•  83
    Creation and Evolution: PHILIP E. DEVINE
    Religious Studies 32 (3): 325-337. 1996.
    Despite the bad reputation of the legal profession, law remains king in America. A highly diverse society relies on the laws to maintain a working sense of the dignity and inviability of each individual. And a persistent element in contemporary debates is the fear that naturalistic theories of the human person will erode our belief that we have a dignity greater than that of other natural objects. Thus the endurance of the creation vs. evolution debate is due less to the arguments of creationist…Read more
  •  3
    Academic freedom in the postmodern world
    Public Affairs Quarterly 10 (3): 185-201. 1996.
  •  16
    The Evidential Force of Religious Experience (review)
    Review of Metaphysics 44 (2): 419-420. 1990.
    Caroline Franks Davis here undertakes an assessment of the value of religious experiences as evidence for religious beliefs. She distinguishes this question from that of the veridical character of particular experiences or their value for the person undergoing them or his community. She attends both to the phenomenological variety of religious experiences and the variety of cultural settings in which they take place. She concludes that religious experience can form an important part of the case …Read more
  •  67
    Relativism
    The Monist 67 (3): 405-418. 1984.
  •  8
    Intrinsic Value: Concept and Warrant
    Philosophical Books 37 (3): 202-204. 1996.
  •  4
    What Is Naturalism?
    Philosophia Christi 8 (1): 125-139. 2006.
  •  25
    Comparable Worth
    International Journal of Applied Philosophy 3 (3): 11-19. 1987.
  •  81
    The Moral Basis of Vegetarianism
    Philosophy 53 (206): 481-505. 1978.
    If someone abstains from meat-eating for reasons of taste or personal economics, no moral or philosophical question arises. But when a vegetarian attempts to persuade others that they, too, should adopt his diet, then what he says requires philosophical attention. While a vegetarian might argue in any number of ways, this essay will be concerned only with the argument for a vegetarian diet resting on a moral objection to the rearing and killing of animals for the human table. The vegetarian, in …Read more
  •  15
    Birth, Copulation, and Death
    New Scholasticism 59 (3): 276-295. 1985.
  •  30
    Acting and Refraining/Intention and Foresight
    Dialogue 26 (1): 87. 1987.
    It is commonplace that negative duties are more stringent than positive duties. it is also commonplace that this distinction requires defense, in particular against those who regard it as a mere apology for the privileges of the wealthy and secure. i conclude, though real, the distinction between negative and positive duties is not as deep as some philosophers have supposed--that it makes best sense in terms of a deeper distinction between the intended and the foreseen consequences of our action…Read more
  • Theism: An Epistemological Defense
    The Thomist 50 (2): 210-222. 1986.
  •  1
    No Title available: New Books (review)
    Philosophy 59 (230): 545-547. 1984.
  • Justifying Terrorism: Dvd
    with Ken Knisely and Scott Hibbard
    Milk Bottle Productions. 2002.
    Can the use of terror as a political weapon ever be justified? What are the political implications of the struggle to define the concept of "terrorism"? Was the attack on the USS Cole a terrorist act? What role do the intentions of the terrorist and the state of mind of the victims play? Does the modern concept of the nation-state necessarily require the radical devaluation of the use of terror for political ends? With Robert Rafalko, Philip Devine, and Scott Hibbard
  •  16
    Raising the war on political correctness to a new and higher intellectual level, Philip Devine sheds fresh light on the whole question of cultural standards and the fashionable notion of multiculturalism. While acknowledging the diversity of ways of life and the differing belief systems that arise from and justify those ways of life, the author attacks the current exploitation of diversity to justify a militantly intolerant relativism. His wide-ranging and erudite work connects cultural issues t…Read more
  •  121
    Capital punishment and the sanctity of life
    Midwest Studies in Philosophy 24 (1). 2000.
  •  10
    A Gross Abuse of Judicial Power?
    Hastings Center Report 14 (1): 47-47. 1984.
  •  31
    The Ethics of Deconstruction: Derrida and Levinas
    Philosophical Books 34 (3): 174-175. 1993.
  •  81
    Relativism, abortion, and tolerance
    Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 48 (1): 131-138. 1987.
  •  29
    What's the Meaning of "This"? (review)
    Review of Metaphysics 44 (1): 131-132. 1990.
    Austin's book raises, but does not resolve, a problem for the analysis of belief as a two-termed relation between a believer and a proposition. The argument turns to account a puzzle about beliefs expressed in terms of the demonstratives this and that--and hence also I, here, and now--to expose a threatened inconsistency in the doctrine of propositions most commonly held among analytic philosophers.
  •  11
    Does St Anselm Beg the Question?
    Philosophy 50 (193): 271-281. 1975.
    The following objection to the ‘ontological’ argument of St Anselm has a continuing importance. The argument begs the question by introducing into the first premise the name ‘God’. In order for something to be truly talked about, to have properties truly attributed to it—it has been said—it must exist; a statement containing a vacuous name must either be false, meaningless, or lacking in truth-value, if it is not a misleading formulation to be explained by paraphrase into other terms. In any cas…Read more
  •  30
    The Perfect Island, the Devil, and Existent Unicorns
    American Philosophical Quarterly 12 (3). 1975.
  •  6
    Aids and the L-Word
    Public Affairs Quarterly 5 (2): 137-147. 1991.
  • Justifying Terrorism: No Dogs or Philosophers Allowed
    with Ken Knisely, Robert Rafalko, and Scott Hibbard
    DVD. forthcoming.
    Can the use of terror as a political weapon ever be justified? What are the political implications of the struggle to define the concept of "terrorism"? Was the attack on the USS Cole a terrorist act? What role do the intentions of the terrorist and the state of mind of the victims play? Does the modern concept of the nation-state necessarily require the radical devaluation of the use of terror for political ends? With Robert Rafalko, Philip Devine, and Scott Hibbard
  •  21
    Homicide Revisited
    Philosophy 55 (213): 329-347. 1980.
    Jonathan Glover and I, while not in such deep disagreement about the ethics of killing as to make all communication impossible, still disagree enough to make sustained confrontation worthwhile. At minimum, such confrontation should make it clear what are the most fundamental issues at stake in ethical arguments about various kinds of killing.