• PhilPapers
  • PhilPeople
  • PhilArchive
  • PhilEvents
  • PhilJobs
  • Sign in
PhilPeople
 
  • Sign in
  • News Feed
  • Find Philosophers
  • Departments
  • Radar
  • Help
 
profile-cover
Drag to reposition
profile picture

Thomas Johnson

University of Melbourne
  •  Home
  •  Publications
    9
    • Most Recent
    • Most Downloaded
    • Topics
  •  News and Updates
    1

 More details
University of Melbourne
PhD, 2005
Areas of Specialization
Value Theory
Philosophy of Cognitive Science
Philosophy of Biology
Social and Political Philosophy
Normative Ethics
Meta-Ethics
Applied Ethics
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Action
General Philosophy of Science
Metaphysics and Epistemology
Other Academic Areas
Science, Logic, and Mathematics
Philosophy, Misc
9 more
Areas of Interest
Metaphysics and Epistemology
Philosophy of Cognitive Science
Philosophy of Biology
Social and Political Philosophy
Normative Ethics
Meta-Ethics
Applied Ethics
Philosophy of Mind
Philosophy of Action
General Philosophy of Science
Value Theory
Science, Logic, and Mathematics
Philosophy, Misc
Other Academic Areas
9 more
  • All publications (9)
  •  836
    Evolving Autonomy: The Mutual Selection of Social Values
    Dissertation, University of Melbourne. 2005.
  •  93
    Review of Julian Savulescu, Ruud ter Meulen and Guy Kahane eds., Enhancing Human Capacities: Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011 (review)
    Neuroethics 5 (3): 321-324. 2011.
    Cognitive EnhancementNeuroethics, Misc
  •  273
    Enhancing Human Capacities (edited book, review)
    Wiley-Blackwell. 2011.
    Review of Julian Savulescu, Ruud ter Meulen and Guy Kahane eds., Enhancing Human Capacities Content Type Journal Article Category Book Review Pages 1-4 DOI 10.1007/s12152-011-9148-y Authors Thomas Johnson, Graduate School of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia Journal Neuroethics Online ISSN 1874-5504 Print ISSN 1874-5490
    Neuroethics, Misc
  •  23
    Book review: James A. Shapiro's Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (review)
    Journal of Evolution and Technology 23 (1): 61-64. 2013.
  •  52
    Frances M. Kamm , Bioethical Prescriptions: To Create, End, Choose, and Improve Lives . Reviewed by
    Philosophy in Review 35 (1): 23-25. 2015.
  •  97
    Kristin Andrews. The Animal Mind: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Animal Cognition. Reviewed by (review)
    Philosophy in Review 35 (3): 124-126. 2015.
    Animal Cognition
  •  58
    Rowan Cruft, S. Matthew Liao, and Massimo Renzo, eds. Philosophical Foundations of Human Rights. Reviewed by (review)
    Philosophy in Review 36 (2): 67-69. 2016.
    Social and Political Philosophy
  •  95
    Review of Julian Savulescu, Ruud ter Meulen and Guy Kahane eds., Enhancing Human Capacities (review)
    Neuroethics 5 (3): 321-324. 2011.
    Cognitive EnhancementNeuroethics, Misc
  •  46
    Naive Moral Fictionalism
    As a descriptive theory, moral fictionalism proposes that moral claims are typically based on the fundamental error of attributing moral values with an objective, independent status that they cannot possess. This illusory belief in the reality of moral values has been aptly described as naïve moral realism. Yet, the assumed prevalence of moral realism, however naïve, is a crucial question that has not been adequately defended by proponents of moral fictionalism and is found to be inconsistent wi…Read more
    As a descriptive theory, moral fictionalism proposes that moral claims are typically based on the fundamental error of attributing moral values with an objective, independent status that they cannot possess. This illusory belief in the reality of moral values has been aptly described as naïve moral realism. Yet, the assumed prevalence of moral realism, however naïve, is a crucial question that has not been adequately defended by proponents of moral fictionalism and is found to be inconsistent with much empirical research in moral psychology that reveals a much more sophisticated understanding of the meanings of moral beliefs and judgements. In addition to these empirical weaknesses, moral fictionalism tends to rely on a naïve interpretation of: (1) the conceptual validity and scope of the cognitivivist/non-cognitivist distinction (2) the categoricity of moral judgements (3) the descriptive language of moral discourse. These serious flaws provide good reason for describing the theory itself as naïve moral fictionalism.
    Moral Irrealism, Misc
PhilPeople logo

On this site

  • Find a philosopher
  • Find a department
  • The Radar
  • Index of professional philosophers
  • Index of departments
  • Help
  • Acknowledgments
  • Careers
  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions

Brought to you by

  • The PhilPapers Foundation
  • The American Philosophical Association
  • Centre for Digital Philosophy, Western University
PhilPeople is currently in Beta Sponsored by the PhilPapers Foundation and the American Philosophical Association
Feedback