Gustavo Oliva de Oliveira

Cosmopsychism is the view that the Cosmos is conscious. In this paper, I will argue that Goff’s atheistic cosmopsychism can neither fully account for the existence of evil by denying omnipotence nor for the fine-tuning of the universe by denying omnibenevolence. I will then offer a theistic version of cosmopsychism that can account for the problem of consciousness but also does a better job with evil and fine-tuning: Inspired by the Bhagavad Gītā, the form of cosmopsychism that will be discussed is panentheistic, i.e. a version of the view that God is in the Cosmos but is more than the Cosmos. I will show that this panentheistic version of cosmopsychism is superior to the atheist one as the denial of omnibenevolence seems to fit better with the theological traditions based on the Gītā, therefore allowing the view to account for both evil and fine-tuning.

Moral aggregation, which is the combination of morally relevant features (like, for example, well-being) of different people, represented by a numerical value, is present in many contemporary moral theories. Aggregative theories define the morality of actions based on a comparison between the aggregate values of different states of affairs brought by the actions. In this paper, it’ll be argued that aggregation is undesirable for moral theories because it conflicts with important moral ideas like just distribution and the separateness of persons. Not only utilitarianism, but also aggregative theories that care about distribution, such as teleological egalitarianism and prioritarianism have this problem. The suggestion, at the end, is that a moral theory basedon the notion of moral justification can deal with those problems by granting adequate importance to the separateness of persons; creating such a theory, though, involves eliminating or at least severely limiting the role moral aggregation plays in morality. The goals of the paper are arguing against moral aggregation and for a specific non-aggregative theory, moral contractualism.

Among the many ways to evaluate the rationality and adequacy of belief, the relationship between two dimensions is of particular interest: the epistemic dimension and the moral dimension. A belief is epistemically rational when it is supported by the evidence and it is morally adequate when its formation and holding are sensitive to moral features of the situation. According to the traditional view, known as purism, the moral domain does not directly impact the epistemic domain. However, there is debate in the literature about the existence of immoral beliefs that seem, at first sight, epistemically rational. These beliefs that contain apparent normative conflict raise the challenge of explaining how different forms of normativity are related. Non-traditional theories hold that there is an encroachment of moral factors in epistemic rationality. Moral encroachment is the view that moral features can affect the epistemic status of a belief, for example, influencing the threshold of sufficient evidence for rational belief. This idea produces a natural answer to the conflict problem: it wouldn’t exist because moral contexts make immoral beliefs also epistemically irrational. In this paper, I’ll argue that immoral beliefs can’t be epistemically rational, so there is no conflict. This, however, is not due to moral encroachment. It happens because immoral beliefs are never actually supported by the evidence. They are immoral because they are insensitive to moral contexts and epistemically irrational because they are insensitive to available evidence. This account is compatible with purism and, since it is the most parsimonious theory, we should adopt purism.

The traditional conception of risk is probabilistic, according to which the degree of risk of an event is determined by the probability of its occurence. Recently this view was challenged by Duncan Pritchard (2015, 2016), who suggested a modal theory of risk, centered in the idea that the riskiness of events depends on the modal distance between the actual world and worlds where the event obtains. What is attractive about this theory, according to Pritchard, is that it explains our judgement about cases in which two equally probable events seem to have different degrees of risk. The modal theory of risk, however, has its own shortcomings: according to Bricker (2018), there are cases in which risk judgements are not tracking modal distance; there is also the problem of determining the risk of events that occur in the actual world, since the theory seems to imply that they are maximally risky because the actual world is maximally similar to itself (EBERT; SMITH; DURBACH, 2020). The modal conception of risk is also at odds with the most natural forms of reasoning over the morality of risk imposition. I begin exploring the two conceptions of risk, emphasizing their strenghts and weaknesses. I then argue that the probabilistic conception can be defended from objections, and a pluralistic theory of risk, although less unified, deserves to be considered.

