Neil Sinhababu

Desire has close causal relations to many mental states and events. These include the motivation of action, hedonic feelings of pleasure and displeasure, and reward as characterized by theories of reinforcement learning. Which are necessary and sufficient for desire, and which does it have only contingently? Pure theories suggest only one of these, while hybrid theories suggest more than one. A pure motivational theory was popular for much of the 20th century. Pure hedonic theories and pure reward theories have more recent defenders. Surveying the options suggests advantages of a hybrid motivational-hedonic conceptual analysis of desire.

Western philosophers have long explored problems of free will and determinism, and regarded libertarianism as an important option. Asian philosophical traditions have however historically paid little attention to these problems, and ignored libertarianism. An explanation of this difference emerges from a survey of Confucian, Mohist, Daoist, Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Zoroastrian, Greek, Jewish, Catholic, Calvinist, Arminian, Sunni, Shia, and contemporary philosophical traditions. Only Christians and Muslims accept a perfect creator and eternal damnation. This creates problems of evil to which a popular solution is the free will theodicy, which entails commitments to libertarianism and to great moral significance for free right action. These historical investigations provide secular philosophers with theological debunking arguments against libertarianism, and against the great significance ascribed to agency in contemporary metaethics. Asia suggests alternatives to both commitments.

In empathic representation, experiences represent others’ experiences as the same as themselves. Feeling sad in empathizing with your friend represents your friend as feeling sad. The unusual role of identity in determining representational content explains how empathy helps us know what others’ experiences are like. Empathic representation is a counterexample to global externalism about content, as Twin Earth cases reveal. Applying it to moral feelings lets naturalistic realists in metaethics solve Moral Twin Earth problems and uphold the universality of morality.

Epistemic akrasia can be rational. I consider a lonely pragmatist who believes that her imaginary friend doesn’t exist, and also believes on pragmatic grounds that she should believe in him. She rationally believes that her imaginary friend doesn’t exist, rationally follows various sources of evidence to the view that she should believe in him to end her loneliness, and rationally holds these attitudes simultaneously. Evidentialism suggests that her ambivalent epistemic state is rational, as considerations grounded in the value of truth justify her beliefs.

The view that morally worthy actions must be motivated by moral knowledge faces counterexamples. This paper offers a counterexample in which Ava and Beth text a wise rabbi for answers to the same moral question, receive the same correct answer, and accordingly act rightly. Beth however receives her answer from a thief who stole the rabbi's phone and randomly chose the correct answer. Beth therefore is Gettierized and lacks moral knowledge that Ava has. But this doesn't seem to diminish the moral worth of Beth's action. This is a counterexample to Paulina Sliwa and JJ Cunningham's accounts of moral worth, which require moral knowledge.

Donald Davidson famously argues that when a person acts for a reason, we can characterize that person as having some sort of pro-attitude toward actions of a certain kind and believing that their action is of that kind. If acting for a reason must be caused by pro-attitudes, then the right account of pro-attitudes will help us correctly identify cases of action for reason. In this paper, we examine what it takes for a mental state to be a pro-attitude. First, we argue that having any mental state that systematically causes behavior when combined with an appropriately connected belief count as a pro-attitude is overly permissive. We do so by presenting an example of someone whose complex system of nervous tics mimics the causal structure of a pro-attitude, but where the resulting behavior does not count as action. Next, we argue that requiring beliefs about value or treating pro-attitudes as perceptions of value is overly restrictive. Such views fail to account for akrasia or attribute unprecedented functional properties to perceptual states. Finally, we propose an account of pro-attitudes that avoids these pitfalls: In addition to causing behavior, pro-attitudes cause more pleasure when one thinks about attaining their object than when one thinks about failing to attain their objects.

Heidegger's ontological theories, his observations about liberalism and fascism, and his evaluation of Being are three premises of an argument for fascism. The ontological premise is that integrated wholes and instruments or objects of will are ontologically superior, as Being and Time suggests in discussing Being‐a‐whole and using tools. The social premise is that fascist societies are wholes integrated by dictatorial will, while liberal societies are looser aggregates of free individuals, as Heidegger describes in his 1930s seminars. The evaluative premise, shared with the medieval tradition and expressed in his notebook remarks about war, is that ontological superiority makes things better. The conclusion that fascism is better than liberalism should be rejected along with the evaluative premise.

