Fritz Allhoff, J.D., Ph.D.

_Climbing - Philosophy for Everyone_ presents a collection of intellectually stimulating new essays that address the philosophical issues relating to risk, ethics, and other aspects of climbing that are of interest to everyone from novice climbers to seasoned mountaineers. Represents the first collection of essays to exclusively address the many philosophical aspects of climbing Includes essays that challenge commonly accepted views of climbing and climbing ethics Written accessibly, this book will appeal to everyone from novice climbers to seasoned mountaineers Includes a foreword written by Hans Florine Shortlisted for the Boardman Tasker Prize for Mountain Literature, 2010

So-called evolutionary error theorists, such as Michael Ruse and Richard Joyce, have argued that naturalistic accounts of the moral sentiments lead us to adopt an error theory approach to morality. Roughly, the argument is that an appreciation of the etiology of those sentiments undermines any reason to think that they track moral truth and, furthermore, undermines any reason to think that moral truth actually exists. I argue that this approach offers us a false dichotomy between error theory and some form of moral realism. While accepting the presuppositions of the evolutionary error theorist, I argue that contract-based approaches to morality can be sensitive to those presuppositions while still vindicating morality. Invoking Stephen Darwall’s distinction between contractualism and contractarianism, I go on to offer an evolutionary-based contractarianism.

On the one hand, bluffing in business seems to bear a strong resemblance to lying, and therefore might be thought to be prima facie impermissible. On the other, many people have the intuition that bluffing is an appropriate and morally permissible negotiating tactic. Given this tension, what is the moral standing of bluffing in business? In this paper, I will consider influential accounts of both Albert Carr and Thomas Carson, and I will present my criticisms thereof. Drawing off of these accounts, I will then develop my own argument as to why bluffing in business is morally permissible, which will be that bluffing is a practice that should be endorsed by all rational negotiators.

This volume reveals the wisdom we can learn from sailing, a sport that pits human skills against the elements, tests the mettle and is a rich source of valuable lessons in life. Unravels the philosophical mysteries behind one of the oldest organized human activities Features contributions from philosophers and academics as well as from sailors themselves Enriches appreciation of the sport by probing its meaning and value Brings to life the many applications of philosophy to sailing and the profound lessons it can teach us A thought-provoking read for sailors and philosophers alike

_Hunting - Philosophy for Everyone_ presents a collection of readings from academics and non-academics alike that move beyond the ethical justification of hunting to investigate less traditional topics and offer fresh perspectives on why we hunt. The only recent book to explicitly examine the philosophical issues surrounding hunting Shatters many of the stereotypes about hunting, forcing us to rethink the topic Features contributions from a wide range of academic and non-academic sources, including both hunters and non-hunters

In "Imaging or Imagining? A Neuroethics Challenge Informed by Genetics," Judy Illes and Eric Racine argue that "traditional bioethics analysis" (TBA) is insufficient to deal with moral and metaphysical challenges endemic to recent developments in neuroscience, apparently because they believe that these developments differ in kind, not merely degree, from previous developments. This article suggests that recent neuroscientific developments do not have any metaphysical implications that pose the sort of challenge with which Illes and Racine are concerned. Illes and Racine's view fails because of two faulty metaphysical assumptions: first, the assumption that the mind is the brain; and second, the assumption that neurotechnology has implications for questions related to personal identity.