A sustained challenge to the view that artworks are physical objects relates to the alleged inability of physical objects to possess representational properties, which some artworks clearly do possess. I argue that the challenge is subject to confusions about representational properties and aesthetic experience. I show that a challenge to artwork-object identity put forward by Danto is vulnerable to a similar criticism. I conclude by noting that the identity of artworks and physical objects is consistent with the insight that attending exclusively to the object's individual physical properties may prevent us from grasping the nature of the work.

The moral responsibility of pharmaceutical companies is often invoked when discussing the difficulties faced by developing countries regarding their access to medication. In this article, I wish to criticize one strategy of attributing responsibility to pharmaceuticals, according to which moral responsibility originates from the analogy between enterprise and individual moral agent. I will propose an alternative strategy linking responsibility to the functions of the enterprise using a distinction between the organizational and occupational functions of a pharmaceutical company. Despite its interest, the mitigated success of this proposition will bring me to reconsider the overall relevance of attributing, in such a targeted manner, moral responsibility to pharmaceuticals.

The recent publication of a third anthology of Donald Davidson's articles, and anticipated publication of two more, encourages a consideration of themes binding together Davidson's lifetime of research. One such theme is the principle of charity (PC). In light of the mileage Davidson gets out of PC, I propose a careful examination of PC itself. In Part 1, 1 consider some ways in which Davidson articulates PC. In Part 2, 1 show that the articulation that Davidson requires in his work on epistemology is untenable given what Davidson says in his work on semantics. I conclude that Davidson can use PC only in his work on semantics or not at all.

What did Wittgenstein mean when he remarked, “I am not a religious man but I cannot help but see every problem from a religious point of view”? Malcolm's thesis is that it points to analogies between Wittgenstein's philosophical outlook and a religious view of life. In opposition, Peter Winch argues that Wittgenstein's remark need not be understood as referring to exclusively philosophical problems; rather, Wittgenstein was expressing his own quasi-religious perspective on life and emphasizing the spiritual importance of philosophical clarity. In contrast to Malcolm and Winch, I argue that the remark is best taken to mean roughly: “I am not a religious person myself, but when I reflect philosophically on what it means for a person to face certain types of problems, for example, moral dilemmas or other difficult decisions in life, it is important to acknowledge the diversity of possible perspectives from which these problems can be seen; in so doing, I cannot help but imagine how such problems would appear from the perspective of a religious person.”

In a recent article, D. H. Finkelstein offers a new proposal about the distinction between conscious and unconscious belief. On his proposal, someone's belief is conscious if he has an ability to express it simply by self-ascribing it; and someone's belief is unconscious if he lacks such an ability. In this article, I argue that his proposal is inadequate, and then offer a somewhat different proposal. On my proposal, someone's belief is conscious if he has self-ascribed this belief without recourse to any evidence about his behaviour, and someone's belief is unconscious; if it is not conscious.