The Republic contains: (1) an implicit argument that slavery is unjust, (2) a bar against Greeks having Greek slaves that (3) allows barbarian slaves. The scholarship has failed to notice the first, that the second is a performative addressed to Greeks, and mistakes the third as explicit. Four passages are examined: (1) a catalogue of a Greek city’s social classes (433d1–5); (2) a bar against Greek slaves, asserting the continuation of barbarian slavery (469b5–71c3); (3) an assertion that the Best City can exist at any time and any place (499c7–d1); and (4) a passage asserting the injustice of enslavement (615a6–b6).

This article is about the problem of the justification of basic logical laws. Starting from an exposition of Lewis Carroll’s regress, I show the inadequacy of dominant current approaches in the epistemology of logic: they are incapable of responding satisfyingly to the central problem raised by the regress. The realisation of this failure motivates the need to adopt a different perspective on our conception of logical laws. I suggest, in the last portion of the article, that we should follow a suggestion made by Paul Boghossian and look carefully at the primitivist conception of the foundations of logic, such as it is put forward by Aristotle.

This study of Clément Rosset’s work focuses on the concept of repetition with regards to notions such as duplication, uniqueness, tragedy and joy. Explaining how Clément Rosset’s philosophy relies on the conception of tragic knowledge and how it leads to a specific form of beatitude sheds light on the originality of his interpretation of Nietzsche, as well as the relationship between his thought and Deleuze’s.

The criminal law distinction between conduct malum in se and malum prohibitum is five centuries old in common law jurisdictions and yet both its meaning and its usefulness remain matters of debate. I join the fray, arguing (a) that the terms cannot be interpreted literally, but that (b) there is a way of drawing the distinction that is both plausible and useful. Conduct mala in se is conduct that must be prohibited in any just polity, while mala prohibita conduct may but need not be criminalized. I employ concepts from social contract theory in the explanation.

In “A Society of Individuals,” I sketch a society that has no good of its own, no social end, but exists to enable each individual member better to pursue his own good, facilitating cooperation, and resolving the basic Interaction Problem (exemplified by the Prisoner’s Dilemma): that utility-maximization and Pareto-optimization are sometimes incompatible. The orthodox defend the rationality of maximization; I defend Pareto-optimization. I argue that if (per impossible) we could determine the features of our society by prior agreement we would agree to a Society of Individuals, and that we would agree ex ante to some social practice or institution is the best possible justification of it holding for us.

I then sketch some of the main features of the Society. In doing this I assume that members of the Society are not all adherents of contractarianism, but may hold any of a number of reasonable views, which the Society must seek to accommodate. I consider how several alleged rights, such as a right to resources, fare in the Society. And I conclude with the idea that contractarianism, in arguing that each adult member of society enjoys equal citizenship, must afford each the right to participate in choosing and dismissing governments. We may then think the emergence of a Society of Individuals is democracy’s fulfillment.

This paper critiques Jesse Prinz’s rejection of Adam Smith’s model of impartial spectatorship as a viable corrective to empathic bias. I argue that Prinz’s case is unconvincing, insofar as it rests on an underdeveloped account of Smith’s view of critical self-regulation. By presenting a more detailed and attentive reading of Smithean impartial spectatorship, and exploring Smith’s compelling account of structural supports for sympathetic engagement, this paper demonstrates how Smith’s work is able to constructively engage with contemporary concerns regarding empathy’s role in guiding moral behaviour.

As a means for thinking more precisely about the moral content of criminal offenses, this article argues that we should think of malum in se and malum prohibitum not as binary categories into which an offense does or not fit, but rather as contrasting, scalar qualities that all criminal offenses, to one degree or another, possess. Under this approach, an offense is malum in se to the extent that it criminalizes conduct that is morally wrong independent of the law, while it is malum prohibitum to the extent it criminalizes conduct that is morally wrong (if at all) in virtue of its being illegal.

In this paper, I propose a reading of Spinoza’s theory of the eternity of the mind in light of his theory of essence and existence. Opposing in particular recent Platonist readings of this theory, rejecting the dichotomy between formal essence and actual essence, upon which they mostly rely, I argue that Spinoza’s conception of the eternity of the mind must be grasped in terms of different aspects of one and the same existence. I moreover suggest that, for Spinoza, the mind was both sempiternal and eternal, without, however, those two aspects of the mind’s existence being identical.

Higher-order theories account for intransitive consciousness by using the transitive notion ‘awareness-of.’ I argue that this notion implies a form of ‘seeming’ that the higher-order approach requires, yet cannot account for. I show that, if the relevant kind of seeming is declared to be present in all representational states, the seeming in question is objectionably trivialized; while using the higher-order strategy to capture not only intransitive consciousness but also the relevant kind of seeming results in an infinite regress. Finally, highlighting distinctive features of representations that explain why they display seeming amounts to abandoning the higher-order approach altogether.

