Titlebook: Diversity and Disagreement; From Fundamental Bia Adam Feltz,Edward T. Cokely Book‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 2024 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author

Halcyon

書目名稱Diversity and Disagreement影響因子(影響力)




書目名稱Diversity and Disagreement影響因子(影響力)學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Diversity and Disagreement網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度




書目名稱Diversity and Disagreement網(wǎng)絡(luò)公開度學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Diversity and Disagreement被引頻次




書目名稱Diversity and Disagreement被引頻次學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Diversity and Disagreement年度引用




書目名稱Diversity and Disagreement年度引用學(xué)科排名




書目名稱Diversity and Disagreement讀者反饋




書目名稱Diversity and Disagreement讀者反饋學(xué)科排名

同謀

Freedom and Responsibility,ble (or at least a belief to that effect) has been argued to underwrite elements of human existence ranging from one’s sense of self-worth to having genuine, loving relationships. One extensively explored question in the philosophical literature about freedom and moral responsibility is: can you be

conjunctiva

揭穿真相

cuticle

Philosophical Expertise,ophy. The Expertise Defense holds that because of the special training, knowledge, or skills of professional philosophers, the potentially problematic biases found in non-professional philosophers will not likely be found in expert philosophers. To assess this argument, we provide a substantial disc

frenzy

The Philosophical Personality Argument, is true. We review evidence from Chaps. .–. providing reasons to think (2) is true. We discuss how premise (3) seems to capture standard ways that intuitions could be used as evidence. We then argue that the conclusion (4) poses substantial challenges to some philosophical projects (e.g., Neo-Plato

frenzy

Ethical Interaction Theory,decide how you live your life?” These two questions take on additional importance due to increases in the ability to track behavior and manipulate decisions via advances in science and technology. We attempt to give some evidence-based, theoretically grounded insight into how to manage the developme

deface

The Philosophical Personality Argument,tuitions could be used as evidence. We then argue that the conclusion (4) poses substantial challenges to some philosophical projects (e.g., Neo-Platonic projects) but not necessarily others (e.g., conceptual analysis). We then defend premises 1–3 from several objections.

慌張

lipids

Book‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ 2024nd engineering (e.g., science for informed decision making; the ethics of choice architecture and nudges). The main goal in this book is to provide a theoretical framework for understanding variation in fundamental philosophical intuitions and how that variation informs ethical interaction theory...This is an open access book..