In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:In Search of FaithKate RowlandSometimes I’m jealous of my patients’ faith. As a former happily religious person I miss the benefits I used to get from an active faith. I know that some of my patients must struggle with their faith, and I know the struggle probably affects their well–being. For those who simply believe or those who simply don’t believe, it’s easy. And for those who do believe, (...) there can be so much serenity and so much reward.As a doctor, I spend a lot of time reading science, weighing evidence, and making recommendations. Religion has been a respite from this. Faith, for me, has never been a series of decisions based on the best available evidence. I could analyze it as much as I wanted, peel its layers apart, question it, but in the end, it was just faith, not a hypothesis. It has always been something that I believe (or don’t), and practicing my faith had always been a relatively pleasant decision of figuring out what kind of community I want to share in.My faith life has been in shambles for the past several years. I feel distant from and unwelcome in the church where I was raised, and I haven’t found anywhere else to land. I cannot decide how to raise my own small children. I want them to have grounding in God, but I can’t decide how much I believe in God anymore, and I am fixated on the idea that I don’t want to be hypocritical or lie to [End Page 210] them. I don’t want them to see me worshipping in a way that is not really authentic to me.My husband is agnostic—literally—on the issue. He is open to introducing a loving, kind, forgiving God, but unsure about a God incarnate. We both worry about the identity with a particular religion usurping the actual relationship with God: I am [religion], therefore I believe [this], therefore my God does [this] or is [this].And so all of these fears and doubts have led us to live with no religion, and no outward faith. Our children attend a parochial nursery school run by a religion other than one where we were raised, and they have an apparently happy but neutral opinion of religion and God. They understand ceremonies. At age four, they have a more active faith life than I do, since they attend weekly services at school. But then, they have fewer choices than I do. They do what the teachers tell them. They would do what I told them to do, if I could ever decide what I believed in.I spend so many hours a week with my patients that they have become my main source of demonstration of active, living faith. I know that they share mostly good parts with me. I see so much of the good because I mostly see patients who get to choose how to practice their own religions; they don’t feel oppressed by religious or culturo–religious demands or expectations. It’s interesting that I see the positive sides of their faith, not the struggle, because I otherwise see a lot of the struggling parts of their lives. I see the flinty, edgy woman, the patient who has spent more time in the hospital in the past month than I have, the woman who is sick of her low platelet count that keeps her from living a normal life. And every day she has some message of faith: she tells our medical team what Bible passage is keeping her strong, she tells us how God watches over her when we tell her that her counts are better, she tells us to have a blessed day. Sometimes she curses at the hospital or her condition or at her medications, sometimes at us. So far her faith is unshaken.I take care of a woman who has burning mouth syndrome, a chronic condition that causes her lips, her tongue, and her palate to feel as though they are on fire. Eating makes it worse, drinking makes it worse, breathing makes it worse... (shrink)

Gender Identity: What It Is and Why It Matters is the first book in philosophy focusing on gender identity and transgender rights. To be trans is to have a gender identity different from the gender you were assigned at birth. But what is it to have a gender identity? The first part of the book develops a new account of our gender identity as the gender that seems to us to fit us. This subjective fit account of gender identity fits (...) with trans people’s testimony, explains why gender identities deserve respect, explains how we can discover our gender identity, explains why gender identities are practically important, and provides a good account of cis and trans and non-binary and binary gender identities. The second part of the book develops a new understanding of trans rights to gender marker change, legal gender recognition, gender-affirming healthcare, and sporting participation and accommodation. It develops an integrity-based account of trans rights on which these trans rights arise from basic liberal rights to live with integrity, to live in line with your judgements of how you ought to live, and what a good or meaningful life for you involves. Rights to live with integrity ground basic liberal rights to freedom of religious belief and expression. This book argues that they also ground trans rights. The second part of the book also addresses a wide range of gender critical feminist philosophers’ arguments against trans rights and shows that these arguments fail. (shrink)

There are important similarities between moral thought and talk and thought and talk about gender: disagreements about gender, like disagreements about morality, seem to be intractable and to outstrip descriptive agreement; and it seems coherent to reject any definition of what it is to be a woman in terms of particular social, biological, or other descriptive features, just as it seems coherent to reject any definition of what it is to be good or right in terms of any set of (...) descriptive properties. These similarities give us reason to investigate the idea that, like moral thought and talk, gender thought and talk is inherently normative. This paper proposes a normative account of gender thought and talk in terms of fitting treatment. On this fitting treatment account, to judge that A is gender G is just to judge that it is fitting to treat A as a G. This account is a descriptive or hermeneutical account of our gender thought and talk rather than an ameliorative account of our gender concepts or a metaphysical account of gender properties in social metaphysics. This paper argues that other descriptive accounts of gender thought and talk face problems that the fitting treatment account overcomes. (shrink)

Our gender identity is our sense of ourselves as a woman, a man, as genderqueer or as another gender. Trans people have a gender identity that is different.

