It is nearly half a century since moral philosophers first began to grapple with a series of troubling axiological paradoxes. It now looks as though they may resist satisfactory resolution. Concern is growing that this supports skepticism. I provide the first full articulation and defense of this concern in the form of a case for global axiological skepticism and a tentative roadmap for extension to a broader moral skepticism. The result is an alternative to the disagreement- and debunking-based arguments that predominate in contemporary metaethics.
It is widely accepted that knowledge is factive. This claim is typically justified linguistically: ascribing knowledge of a falsehood sounds contradictory. But linguistic arguments can be problematic. In a recent article, Brent G. Kyle argues that the factivity of knowledge can be proved deductively, without appeal to ordinary language. I argue, however, that his proof relies on a premise that can only be justified linguistically.
Creators offload the construction of their artifact in that the world helps to determine the nature of their imposition in ways that can go beyond the content of their imposing activities. Extant theories of imposition fail to account for offloading by requiring match between content and product. Therefore, I develop an externalist theory that accommodates offloading by taking the imposition of mind onto world to be objectively constrained. An important kind of imposition is normativity. Focusing on personal value, what’s valuable for someone is determined by what they value as good or bad for themselves. Such a subjectivist view faces the same problem as extant theories of imposition in seeming to preclude the possibility of making mistakes about value. Applying imposition externalism, I defend an artifactual approach to subjectivism such that mistakes are captured in terms of offloading. A subject’s valuing can fail to match the very value it creates.
Explicating the concept of coherence and establishing a measure for assessing the coherence of an information set are two of the most important tasks of coherentist epistemology. To this end, several principles have been proposed to guide the specification of a measure of coherence. We depart from this prevailing path by challenging two well-established and prima facie plausible principles: Agreement and Dependence. Instead, we propose a new probabilistic measure of coherence that combines basic intuitions of both principles, but without strictly satisfying either of them. It is then shown that the new measure outperforms alternative measures in terms of its truth-tracking properties. We consider this feature to be central and argue that coherence matters because it is likely to be our best available guide to truth, at least when more direct evidence is unavailable.
Neo-logicists have claimed that Hume's Principle (HP) may be taken as a stipulative definition of cardinal number. However, this claim is threatened by the fact that HP is not conservative over pure second-order logic. I argue that the dominant neo-logicist response to the conservativeness objection is not satisfactory. Then I propose a novel version of neo-logicism, based on Heck's Two-sorted Hume's Principle (2HP), which does meet the conservativeness objection—provided that conservativeness is understood semantically and not deductively. I also argue that on my proposal, the Bad Company problem is solved by conservativeness.
