Utilitarianism claims to be a rational moral theory in at least three ways. First, it claims to give us an objective standard of morality, a way of deciding moral issues, not in the light of what each of us happens to like or dislike, but on publicly verifiable grounds. Secondly, by offering only one criterion of morality it assures consistency. If we accept a system which invokes two or more independent principles, there is always the possibility of insoluble conflict. For example, if we take our stand on the Ten Commandments, we cannot, without divine revelation, be sure that we shall not one day find ourselves in a situation in which we must break one or other of them; and our system gives us no guide as to which we ought to break.

Dans ses “Leçons sur l'histoire de Ia Philosophie”, Hegel formule à plusieurs reprises l'antinomie cachée derrière I'expression “Histoire de Ia philosophie”. Parmi ces formulations l'une des plus claires et des plus suggestives est Ia suivante: “L'idée qui peut tout d'abord se présenter à nous à propos d'une histoire de Ia philosophie c'est que cet objet renferme une contradiction intrinsèque. Car Ia philosophie se propose de connaître l'immuable, l'éternel, ce qui est en soi et pour soi; sa fin est Ia vérité. Mais l'histoire raconte ce qui a été à une époque mais qui a disparu à une autre, écarté par autre chose. Si nous partons de Ià que Ia vérité est éternelle, elle n'entre pas dans Ia sphére de ce qui passe et n'a pas d'histoire.

The analysis of the concept of knowledge is understandably regarded as central to the development of an adequate philosophical system. And yet, as is also apparent, no proposal of recent date has succeeded in meeting certain well-known objections, counterinstances, anomalies. It is reasonable, therefore, to step back from these would-be direct contributions to review the principal strategies by which the relevant puzzles may be supposed to be managed.

Undoubtedly, it was Roderick Chisholm's recovery and revision of the account of the Theaetetus that encouraged a sustained effort, by various hands, to formulate a definition of knowledge in terms of its necessary and sufficient conditions.

An important aspect of Sellars' philosophy is his attempt to explicate the concept of thought on the "model" of the concept of speech. More specifically, Sellars has argued that the intentionality of "inner" episodes or thoughts is to be understood in terms of the "semantical" characteristics of intelligent ("nonparroting") linguistic behavior, and not the other way around as the "classical tradition" had supposed.

To avoid misunderstanding, it is important to realize that Sellars' claim, as he explains, in Aristotelian terminology, is a claim "in the order of conceiving" as contrasted with "the order of being." That is, Sellars accepts, as an integral part of his theory, the classical claim that meaningful speech is the manifestation or overt causal expression of ''inner" thoughts, but argues that our concept of such thoughts is a derivative concept, a concept which, in the order of theoretical reconstruction, is "modelled on," is an analogical extension of, the concept of meaningful linguistic behavior.

Carl Hempel has proposed the following model for explanations by reasons.

• (R) (i) A was in a situation of type C.

• (ii) A was a rational agent at the time.

• (iii) In a situation of type C, any rational agent will do X.

• (iv) Therefore, A did X.

According to Hempel (R) overcomes the shortcomings of alternative accounts of explaining by reasons such as William Dray's model, in that the so-called evaluative principle is replaced by an empirical law. It is William Dray's contention that to understand the action of a rational agent is to see that his action was appropriate in his situation. Following Dray this then means that in explaining such an action one makes use of a normative ‘principle of action', not an empirical law, which has the form ‘when in a situation of type C1… Cn the thing to do is X'.

There has been a tendency in recent literature on personal identity to treat puzzle cases as unfair intrusions upon the discussion, like proposing to play chess without the Queen. Thus Terence Penelhum speaks of ‘imaginary worlds’ where our normal criteria do not hold and Sydney Shoemaker refers approvingly to G. C. Nerlich's dictum that it is a universal truth of our world, and not of ‘all possible worlds', that only by being identical with a witness to past events can one have the knowledge of them we have in memory.

I would agree that where puzzle cases involve changing basic features of our physical universe, e.g. in having people's bodies go out of existence in one place and reappear in another, as recently envisaged by J. M. Shorter, there is some point in talking of ‘imaginary’ or ‘possible’ worlds. But where puzzle cases propose no such basic changes but ground the discussion in physiological possibilities, however unfeasible technologically, this seems an arbitrarily harsh description. It would be like Nineteenth Century philosophers saying talk of flying machines and heart transplants belongs, not to another age merely, but to other worlds.

In defense of anarchism Robert Paul Wolff contends that the moral autonomy of individuals cannot be made compatible with legitimate political authority. A state is legitimate, he maintains, if (and perhaps only if) authorities in the state have a right to command where subjects correlatively have an obligation to obey. However, he also holds both that all autonomous individuals have a primary obligation to refuse to be ruled by all authorities and that all men are normally obliged to remain autonomous. It allegedly follows that anarchism is the only political theory consistent with autonomy (9, 18f). We propose to show that his arguments concerning legitimacy contain a crucial inconsistency and that his conclusions concerning the incompatibility of authority and autonomy fail.