Many have been attracted to the idea that for something to be good is just for there to be reasons to favour it. This view has come to be known as the buck-passing account of value. According to the buck-passing account, for pleasure to be good is just for there to be reasons for us to desire and pursue it. And for liberty and equality to be values is just for there to be reasons for us to promote and preserve (...) them. There has been extensive discussion of some of the problems that the buck-passing account faces such as the wrong kind of reason problem. But there has been little discussion of why we should accept the buck-passing account or what the theoretical pay-offs and other implications of accepting it are. This book provides the first comprehensive motivation and defence of the buck-passing account of value. It argues that the buck-passing account explains several important features of the relationship between reasons and value, as well as the relationship between the different varieties of value, in a way that its competitors do not. It argues that alternatives to the buck-passing account are inconsistent with important views in normative ethics, are uninformative, and are at odds with the way in which we should see practical and epistemic normativity as related. And it extends the buck-passing account to provide an account of moral properties as well as all other normative and deontic properties, such as fittingness and ought, in terms of reasons. (shrink)

Some standards, such as moral and prudential standards, provide genuinely or authoritatively normative reasons for action. Other standards, such as the norms of masculinity and the mafia’s code of omerta, provide reasons but do not provide genuinely normative reasons for action. This paper first explains that there is a similar distinction amongst attitudinal standards: some attitudes (belief, desire) have standards that seem to give rise to genuine normativity; others (boredom, envy) do not. This paper gives a value-based account of which (...) attitudinal standards give rise to genuine normativity. It argues that this account has interesting implications before extending it to provide an account of which action-guiding standards are genuinely normative. It argues that this value-based account of which standards are genuinely normative is more plausible than alternatives suggested in the literature and has interesting implications for genuine normativity in law and aesthetics. (shrink)

This paper proposes a new account of gender identity on which for A to have gender G as part of their gender identity is for A to not take G not to fit them (or to positively take G to fit them). It argues that this subjective fit account of gender identity fits well with trans people’s testimony and both trans and cis people’s experiences of their genders. The subjective fit account also avoids the problems that existing accounts of gender (...) identity face. Existing accounts face broadly two types of problems. First, they seem to imply that trans people have gender identities different from those that they in fact have. For instance, they seem to imply that some trans women do not have a female gender identity or have not always had that gender identity, contrary to their testimony and experiences. I argue that the subjective fit account avoids this problem. Second, many existing accounts of gender identity seem to conflict with the idea that our gender identities merit respect. I argue that the subjective fit account avoids this problem because it understands gender identities to consist in normative experiences and judgments and normative experiences and judgments merit respect. (shrink)

I argue that while every betrayal is a breach of trust, not every breach of trust is a betrayal. I defend a conception of trust as primarily a feature of behaviour (i.e. trusting behaviour) and only secondarily a feature of a mental attitude. So it is possible to have the attitude of distrust towards someone while still trusting them in the way you behave. This makes sense of the possibility of Judas Iscariot breaching Jesus’ trust, and so betraying him, even (...) though Jesus presumably knew that Judas would do just that. This conception of trust may be spelt out in terms of making oneself reliant on somebody in a collaboration with them. Such collaborations include relationships like friendships and love affairs, as well as political activities or defending one’s country against aggression. I argue that only when these collaborations involve a commitment to loyalty is a breach of trust a betrayal. And loyalty is a feature of those collaborations or relationships that exclude others – us/them collaborations. (shrink)

We have basic liberal rights to live and act with integrity; these rights very plausibly ground our rights to freedom of religious belief and expression. In section 1, I argue that many trans people need to be able to change their gender markers on their legal identification documents in order to live and act with integrity, and because of this, trans people have pro tanto rights to change their gender markers on their legal identification documents. In section 2, I then (...) argue that: a) there are no rights, harms, or other considerations that outweigh trans and nonbinary people’s pro tanto rights to freedom of legal gender identification; b) in virtue of a, blanket bans on gender marker change and surgery requirements on gender marker change are unjust and breach trans and nonbinary people’s all-things-considered rights to freedom of legal gender identification; and c) there is a strong presumption in favor of either the legal decertification of gender, gender self-identification, or similar policies that make it relatively easy for trans people to change their gender markers. Finally, in section 3, I argue that this integrity-based approach to rights to freedom of legal gender identification is superior to alternative privacy-, autonomy-, and harm-based approaches. (shrink)

