis of a conservative conception of government shows how a general opposition to welfare programs is consistent with guaranteeing universal basic health care. Second, common fears about the abuse of health care when universal access is guaranteed are unfounded. Third, worldwide experience shows that the most effective way to bring high quality health care to a population is through a government mandate, not the free market. Fourth, while socioeconomic status is an important determinant of health independent of the accessibility of health care itself, this does not undermine the case for universal health care based on a minimal, conservative conception of equality of opportunity.
N. Dixon is with the Philosophy Department at Alma College, Alma, MI 48801. This article was deli... more N. Dixon is with the Philosophy Department at Alma College, Alma, MI 48801. This article was delivered as the presidential address at the 2002 meeting of the International Association for the Philosophy of Sport and underwent the same blind review process—handled by the associate editor to avoid conflict of interest—as other submissions to JPS. Canadian Figure Skaters, French Judges, and Realism in Sport
L'Association Medicale Americaine (AMA) mene une campagne en faveur de l'interdiction de ... more L'Association Medicale Americaine (AMA) mene une campagne en faveur de l'interdiction de la boxe, en raison des dommages corporels engendres par ce sport. En s'attachant plus particulierement a la boxe professionnelle, cet article confronte les arguments du paternalisme legal des adversaires de la boxe aux arguments liberaux de Joel Feinberg qui s'oppose a tout moralisme legal au nom de l'autonomie de l'individu. L'A. se montre favorable a une restriction legale face au principal risque medical de la boxe : il s'agirait simplement d'interdire les coups portes a la tete
Uploads
Papers by Nicholas Dixon