Brandon Johns

It is usually taken for granted that the necessary and sufficient conditions for refraining are with respect to mental or behavioral states of agents. Let us call such accounts internalist conceptions of refraining. In this paper, I argue that internalist conditions are insufficient for refraining; and so internalist conceptions of refraining are inadequate. I conclude that a proper account of refraining must contain an externalist condition – i.e., a condition that makes reference to an agent's environment.

In contemporary philosophy of action, the existence of intentional and unintentional action is relatively uncontroversial. What is controversial is whether there exists a third kind of action—action that is neither intentional nor unintentional. This third kind of action is known in the literature as non-intentional action. In this paper, I develop a pair of arguments in favor of non-intentional action. More specifically, I argue that non-intentional action exists in the form of lucky and side-effect acts.

Mercy rules are designed to end blowouts early. Historically, they come in two forms: immediate termination rules and running clock rules. Immediate termination rules instantly terminate blowouts, whereas running clock rules impose a continuous game clock. The author is sympathetic to mercy rules. In this paper, he begins by arguing that traditional mercy rules are problematic. In their place, he proposes a new mercy rule – what he calls ‘the concession rule’. The major difference between the concession rule and traditional rules is that the concession rule is optional. That is, when a specific point differential obtains, the trailing team has the option to concede defeat. If they concede, the contest terminates immediately. However, if they elect to continue playing, then the contest proceeds under normal timekeeping and rules of play. Since the concession rule is not hampered by the problems tied to traditional mercy rules, the author concludes that the concession rule is a superior rule.