Brian Leiter

Oxford Studies in the Philosophy of Law is an annual forum for some of the best new philosophical work on law, by both senior and junior scholars from around the world. The essays range widely over issues in general jurisprudence, the philosophical foundations of specific areas of law, the history of legal philosophy, and related philosophical topics that illuminate the problems of legal theory. OSPL will be essential reading for philosophers, academic lawyers, political scientists, and historians of law who wish to keep up with the latest developments in this flourishing field.

The majority of legal systems in Western democracies accord special treatment to religions, e.g. exemptions from generally applicable laws if they conflict with religious convictions. Other beliefs do not usually enjoy such far‑reaching tolerance on the part of the state. The article raises the question of how granting such privilege to religious views can be justified. Arguments of some philosophers (e.g. Thomas Hobbes’) which suggest that an intolerant attitude might sometimes be disadvantageous are in fact only instrumental, and do not prove that tolerance is a moral virtue. This last claim only follows from the arguments of John Stuart Mill and John Rawls, who exemplify two basic approaches in ethics, i.e. utilitarianism and deontology. None of the analyzed arguments for freedom of conscience and religion distinguishes between religious and other beliefs, which suggests that the existing differences in their moral and legal treatment cannot be justified. Therefore, the question arises of whether legal regulations regarding religious and other beliefs should not be equated, so that religious views are not privileged.

Serious doubts about nonreductive materialism — the orthodoxy of the past two decades in philosophy of mind — have been long overdue. Jaegwon Kim has done perhaps the most to articulate the metaphysical problems that the new breed of materialists must confront in reconciling their physicalism with their commitment to the autonomy of the mental. Although the difficulties confronting supervenience, multiple-realizability, and mental causation have been recurring themes in his work, only mental causation — in particular, the specter of epiphenomenalism — has really captured the interest of philosophers in general in recent years.This growing attention has spawned a large body of literature, which it is not our aim here to explore or assess. Rather, we want to call attention to what we believe is a new and quite different argumentative strategy against epiphenomenalism voiced in some recent articles by Tyler Burge and Stephen Yablo. Each has challenged two central assumptions of the existing mental causation debate.

Many kinds of relativism have been attributed to Karl Marx. We discuss three broad areas of Marx’s thinking: his theories of history, science, and morality. Along the way, we show that Marx is committed to a version of philosophical naturalism that privileges the results of genuine science over alternative ways of understanding the world. This outlook presupposes the possibility of objective knowledge of the world. It follows that Marx is no relativist (at least in the senses we consider). Unlike many non-relativists, however, Marx pays close attention to the problems with which contemporary philosophers interested in relativism are most preoccupied: irresolvable moral disagreements between social groups, the evolution of institutions and practices over time, and the prominent, perhaps decisive role played by non-cognitive social factors in belief formation. We show how some later Marxists have mistaken this close attention for evidence that Marx himself is a relativist.

Daybreak marks the arrival of Nietzsche's 'mature' philosophy and is indispensable for an understanding of his critique of morality and 'revaluation of all values'. This volume presents the distinguished translation by R. J. Hollingdale, with a new introduction that argues for a dramatic change in Nietzsche's views from Human, All Too Human to Daybreak, and shows how this change, in turn, presages the main themes of Nietzsche's later and better-known works such as On the Genealogy of Morality. The main themes of Daybreak are located in their intellectual and philosophical contexts: in Nietzsche's training as a classical philologist and his fascination with the Sophists and Thucydides; in the moral philosophies of Kant and Schopenhauer, which are the central foci of Nietzsche's critique of morality; and in the German Materialist movement of the 1850s and after, which shaped Nietzsche's conception of persons. The edition is completed by a chronology, notes and a guide to further reading.

“The Routledge [series] is designed to introduce students to classic works of philosophy. Brian Leiter’s Nietzsche on Morality does that, and much more. The book offers a complete commentary of On the Genealogy of Morality, but it also articulates a comprehensive and original interpretation of Nietzsche’s critique of morality. The product is an exceptionally clear and cohesive account of philosophical views known neither for their clarity nor their cohesiveness…. “The distinction, and the chief merit, of Leiter’s account is its emphasis on the naturalism of Nietzsche’s approach to morality. Leiter may not quite be the first to portray Nietzsche as a naturalist, but his characterization of Nietzschean naturalism in connection with morality is the most systematic and compelling to date…. “In general, the book offers one of the most comprehensive and compelling interpretations of Nietzsche’s critique of morality…. With its distinctive emphasis on naturalistic themes, it forms a very significant contribution to the study of Nietzsche and is poised to become a work of reference in the field. Indeed, even the criticisms I have raised about this interpretation owe much to the exceptional clarity and cogency with which it is articulated.” --Bernard Reginster (Brown University), writing in Notre Dame Philosophical Review, January 2, 2003 (http://ndpr.icaap.org/content/archives/2003/1/reginster-leiter.html).

In Chapters I-III, I argue that Nietzsche is a critic of "morality" in the sense of any system of values that has one or both of the following features: it presupposes the truth of certain descriptive claims about human agency, in the sense that for the evaluative categories to be intelligibly applied to persons these claims must be true ; it favors the interests of the "lowest" at the expense of the "highest" men, the embodiments of human excellence. I illustrate, in particular, how this latter component of "morality" informs the attack on all Nietzsche's seemingly disparate targets : in each case, Nietzsche shows that such norms are inhospitable to the realization of human excellence. Nietzsche's critique is distinguished from recent critical work in analytic ethics : the former is concerned with the real effects of morality on the cultural conditions necessary for the flourishing of human greatness, while the latter writers are only concerned with the inability of philosophical theories of morality to find conceptual space for our various mundane personal projects. ;Chapters IV-VI address the metaethical question implicit in Nietzsche's "revaluation of values": what is the status of the values Nietzsche relies on in criticizing morality? I argue that: Nietzsche is a type of realist about judgments of prudential value ; and Nietzsche is an anti-realist about judgments of non-prudential value . In considering Nietzsche's arguments for , particular attention is accorded the neglected influence of the German materialism of the 1850s and 60s. I argue that Nietzsche embraces a "naturalistic" conception of persons , which leads him to think that judgments of non-prudential value can be "explained away" in terms of psychological and physiological facts about persons