Reply to Rowe |
| |
Authors: | Thomas C. Brickhouse Nicholas D. Smith |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Lynchburg College, Lynchburg, VA, USA 2. Lewis & Clark College, Portland, OR, USA
|
| |
Abstract: | In our reply to Rowe, we explain why most of what he criticizes is actually the product of his misunderstanding our argument. We begin by showing that nearly all of his Part 1 misconceives our project by defending a position we never attacked. We then question why Rowe thinks the distinction we make between motivational and virtue intellectualism is unimportant before developing a defense of the consistency of our views about different desires. Next we turn to Rowe??s criticisms of our account of the prudential paradox and show these criticisms to rest on a misunderstanding. We close with some remarks about the implausibility and textual problems Rowe faces in denying that Socrates recognized a role for painful punishments. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|