Michael Tooley

Here, we argue for a mathematical equation that captures desert. Our procedure consists of setting out principles that a correct equation must satisfy and then arguing that our set of equations satisfies them. We then consider two objections to the equation. First, an objector might argue that desert and well-being separately contribute to intrinsic goodness, and they do not separately contribute. The concern here is that our equations treat them as separate contributors. Second, our set of desert-equations are unlike equations in science because our equations involve multiple desert-equations with the applicable equation depending on how the variables are filled out. Neither objection succeeds.

This volume presents a selection of the most influential recent discussions of the crucial metaphysical question: What is it for one event to cause another? The subject of causation bears on many topics, such as time, explanation, mental states, the laws of nature, and the philosophy of science. Contributors include J.L Mackie, Michael Scriven, Jaegwon Kim, G.E.M. Anscombe, G.H. von Wright, C.J. Ducasse, Wesley C. Salmon, David Lewis, Paul Horwich, Jonathan Bennett, Ernest Sosa, and Michael Tooley.

Is there a prima facie obligation to produce additional individuals whose lives would be worth living? In his paper ‘Is it Good to Make Happy People?’, Stuart Rachels argues not only that there is, but, also, that precisely as much weight should be assigned to the quality of life that would be enjoyed by such potential persons, if they were to be actualized, as to the quality of life enjoyed by actually existing persons. In response, I shall argue, first, that Rachels’ view is exposed to very serious objections, and secondly, that his arguments in support of his position involve a crucial assumption, which cannot be sustained, concerning the relation between, on the one hand, propositions about good‐making and bad‐making properties, and, on the other, propositions about right‐making and wrong‐making ones. I shall then argue that there is a very plausible position concerning the conditions under which an action can be morally wrong which entails the following asymmetry: there is a prima facie obligation not to bring into existence individuals whose lives are not worth living, but there is no corresponding obligation to create additional individuals whose lives would be worth living.

In this paper, I have attempted to do two main things. First, I argue that Alvin Plantinga’s new argument against materialism, though interesting, shares the fate of his earlier arguments in that it is, in the end, unsuccessful. Secondly, I then argue, contrary to Plantinga’s view that there is no strong argument for materialism, that there is in fact very strong scientific support that can be offered against the hypothesis that the human mind is an immaterial substance, and hence in support of the conclusion that some form of materialism is true.

Is belief in God epistemically justified? That's the question at the heart of this volume in the Great Debates in Philosophy series, with Alvin Plantinga and Michael Tooley each addressing this fundamental question with distinctive arguments from opposing perspectives. The first half of the book contains each philosopher's explanation of his particular view; the second half allows them to directly respond to each other's arguments, in a lively and engaging conversation Offers the reader a one of a kind, interactive discussion Forms part of the acclaimed Great Debates in Philosophy series

A number of philosophers have maintained that traditional ways of thinking about time involve metaphysical presuppositions. Jacques Derrida, however, has gone further, and has argued that the very concept of time is itself essentially metaphysical, and thus that there is no possibility of a nonmetaphysical conception of time. It is this latter claim that David Wood wishes to challenge. Thus, while he agrees that traditional conceptions of time have involved metaphysical presuppositions, he contends that it is possible to develop an alternative conceptual framework where this is not the case.

The fundamental issue with which John Bishop is concerned in this book is the compatibility of a naturalistic perspective on the world with an ethical perspective in which we view people as performing actions for which they are morally responsible. In the first chapter Bishop outlines the basic problem. Traditionally, there has seemed to be a prima facie conflict between freedom and determinism. Bishop argues that this is a mistake and that there is, in fact, a much more fundamental problem--one that exists regardless of whether or not determinism is true. The basic difficulty, he contends, is that our concept of an action seems to involve the idea of behavior which is caused by an agent, whereas the only type of causation that is countenanced by scientific theories, be they deterministic or indeterministic, is causation among events or states of affairs. The question, then, is how there can be agents in a world where all causation is event-causation.

The invitation that I received indicated that the "Dewey Foundation's intent is to have senior American philosophers reflect on their careers in philosophy, taking a generally broad perspective," and it said that "Dewey Lecturers in the past have usually included some account of their philosophical education and some views on the state of the profession, or the ways in which it has changed through their careers." I shall attempt to follow this invitation, though when I turn to some remarks on the state of the profession, I shall focus somewhat closely on one problem area in which I am especially interested.

The term "positivism" is generally used to refer to philosophical approaches that involve the acceptance of a verifiability principle. In this book, however, Richard Miller uses the term with a somewhat different sense, according to which "positivism is the assumption that the most important methodological notions--for example, explanation, confirmation and the identification of one entity with another--can each be applied according to rules that are the same for all sciences and historical periods, that are valid a priori, and that only require knowledge of the internal content of the propositions involved for their effective application". Miller maintains that positivism, so understood, is fundamentally flawed. At the same time, however, he does not wish to embrace either a relativistic view of scientific theories--such as has been advanced by Thomas Kuhn, Paul Feyerabend, and Richard Rorty--or an antirealist view--defended, for example, by Bas van Fraassen. Miller attempts, therefore, to develop an alternative approach to the philosophy of science that, on the one hand, will avoid the difficulties which positivism encounters, and, on the other, will provide a satisfactory foundation for a defense of scientific realism.

In my commentary on Francesca Minerva's article ‘New Threats to Academic Freedom’, I agree with her contention that the existence of the Internet has given rise to new and very serious threats to academic freedom. I think that it is crucial that we confront those threats, and find ways to eliminate them, which I believe can be done. The threats in question involve both authors and editors. In the case of authors, I argue that the best solution is not anonymous publication, but publication using pseudonyms, and I describe how that would work. In the case of editors, my proposal is a website that a number of journals would have access to, where papers that editors judge to be clearly worthy of publication, but whose publication seems likely to set off a firestorm of public and media protest, could be published without any indication of the journal that had accepted the paper for publication