Marshall Bierson

In this paper I defend the ancient thesis that agents always act under the guise of the good. I do so by arguing that the role that goodness plays in action is isomorphic to the role that truth plays in belief. In particular, I argue that the guise of the good thesis allows us to: (i) fix the topic of ethical and metaethical disagreement just as the aim of belief allows us to fix the topic of alethiological disagreements, (ii) explain the thinness of thin moral concepts in parallel to the thinness of concepts like truth, (iii) develop an account of moral testimony that parallels the best non-reductive accounts of theoretical testimony, and (iv) explains why we are open to our values changing over time in much the same way that we are open to our theoretical premises changing over time.

Mortality seems important in explaining the value of virtues. It seems that courage is valuable _because_ we face dangers of death and pain, just as it seems temperance is valuable because we can harm our health by overindulgence. This poses a serious problem for Christian ethics. If the virtues are valuable because they ameliorate harms stemming from limitations like mortality, then the virtues will lose much of their value in the new creation, where those limitations are no more. This chapter argues that the threat is serious, and requires the rethinking of the fundamental value of the virtues. The virtues are not, first and foremost, the dispositions that allow us to improve the broken world we live in, but precisely those dispositions necessary for enjoying ideal or perfect conditions.

Mortality seems important in explaining the value of virtues. It seems that courage is valuable because we face dangers of death and pain, just as it seems temperance is valuable because we can harm our health by overindulgence. This poses a serious problem for Christian ethics. If the virtues are valuable because they ameliorate harms stemming from limitations like mortality, then the virtues will lose much of their value in the new creation, where those limitations are no more. This chapter argues that the threat is serious, and requires the rethinking of the fundamental value of the virtues. The virtues are not, first and foremost, the dispositions that allow us to improve the broken world we live in, but precisely those dispositions necessary for enjoying ideal or perfect conditions.

One is sometimes, but only sometimes, justified in pursuing a suboptimal course of action due to a concern that, in attempting the ideal course, one might fail to follow through and so make the situation even worse. This paper explains why such hedging is sometimes justified and sometimes not. The explanation we offer relies on Elizabeth Anscombe’s distinction between reasons and logoi. Reasons are normative considerations that identify something good or bad that an act will secure or avoid, while logoi constrain which actions one may consider at all. We argue that a careful unpacking of this distinction, in light of Anscombe’s associated notion of natural unintelligibility, explains why hedging is only sometimes justified. First, the intuitively inappropriate cases of hedging all involve treating logoi as though they had the normative bearing of reasons. Second, the action-theoretic differences between reasons and logoi ground a principled explanation of why one may hedge when considering reasons but not when considering logoi. Having made this argument, we then show how our approach to hedging is superior to the two approaches recently developed by Berislav Marušić and Stephen White. First, we show that their accounts give counter-intuitive results in some cases. Second, we argue that their accounts violate a plausible principle of interpersonal parity (i.e., they sometimes allow us to consider the faults of others while precluding us from considering our own faults). Finally, we argue that our account better explains how intuitions shift as we vary the details of cases.

Thomas Aquinas famously held that (A) theft is always wrong, and also that (B) it is permissible for a starving man to take the bread he needs, openly or secretly, from another. He reconciled these two positions by claiming that (C) in cases of great need, it is not theft to take someone else’s property when she does not need it herself. On its face, (C) looks like a theoretically costly concession that Aquinas is forced into in order to reconcile (A) and (B). Our first aim is to show that this is not so. We argue that (C) is in fact the only way to accommodate a set of intuitive norms of keeping and taking. Our second aim is to show that (C) has important implications for theories of property more generally: a plausible theory of property must acknowledge a foundational sense of "belong" on which things belong to those who need them.

What a person is doing often depends on that person’s thought about what they are doing, or about the wider circumstances of their action. For example, whether my killing is murder or manslaughter depends, in part, on whether I understand that what I am doing is killing you, and on whether I understand that my killing is unjustified. Similarly, if I know that the backpack I am taking is yours, then my taking it may be an act of theft; but it is not theft if I simply mistook your backpack for my own. And if I don’t know that in signing a document I’m promising to do some thing, then in signing it I’m not promising to do this at all. According to Elizabeth Anscombe, a central task of philosophical psychology is to articulate this dependency of action on thought. And in a range of papers published during the 1960s, Anscombe sought to elucidate various aspects of this dependency. In this paper we give a systematic overview of how Anscombe understands this dependency, and in the process reveal the conceptual framework underlying Anscombe’s thinking about perception, desire, intention, voluntariness, responsibility, guilt, and sin.