The idea of the eternal recurrence is that everyone will live the exact same lives again an infinite number of times. Nietzsche appreciates that this would multiply the value of a single life by infinity, justifying intense emotional responses. His unpublished notes provide a cosmological argument for the eternal recurrence that anticipates Poincaré’s recurrence theorem. Nietzsche’s Thus Spoke Zarathustra describes its hero discovering this idea and struggling to accept the recurrence of all bad things. He eventually comes to love the eternal recurrence because it will bring back all the joys of his life, and teaches this idea to others.

I defend ethical hedonism, the view that pleasure is the sole good thing, by arguing that it offers the only answer to an argument for moral skepticism. The skeptical problem arises from widespread fundamental moral disagreement, which entails the presence of enough moral error to undermine the reliability of most processes generating moral belief. We know that pleasure is good through the reliable process of phenomenal introspection, which reveals what our experiences are like. If knowing of pleasure’s goodness through phenomenal introspection is the only reliable way to form our initial moral beliefs, we should accept ethical hedonism.

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche presents passion as constituting human agency. He encountered this Humean view in Schopenhauer, and recognized its explanatory advantages over Platonic and Kantian rationalism. Zarathustra's poetic speeches anticipate and address contemporary objections to the view that passion constitutes agency. "On the Despisers of the Body" explains why understanding the self as constituted by passion provides better explanations of reasoning, value judgment, and the unity of the self than Christine Korsgaard's neo-Kantian view. "On Enjoying and Suffering the Passions" explains why understanding virtues as constituted by passions provides a better explanation of moral phenomenology than John McDowell's rationalism.

We can infer moral conclusions from nonmoral evidence using a three-step procedure. First, we distinguish the processes generating belief so that their reliability in generating true belief is statistically predictable. Second, we assess the processes’ reliability, perhaps by observing how frequently they generate true nonmoral belief or logically inconsistent beliefs. Third, we adjust our credence in moral propositions in light of the truth ratios of the processes generating beliefs in them. This inferential route involves empirically discovering truths of the form “Process P, which generates belief in moral proposition M, has truth ratio T", and using them to discover probabilities for moral propositions. The inferential route is noncircular, and progress along it is driven fundamentally by induction.

Whether nature is valuable on its own (intrinsic values) or because of the benefits it provides to humans (instrumental values) has been a long-standing debate. The concept of relational values has been proposed as a solution to this supposed dichotomy, but the empirical validation of its intuitiveness remains limited. We experimentally assessed whether intrinsic/relational values of sentient beings/non-sentient beings/ecosystems better explain people’s sense of moral duty towards global nature conservation for the future. Participants from a representative sample of the population of Singapore (n = 1508) were randomly allocated to two “the last human” scenarios. We found that the best predictor of such a sense of moral duty for future nature conservation is the recognition of the intrinsic values of sentient beings. Our results suggest that the concern for animal welfare may enhance rather than compete with the sense of moral duty towards nature conservation.

This paper presents the Universality Argument that pleasure is goodness. The first premise defines goodness as what should please all. The second premise reduces 'should' to perceptual accuracy. The third premise invokes a universal standard of accuracy: qualitative identity. Since the pleasure of all is accurate solely about pleasure, pleasure is goodness, or universal moral value. The argument proceeds from a moral sense theory that analyzes moral concepts as concerned with what all should hope for, feel guilty about, and admire. This requires rejecting practical anti-empiricism, the view that moral judgment concerns empirically inaccessible norms governing action.

This essay presents two arguments for ethical hedonism, each defending it on naturalistic grounds. This abstract lists the three premises of each argument. First is the Reliability Argument. [R1] The reliability of a process is the probability that beliefs it generates are true. [R2] Phenomenal introspection is reliable in generating belief that pleasure is good. [R3] No other processes are independently reliable in generating moral belief. ∴ [%PIG] Pleasure is probably the only good thing. Second is the Universality Argument. [U1] x is good ↔ x should please all metaphysically possible moral perceivers [U2] x should please Y ↔ x makes pleasure accurate for Y. [U3] x makes pleasure accurate for all metaphysically possible moral perceivers ↔ x is pleasure∴ [PIG]: Pleasure is goodness.

