In defence of good simpliciter

Journal article


Cosker-Rowland, Rach. (2016). In defence of good simpliciter. Philosophical Studies. 173(5), pp. 1371 - 1391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0551-9
AuthorsCosker-Rowland, Rach
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
Open accessPublished as non-open access
Research or scholarlyResearch
Page range1371 - 1391
Research GroupInstitute for Religion and Critical Inquiry
Publisher's version
License
All rights reserved
File Access Level
Controlled
Output statusPublished
Permalink -

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

Restricted files

Publisher's version

  • 81
    total views
  • 2
    total downloads
  • 0
    views this month
  • 0
    downloads this month
These values are for the period from 19th October 2020, when this repository was created.

Export as