This article is about the compatibility between a form of internalism about epistemic justification and a form of externalism in the philosophy of mind called active externalism. Justification internalism in epistemology is the thesis that epistemic justification depends only on features internal to the agent. Active externalism is the position that it is possible that some of our mental states are external, i.e., constituted in part by elements “outside our head” — this form of externalism is articulated by the extended mind thesis. Andy Clark and David Chalmers argued in favor of this position in “The Extended Mind” (1998). Some philosophers believe the extended mind thesis is incompatible with accessibilist internalism because of the justifying role introspection plays in this form of epistemic internalism. I argue that, despite initial appearances, the extended mind thesis is compatible with epistemic internalism; however, it might conflict with other assumptions internalists usually make. This article’s structure goes like this: (i) I present the extended mind thesis; (ii) I introduce accessibilist internalism, sometimes seen as incompatible with the previous position; (iii) I explain and evaluate different arguments regarding the compatibility between the two positions.

Contemporary political philosophy is, to a certain degree, dominated by a family of theories that invoke hypothetical procedures as a method of normative justification. This article intends to analyze Axel Honneth’s critique of the so-called “proceduralism” in theories of justice, as well as to examine the author’s alternative proposal for a justification method, what he calls “normative reconstruction”. Honneth’s complaints are divided in three parts: critiques of the understanding of justice, the method of justification, and the scope of proceduralist theories of justice are raised, each one receiving an alternative formulation by the author. After reading texts by Axel Honneth, John Rawls — author of "A theory of justice", in which he presents one of the most well-known proceduralist arguments — Jürgen Habermas and Nancy Fraser, who raise problems for Honneth’s normative reconstruction, we suspect that even though Honneth’s critique of proceduralism and his proposal of normative reconstruction seem initially plausible, they are only possible if we abandon the framework of political philosophy to do what is usually called “social philosophy”.

The suggestion that emotions are, in a way, essential to moral judgement has been getting attention in recent literature. Jesse Prinz says that emotionist theories involve at least one of the following claims: (i) emotions are necessary and sufficient for the acquisition of moral concepts (epistemic emotionism); (ii) emotions are necessary and sufficient to determine moral properties (metaphysical emotionism). According to Prinz, some empirical results in moral psychology can support these kinds of emotionism (especially the first one). In The emotional construction of morals, Prinz presents the famous dumbfounding cases, in which interviewees maintain a moral judgement even when confronted with the fact that they cannot articulate reasons why, as evidence for an emotionist view of moral judgement. There is, however, controversy regarding the interpretation of such cases: to begin with, it seems possible to interpret them through reasons, as suggested by Sinott-Armstrong, Yin and Stanley (2019); also, even if there are no reasons being considered, it is possible, as suggested by Jones (2006) and Alves (2013), that dumbfounded moral judgement isn’t a genuine example of moral judgement, since the subjects do not possess basic moral concepts. I start with moral dumbfounding cases and Prinz’s emotionist interpretation of them and later consider the alternative interpretations. Even though Prinz’s reading is initially appealing, it seems the empirical evidence does not support a sentimentalist metaethics as much as he suggests, and the appeal to reasons is still essential in understanding moral judgement.

Contractualism has obtained relative success in moral theory for being able to deal with cases in which consequentialist theories of morality fail, specially those that involve problems with aggregation. Aggregation is, simply put, the ideia that we should measure the value of an action not by considering how it affects each individual, but by adding the good its consequences produce, looking for the best "balance" of good. Philosophers like John Rawls and T. M. Scanlon pointed out that aggregation seems to require positive evaluation of cases in which a minority is deeply burdened so that a majority is a little benefited; a rather uninituitive result. Contractualists like Scanlon argue that their theory, because of their Individualist Restriction, is essentially anti-aggregative and so it is immune to this problem. However, as Michael Otsuka and others noted, eliminating aggregation has its costs, since we are left with difficulties to explain cases where the "numbers seem to matter". This chapter aims to present different contractualist responses to these cases, laying out the distinction between ex post and ex ante contractualism — a distinction relative to the conditions in which moral justification is to be considered — and defends the ex ante view of justification advocated by contractualists like Rahul Kumar, Johann Frick and, recently, even Scanlon.