Incoherent but Reasonable: A Defense of Truth-Abstinence in Political Liberalism

A strength of liberal political institutions is their ability to accommodate pluralism, both allowing divergent comprehensive doctrines as well as constructing the common ground necessary for diverse people to live together. A pressing question is how far such pluralism extends. Which comprehensive doctrines are simply beyond the pale and need not be accommodated by a political consensus? Rawls attempted to keep the boundaries of reasonable disagreement quite broad by infamously denying that political liberalism need make reference to the concept of truth, a claim that has been criticized by Joseph Raz, Joshua Cohen, and David Estlund. In this paper, we argue that these criticisms fail due to the fact that political liberalism can remain non-committal on the nature of truth, leaving the concept of truth in the domain of comprehensive doctrines while still avoiding the issues raised by Raz, Cohen, and Estlund. Further substantiating this point is the fact that Rawls would, and should, include parties in the overlapping consensus whose views on truth may be incoherent. Once it is seen that political liberalism allows such incoherence to reasonable parties, it is clear that the inclusion of truth and the requirement of coherence urged by Raz, Cohen, and Estlund requires more of reasonable people than is necessary for a political consensus

Indifference to Anti-Humean Chances

An indifference principle says that your credences should be distributed uniformly over each of the possibilities you recognise. A chance deference principle says that your credences should be aligned with the chances. My thesis is that, if we are anti-Humeans about chance, then these two principles are incompatible. Anti-Humeans think that it is possible for the actual frequencies to depart from the chances. So long as you recognise possibilities like this, you cannot both spread your credences evenly and defer to the chances. I discuss some weaker forms of indifference which will allow anti-Humeans to defer to the chances

The Monument and the Message: Pragmatism and Principle in Establishment Clause Ten Commandments Litigation

This Comment\u27s objective is not primarily to say why the Commandments are desirable to display, nor to frame a detailed legal case as to how they can be defended. The inquiry is limited to the interplay of theology and law in the historical argument for the Commandments- are public displays of the Commandments trapped between theological indifference on the one hand, or legal failure on the other? With the modest belief that the legal practitioners should take note of the theological implications of their arguments,8 and that the arguments should be informed by both the principle and the practical, we shall proceed: first, to examine the state of the court precedent; second, to consider the theological problems with the historical defense of the Commandments; and third, to suggest some routes which would avoid the theological problem

What Are the Odds that Everyone is Depraved?

Why does God allow evil? One hypothesis is that God desires the existence and activity of free creatures but He was unable to create a world with such creatures and such activity without also allowing evil. If Molinism is true, what probability should be assigned to this hypothesis? Some philosophers claim that a low probability should be assigned because there are an infinite number of possible people and because we have no reason to suppose that such creatures will choose one way rather than another. Arguments like this depend on the principle of indifference. But that principle is rejected by most philosophers of probability. Some philosophers claim that a low probability should be assigned because doing otherwise violates intuitions about freewill. But such arguments can be addressed through strategies commonly employed to defend theories with counterintuitive results across ethics and metaphysics

The Principal Principle Implies the Principle of Indifference

We argue that David Lewis’s principal principle implies a version of the principle of indifference. The same is true for similar principles that need to appeal to the concept of admissibility. Such principles are thus in accord with objective Bayesianism, but in tension with subjective Bayesianism. 1 The Argument 2 Some Objections Me

Kevin McCain and Ted Poston’s Best Explanations

In this critical notice, I focus my attention on the chapters that deal with the explanationist response to skepticism