Gender-affirming healthcare interventions are medical or surgical interventions that aim to allow trans and non-binary people to better affirm their gender identity. It has been argued that rights to GAH must be grounded in either a right to be cured of or mitigate an illness—gender dysphoria—or in harm prevention, given the high rates of depression and suicide among trans and non-binary people. However, these grounds of a right to GAH conflict with the prevalent view among theorists, institutions and activists that (...) trans and non-binary people do not have a mental illness and that one can be trans and entitled to GAH without being depressed or suicidal. This paper challenges the orthodoxy that a right to GAH must be grounded in either of these ways and instead argues for a right to GAH grounded in a right to live and act with integrity. The standard view, which this paper explains, is that our rights to live and act with integrity ground a right to religious accommodation in many cases such as a right to not be denied social security due to one’s refusal to work a job on a holy day. This paper argues that if our rights to live and act with integrity can ground prima facie rights to religious accommodation, our rights to live and act with integrity ground prima facie rights to GAH. There are no data in this work. (shrink)

This chapter contains sections titled: References Further reading.

Recently the UK and many US states have brought in policies and laws that limit or entirely prevent trans adults and/or trans youth’s access to gender-affirming healthcare. These restrictions on trans access to gender-affirming healthcare are justified on paternalistic grounds, that is, on the basis of the benefits to trans youth and trans adults of these restrictions. This paper argues that a state cannot permissibly limit trans people’s access to gender-affirming healthcare on paternalistic grounds. First, the paper constructs and defends (...) a weak anti-paternalist principle (§2). Second, the paper argues that paternalistic restrictions on trans adults accessing gender-affirming healthcare that have been implemented in Florida, Missouri, and the UK fall afoul of this weak anti-paternalist principle (§3- 5). Finally, the paper discusses the bans on trans teenagers accessing puberty blockers that have been implemented by 25 US states and the UK. It argues that the combination of (a) extant accounts of when paternalistic restrictions on teenagers accessing X can be justified even though restrictions on adults accessing X cannot be justified and (b) the argument made in the rest of the paper implies that these paternalistic bans on trans teenagers accessing puberty blockers are impermissible. (shrink)

I argue that all reasons for actions and attitudes consist in reasons for preferences; call this view RP. According to RP, reasons for A to believe that p just consist in reasons for A to prefer their believing that p to their not believing that p, and reasons for A to have a pro-attitude or perform an action just consist in reasons for A to prefer that she has that attitude/performs that action. I argue that we have strong reason to (...) accept RP because we can explain a correlation between reasons for prefer- ences and other reasons only if we accept RP. I argue that no objections undermine RP and that RP has interesting implications for the reasons for attitudes there are and for reasons fundamentalism. (shrink)

According to fitting-attitude (FA) accounts of value, X is of final value if and only if there are reasons for us to have a certain pro-attitude towards it. FA accounts supposedly face the wrong kind of reason (WKR) problem. The WKR problem is the problem of revising FA accounts to exclude so called wrong kind of reasons. And wrong kind of reasons are reasons for us to have certain pro-attitudes towards things that are not of value. I argue that the (...) WKR problem can be dissolved. I argue that (A) the view that there are wrong kind of reasons for the pro-attitudes that figure in FA accounts conflicts with the conjunction of (B) an extremely plausible and extremely weak connection between normative and motivating reasons and (C) an extremely plausible generality constraint on the reasons for pro-attitudes that figure in FA accounts. I argue that when confronted with this trilemma we should give up (A) rather than (B) or (C) because there is a good explanation of why (A) seems so plausible but is in fact false, but there is no good explanation of why (B) and (C) seem so plausible but are in fact false. (shrink)

Conor McHugh and Jonathan Way argue that we should put fittingness rather than reasons first because we can provide an account of the evaluative in terms of the normative only if we put fittingness rather than reasons first. I argue that it is no more difficult to provide an account of the evaluative in terms of the normative if we put reasons rather than fittingness first.

