In defence of good simpliciter

Journal article


Rowland, Richard. (2016). In defence of good simpliciter. Philosophical Studies. 173(5), pp. 1371 - 1391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0551-9
AuthorsRowland, Richard
Abstract

Many including Judith Jarvis Thomson, Philippa Foot, Peter Geach, Richard Kraut, and Paul Ziff have argued for good simpliciter skepticism. According to good simpliciter skepticism, we should hold that there is no concept of being good simpliciter or that there is no property of being good simpliciter. I first show that prima facie we should not accept either form of good simpliciter skepticism. I then show that all of the arguments that good simpliciter skeptics have proposed for their view fail to show that we have good reason to accept good simpliciterskepticism. So, I show that we do not have good reason to accept good simpliciter skepticism.

KeywordsGoodness; Value; Good simpliciter; Final value; Attributive goodness; Judith Jarvis Thomson
Year2016
JournalPhilosophical Studies
Journal citation173 (5), pp. 1371 - 1391
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0551-9
Page range1371 - 1391
Research GroupInstitute for Religion and Critical Inquiry
Publisher's version
File Access Level
Controlled
Permalink -

https://acuresearchbank.acu.edu.au/item/85q54/in-defence-of-good-simpliciter

Restricted files

Publisher's version

  • 54
    total views
  • 0
    total downloads
  • 1
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month
These values are for the period from 19th October 2020, when this repository was created.

Export as

Related outputs

The normative and the evaluative : The buck-passing account of value
Rowland, Richard. (2019). The normative and the evaluative : The buck-passing account of value Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198833611.001.0001
The intelligibility of moral intransigence: A dilemma for cognitivism about moral judgment
Rowland, Richard. (2018). The intelligibility of moral intransigence: A dilemma for cognitivism about moral judgment. Analysis. 78(2), pp. 266 - 275. https://doi.org/10.1093/analys/anx140
The significance of significant fundamental moral disagreement
Rowland, Richard. (2017). The significance of significant fundamental moral disagreement. Nous. 51(4), pp. 802 - 831. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12170
Reasons or fittingness first?
Rowland, Richard. (2017). Reasons or fittingness first? Ethics: an international journal of social, political, and legal philosophy. 128(1), pp. 212 - 229. https://doi.org/10.1086/692949
Our intuitions about the experience machine
Rowland, Richard. (2017). Our intuitions about the experience machine. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy: online peer-reviewed journal of moral, political and legal philosophy. 12(1), pp. 110 - 117. https://doi.org/10.26556/jesp.v12i1.216
The epistemology of moral disagreement
Rowland, Richard. (2017). The epistemology of moral disagreement. Philosophy Compass. 12(2), pp. 1 - 16. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12398
Rescuing Companions in Guilt Arguments
Rowland, Richard. (2016). Rescuing Companions in Guilt Arguments. The Philosophical Quarterly. 66(262), pp. 161 - 171. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqv070
Dissolving the Wrong Kind of Reason Problem
Rowland, Richard. (2015). Dissolving the Wrong Kind of Reason Problem. Philosophical Studies. 172(6), pp. 1455 - 1474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-014-0359-z
Reasons as the Unity Among the Varieties of Goodness
Rowland, Richard. (2015). Reasons as the Unity Among the Varieties of Goodness. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1111/papq.12057
Wrong Kind of Reasons and Consequences
Rowland, Richard. (2013). Wrong Kind of Reasons and Consequences. Utilitas. 25(3), pp. 405 - 416. https://doi.org/10.1017/s095382081300006X
Moral Error Theory and the Argument from Epistemic Reasons
Rowland, Richard. (2013). Moral Error Theory and the Argument from Epistemic Reasons. Journal of ethics and social philosophy. 7(1), pp. 1 - 24.
Why Pass Every Buck? On Skorupski's Buck-Passing Account of Normativity
Rowland, Richard. (2011). Why Pass Every Buck? On Skorupski's Buck-Passing Account of Normativity. Ratio: an international journal of analytic philosophy. 24(3), pp. 340 - 348. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9329.2011.00504.x