Pietro Gori dedicates Nietzsche’s Pragmatism “To the wanderers and Good Europeans,” and Anglophone wanderers into Sarah de Sanctis’s translation will indeed find good European Nietzsche scholarship. The table of contents is a helpful map of the book, with five chapters consisting of twenty-eight sections on a sequence of philosophical and interpretive topics. Perspectival thought, addressed in the subtitle, is the explicit topic of the third chapter. Pragmatism, mentioned in the title, is the explicit topic of the fifth and final chapter. While both topics also are discussed in many other places, the overall focus is on Nietzsche’s views of epistemology and truth.The first chapter discusses Nietzsche’s views of...

Nietzsche and Hume agree that desire drives all human action and practical reasoning. This shared view helps them appreciate continuities between human and animal motivation and sets them against a long tradition of rationalist rivals including Kant and Plato. In responding to Kant, Nietzsche further developed the Humean views that Kant himself was responding to. Kantians like Christine Korsgaard argue that reflective endorsement and rejection of options presented by desire demonstrates reason’s ability to independently drive reasoning and action. In Daybreak 109, Nietzsche provides a simpler Humean explanation: reflective endorsement and rejection involve reflecting on one desire from the viewpoint of another, with desire as the only motivational force. This explains the attentional and hedonic phenomenology of reflective endorsement without ascribing any motivational force to rational processes independent of desire.

Justin Remhof defends a constructivist interpretation of Nietzsche’s view regarding the metaphysics of material objects. First, I describe an attractive feature of Remhof’s interpretation. Since Nietzsche seems to be a constructivist about whatever sort of value he accepts, a constructivist account of objects would fit into a nicely unified overall metaphysical theory. Second, I explore various options for developing the constructivist view of objects. Depending on how Nietzsche understood concepts, and whose concepts he saw as giving rise to objects, he could’ve had a variety of different constructivist accounts.

Christine Korsgaard argues that Humean views of both action and rationality jointly imply the impossibility of irrational action, allowing us only to perform actions that we deem rational. Humeans can answer Korsgaard’s objection if their views of action and rationality measure agents’ actual desires differently. What determines what the agent does are the motivational forces that desires produce in the agent at the moment when she decides to act, as these cause action. What determines what it is rational to do should be the agent’s dispositional desire strengths, as our normative intuitions respond to these.

We explore how one might respond emotionally to the eternal recurrence. Zarathustra himself serves as our central case study. First we clarify the idea of eternal recurrence and its role in Nietzsche’s philosophy, explaining why the eternal recurrence has the emotional consequences Nietzsche describes when he first introduces the idea in The Gay Science. Then we describe Zarathustra’s emotional journey from horror at the eternal recurrence to loving it, in the sections from “On Great Events” to “The Seven Seals, or: The Yes and Amen Song.”

This paper presents two cases demonstrating that theories allowing the environment to partially determine the content of moral concepts provide incorrect truth-conditions for moral terms. While typical Moral Twin Earth cases seek to establish that these theories fail to account formoral disagreement, neither case here essentially involves interpersonal disagreement. Both involve a single person retaining moral beliefs despite recognizing actual or potential mismatches with the purportedly content-determining facts. This lets opponents of such theories grant objections that standard Moral Twin Earth cases fail to demonstrate disagreement, and argue more straightforwardly that they generate implausible truth-conditions for moral claims.

Ethical reductionism is the best version of naturalistic moral realism. Reductionists regard moral properties as identical to properties appearing in successful scientific theories. Nonreductionists, including many of the Cornell Realists, argue that moral properties instead supervene on scientific properties without identity. I respond to two arguments for nonreductionism. First, nonreductionists argue that the multiple realizability of moral properties defeats reductionism. Multiple realizability can be addressed in ethics by identifying moral properties uniquely or disjunctively with properties of the special sciences. Second, nonreductionists argue that irreducible moral properties explain empirical phenomena, just as irreducible special-science properties do. But since irreducible moral properties don't successfully explain additional regularities, they run the risk of being pseudoscientific properties. Reductionism has all the benefits of nonreductionism, while also being more secure against anti-realist objections because of its ontological simplicity.

The rightness and wrongness of actions fits on a continuous scale. This fits the way we evaluate actions chosen among a diverse range of options, even though English speakers don’t use the words “righter” and “wronger”. I outline and defend a version of scalar consequentialism, according to which rightness is a matter of degree, determined by how good the consequences are. Linguistic resources are available to let us truly describe actions simply as right. Some deontological theories face problems in accounting for degrees of rightness, as they don't invoke continuous parameters among the right-making features of action.