Many including Judith Jarvis Thomson, Philippa Foot, Peter Geach, Richard Kraut, and Paul Ziff have argued for good simpliciter skepticism. According to good simpliciter skepticism, we should hold that there is no concept of being good simpliciter or that there is no property of being good simpliciter. I first show that prima facie we should not accept either form of good simpliciter skepticism. I then show that all of the arguments that good simpliciter skeptics have proposed for their view fail (...) to show that we have good reason to accept good simpliciter skepticism. So, I show that we do not have good reason to accept good simpliciter skepticism. (shrink)

We have controversial intuitions about the rightness of retributive punishment, keeping promises for its own sake, and pushing the heavy man off of the bridge in the footbridge trolley case. How do these intuitions relate to ethical theories? Should ethical theories aim to fit with and explain them? Or are only uncontroversial intuitions relevant to explanatory ethical theorising? I argue against several views that we might hold about the relationship between controversial intuitions and ethical theories. I then propose and defend (...) the view that ethical theories should only aim to fit with and explain the intuitions that almost all people (who minimally understand the relevant issues) share. I argue that this view has interesting and important implications for ethical theorising and theorising about justice and equality. (shrink)

It is tempting to think that all of normativity, such as our reasons for action, what we ought to do, and the attitudes that it is fitting for us to have, derives from what is valuable. But value-first approaches to normativity have fallen out of favour as the virtues of reasons- and fittingness-first approaches to normativity have become clear. On these views, value is not explanatorily prior to reasons and fit; rather the value of things is understood in terms of (...) the pro-attitudes it is fitting to have, or that we have reasons to have, towards these things. The value-first accounts of reasons and fit that have been proposed have been direct accounts of reasons and fit. On these views, the fittingness of an attitude is explained in terms of the value of having it or the value of the object of that attitude. This chapter details and surveys these problems, explaining which are yet to be overcome, and explaining which problems direct value-first accounts can overcome. This chapter then explores the prospects of an indirect value-first account of reasons and fit. It argues that it avoids the problems that direct value-first accounts face and may be as explanatorily powerful as fittingness- and reasons-first accounts of value and normativity more generally. (shrink)

A popular argument is that peer disagreement about controversial moral topics undermines justified moral belief in a way that peer disagreement about non-moral topics does not undermine justified non-moral belief. Call this argument the argument for moral skepticism from peer disagreement. Jason Decker and Daniel Groll have recently made a companions in guilt response to this argument. Decker and Groll argue that if peer disagreement undermines justified moral belief, then peer disagreement undermines much non-moral justified belief; if the argument for (...) moral skepticism from peer disagreement succeeds, then a kind of non-moral skepticism holds too. And we should not hold that the status of such non-moral beliefs are undermined by peer disagreement. In this paper, I shows that Decker and Groll’s companions in guilt argument fails. I then draw out the implications of my argument for the epistemology of disagreement and the epistemology of moral disagreement more generally. For instance, I then argue that peer disagreement about morality does not undermine all justified moral belief but that peer disagreement about morality does preclude most moral beliefs from being justified and constituting knowledge in a way that peer disagreement about non-moral topics does not preclude most non-moral beliefs from being justified and constituting knowledge. (shrink)

The Anthropocene is neither the only, nor an entirely satisfactory, model for a twenty-first century ecocriticism. My paper tests the Anthropocene from within Anglophone theory that seeks to recuperate what has been historically marginalized: the feminine, the body, the nonhuman and the unconscious. It is possible to evade the heroic masculinist overtones of the Anthropocene by dis-membering him. Using two apparently discrete modes of fracturing—the psychoanalysis of C. G. Jung and the transdisciplinarity of Basarab Nicolescu—, I suggest a dismembered body (...) of knowing that leaves room for the other as that which cannot be rationally controlled. Dionysus in his bisexual dismemberment can help us re-member a different kind of relation to our planetary home. (shrink)

Previous research shows that personal epistemologies—individual conceptions of knowledge and knowing—can be domain-specific and domain-general. Individuals can hold general beliefs about science, but they also make distinctions in relation to particular domains of knowledge. This chapter is based on the analysis of the perspectives of a group of participants engaged in a public consultation featuring four rounds of group discussions on climate change, vaccines, complementary and alternative medicine, and GMOs in science communication. Using vignettes to illustrate individual positioning, we explore (...) the knowledge they used to justify their opinions and the roles they attributed to science and expert knowledge as they discussed each topic. Our findings reveal that professional and academic backgrounds, personal experiences, and relationships shape the way participants think, interpret, and evaluate science in different ways. Moreover, citizens’ personal epistemologies towards different science-related issues tend to reflect general beliefs about knowledge while also being influenced by domain specificity. This work contributes to highlighting the importance of personal epistemologies in the study of how trust in scientific expertise is contextually interpreted in everyday life. The research is based on fieldwork conducted in Portugal under the EU-funded (H2020 SwafS) research project CONCISE. (shrink)

Fighting is a norm-governed practice within which fighting back can be justified in certain circumstances. This is a possible non-instrumental justification of violence, but only if one is justified in engaging in the practice of fighting in the first place. The disposition to engage in fights in the right circumstances – for example when this is the only way to protect your status as a person to be reckoned with – can be justified as an aspect of Aristotelian virtue.

