Time-Slice Rationality and Self-Locating Belief

Philosophical Studies - The epistemology of self-locating belief concerns itself with how rational agents ought to respond to certain kinds of indexical information. I argue that those who endorse...     

Agreement and Updating For Self-Locating Belief

In this paper, I argue that some plausible principles concerning which credences are rationally permissible for agents given information about one another’s epistemic and credal states have some surprising consequences for which credences an agent ought to have in light of self-locating information. I provide a framework that allows us to state these constraints and draw out these consequences precisely. I then consider and assess the prospects for rejecting these prima facie plausible principles.     

The Flesh and The Devil: Belief in Religious Evil and Views of Sexual Morality

Review of Religious Research - We examine an understudied connection between religion and sexuality: beliefs about the reality of supernatural evil (Satan, hell, and demons). After controlling for...     

After Evil

Books reviewed: Geoffrey Scarre, After Evil, Responding to Wrongdoing Ashgate. Aldershot. 2004 pp. vii + 202 Price 42.50
Reviewed by R. A. Sharpe, University of Wales, Lampeter     

Evil Revisited

Books reviewed in this article:
Stephen T. Davis (ed.), Encountering Evil: Live Options in Theodicy
William L. Rowe (ed.), God and the Problem of Evil
Amélie Oksenberg Rorty (ed.), The Many Faces of Evil: Historical Perspectives     

Toleration vs. Doctrinal Evil in Our Time

Our time is characterized by what seems like an unprecedented process of intense global homogenization. This reality provides the context for exploring the nature and value of toleration. Hence, this essay is meant primarily as a contribution to international ethics rather than political philosophy. It is argued that because of the non-eliminability of differences in the world we should not even hope that there can be only one global religion or ideology. Further exploration exposes conceptual affinity between the concepts of intolerance, ideology, and doctrinal evil. The last concept is developed in contrast to pure evil and average evil, and under the assumption of the metaphysical necessity of free will. Doctrinal evil is found to represent the main source of intolerance as a result of a mechanism that tends to confuse doctrinal evil (or the competing conceptions of the good) with pure evil. This connection between doctrinal evil and pure evil provides ideologies with their forcefulness. Tolerance cannot be properly understood in terms of a simple opposition to intolerance, however. Tolerance emerges as a sort of vigilance, conscientiousness, and non-negligence based not on a supposedly correct interpretation of the good, but rather on the acceptance of the fallibility of any such attempted definition. Conversely, the principal evil in doctrinal evil is found in arrogance that accompanies the intolerance-inducing irresponsible thoughtlessness. With this conceptual topology in mind the paper also addresses questions regarding religious tolerance, the ideology of human rights and democracy, the right to self-defense, ways to face evil, the dialectics of using old names for novel evils, and related issues. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.