I focus on David Gauthier’s intriguing suggestion that actions are not to be evaluated directly but via an evaluation of deliberative procedures. I argue that this suggestion is misleading, since even the most direct evaluation of (intentional) actions involves the evaluation of different ways of deliberating about what to do. Relatedly, a complete picture of what an agent is or might be (intentionally) doing cannot be disentangled from a complete picture of how s/he is or might be deliberating. A more viable contrast concerns whether actions and deliberative procedures are properly evaluated on the whole or, instead, through time.

Contractarianism is more inclusive than critics (and, indeed, David Gauthier) sometimes suggest. Contractarianism can justify equal moral standing for human persons (in some respects) and provide sufficient moral standing for many nonhuman animals to require what we commonly call ‘decent treatment.’ Moreover, contractarianism may allow that some entities have more moral standing than do others. This does not necessarily license the oppression that liberal egalitarians rightly fear. Instead, it shows that contractarianism may support a nuanced account of moral status.

From the testimony of the Carnets de la drôle de guerre[War Diaries: Notebooks from a Phony War] and the Cahiers pour une morale[Notebooks for an Ethics], this article shows how Sartre uses Stoicism for his philosophical concerns: commitment and responsibility. Sartre’s frequent references to the Stoics, as well as the “stoic” attitude he claims to adopt at the time of mobilization in World War II, attest to the influence of Stoicism. Based on key passages in these two unfinished writings that chronologically frame L’être et le néant[Being and Nothingness], this article shows that Sartre borrows his own moral categories from Stoicism. As he voices it in the Carnets, Sartre attempts to reach a synthesis of Stoicism and authenticity, a key idea in his philosophy.

Recent defenders of Philippa Foot, such as Michael Thompson and John Hacker-Wright, have argued that it is a mistake to think that Foot aims to justify a substantive conception of human soundness and defect. Instead, she relies on the acceptance of certain groundless moral norms to underwrite her views about what is characteristically human. I maintain that this is a weakness and that the Footian-style proponent of natural normativity needs to provide a story about how we might achieve justified self-confidence regarding moral norms. In this paper, I offer a coherentist model for doing so, thereby addressing the justification gap.

The distinction between crimes that involve wrongs in themselves and crimes that are wrong because the law makes them so has long puzzled theorists. This essay argues that the distinction, while getting at something real, is based on a mistake. That mistake is made both by those who see moral wrongness as a necessary condition for criminality and by those who believe merely making something illegal is sufficient to make it criminal. Neither is correct. Rather, what makes something a criminal wrong is that it involves a violation of a law that has been justified in terms of “public reason.”

I argue that acceptance of realist intentional explanations of cognitive behaviour inescapably lead to a commitment to the language of thought (LOT) and that this is, therefore, a widely held commitment of philosophers of mind. In the course of the discussion, I offer a succinct and precise statement of the hypothesis and analyze a representative series of examples of pro-LOT argumentation. After examining two cases of resistance to this line of reasoning, I show, by way of conclusion, that the commitment to LOT is an empirically substantial one in spite of the flexibility and incomplete character of the hypothesis.

Some philosophers see an analogy between simulation and experiment. But, once we acknowledge some similarities between computer simulations and experiments, can we conclude from them that simulations generate empirical knowledge, as experiments do? In this paper, I argue that the similarities between simulation and experiment give the scientist at most the illusion that she is conducting an experiment, but cannot seriously ground the analogy. However, it does not follow that experiments are always epistemologically superior to simulations. I analyze the cases when simulations and experiments equally yield new empirical knowledge.

The Prisoner’s Dilemma (PD) plays a central, but shifting, role in David Gauthier’s moral theorizing. In “Morality and Advantage,” it provides a model, demonstrating how morality can have seemingly contradictory properties. In Morals by Agreement, it poses a special problem for the view that moral behaviour is individually rational. Authorities on game theory have subsequently disputed the idea that the PD is an appropriate tool for thinking about moral theory. In the first part of this paper, I examine the roles of the PD in Gauthier’s writings. In the second part, I outline a project, with both descriptive and normative components, that develops the insights of “Morality and Advantage” while preserving it from the game theorists’ attack.

I offer a counterexample to Timothy Williamson’s conjecture that knowledge is the most general factive mental state; i.e., that every factive mental state entails knowledge. I describe two counterexamples (Ernest Sosa’s and Baron Reed’s) that I find unpersuasive, and argue that they fail due to a specific feature they have in common. I then argue that there is a primitive mental state that is factive but does not entail knowledge, and that constitutes a counterexample to Williamson’s conjecture that is not subject to the problems faced by Sosa’s and Reed’s counterexamples.