Jung: A Feminist Revision explores the relationship between feminist theory and Jungian studies. It combines an original student-friendly introduction to Jung, his life and work, his treatment of gender and the range of post-Jungian gender theory, with new research linking Jung to deconstruction, post-Freudian feminism, postmodernism, the sublime, and the postmodern body. Feminism has neglected Jung to its own detriment. While evaluating the reasons for this neglect, Jung: A Feminist Revision uses the diversity of feminist critical tools from historical analysis (...) to poststructuralism. In a fresh and illuminating study, this book provides both a critique of Jung and demonstrates his positive potential for future feminisms. New theories are explored which develop relationships between the work of Jung and Jacques Lacan, Luce Irigaray, Hélène Cixous, Julia Kristeva and Judith Butler. Particular attention is paid to the growth of post-Jungian studies of gender. This includes a cogent study of the tradition of Jungian feminism that looks to the feminine principle′ and narratives of goddesses. Jungian ′goddess′ feminism′s enduring appeal is re-examined in the context of postmodern re-thinking of subjectivity and gender. The book proposes a re-orientation of Jungian studies in its relationship to feminism. The result is an accessible text that introduces Jung and sets out his relevance to contemporary feminisms. This book will be essential reading for undergraduates and postgraduates studying feminist theory, psychoanalytical theory, literature and psychology. (shrink)

In African spiritual exercises, there is so much talk about the menace of demons or evil spirits. These spirits are conceived of as the antithesis of God or as the spiritual opposition to the benign activities of God. Modern African religion sees them as the causes of sicknesses and any form of catastrophe in the lives of people. The paper takes off from Karl Barth's conception of evil and demons as nothingness and argues that when correctly understood, the so-called evil (...) spirits or demons are nothing but the active agents of God in His relationship with humans. Since African cosmology sees the world as a universe of forces held in harmony by God, it seems that the African idea of the deities and spirits as subordinates of God better captures the idea of the evil spirits or demons as nothingness outside the purview of God than the Barthian conception. (shrink)

Since his earliest contributions to Catholic theology, Joseph Ratzinger has been a subject of considerable scholarly interest. His work, spanning decades of theological enquiry, has shaped contemporary thought on faith, reason, and ecclesiology. From his beginnings as a theology professor to his role as a theological adviser during the Second Vatican Council, Ratzinger consistently demonstrated a commitment to doctrinal clarity and rigorous theological reflection, this shaping his intellectual trajectory. His tenure as Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the (...) Faith under John Paul II further cemented his authority, and his writings as Benedict XVI offered a rich corpus of theological insight. Ratzinger’s oeuvre is situated within that of the circle of Communio theologians, whose approach to theology is strongly Christocentric and biblical. St. Augustine profoundly shaped Ratzinger’s ecclesiology and his reflections on the relationship between faith and reason, a legacy reinforced by the influence of Ratzinger’s early mentors and intellectual heroes, many of whom were students of Augustine and Bonaventure. The Oxford Handbook of Joseph Ratzinger seeks to provide a comprehensive exploration of his contributions, bringing together scholars from across the Anglosphere, Africa, and Europe. Contributors include theologians, journalists, and former colleagues from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, offering perspectives on fundamental theology, moral theology, sacramental theology, scriptural exegesis, liturgical theology, theological anthropology, and ecclesiology. With chapters spanning a range of theological disciplines, this Handbook offers a definitive reference resource on the theological thought of Joseph Ratzinger, illuminating his enduring influence within the Catholic tradition. (shrink)

This chapter begins with an overview of the intellectual influences on Joseph Ratzinger’s theological anthropology, including the debates between Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, the Christocentrism of St Bonaventure and Ratzinger’s Doktorvater, Gottlieb Söhngen. Against this background, and in line with the theological anthropology of Gaudium et Spes (22), the chapter presents Ratzinger’s view of humans as the image of God, and of Christ as the ‘New Adam’. Trinitarian Christocentrism is identified as the key to Ratzinger’s anthropology. Ratzinger contemplates Christ (...) through the mystery of his divine filiation as the man who is wholly from and for the Father. Created in the image of Christ, human beings are also characterised as being from and for God, and therefore find fulfilment in participating in Christ’s relationship with the Father. The common participation in Christ’s divine filiation also fulfils the collective dimension of human relationality. (shrink)