A response to James S. Spiegel's article in THINK 43 in which he argues that same-sex marriage is unjust.

Farts have not received the metaphysical attention they deserve. Bill Capra has opened the batting in his recent study of this ubiquitous rectal phenomenon. Spurred on by his sterling effort, JJ and I have added our own two bob's worth, disagreeing with much of what Bill says, and defending the buttocks-first conception of farts.

Some philosophers hold that stifling free expression stifles intellectual life. Others reply that freedom of expression can harm members of marginalized groups by alienating them from social life or worse. Yet we should still favour freedom of expression, especially where marginalized groups are concerned. It's better to know who has repugnant beliefs as it allows marginalized groups to identify threats: free expression qua self-defence.

In a recent article in this journal (THINK 54), Timothy Hsiao argues that spanking a misbehaving child is morally permissible on the grounds that it's what the child deserves. However, in this short article, I argue that Hsiao's argument in this connection is either obviously unsound or invalid.

Sometimes we make choices that transform us significantly; they change who we are and what we value. This article looks at such choices and resulting changes from the perspective of control and moral responsibility. While we may have an inclination to think that we possess a good amount of control over these important transformations, a more careful examination reveals that we may have less than ideal control over some fundamental choices and changes in our character. As a result, this brings into question to what degree we can praise and blame people for undergoing (or even failing to undergo) big personal transformations.

Using the biblical saga of Joseph as an example, I maintain that turnabouts, trade-offs, and transience are endemic to the human condition.

The article examines whether fulfilling one's potential and doing one's best are sufficient or necessary conditions for having a meaningful life. It concludes that they are just contributing factors and can sometimes even diminish life's meaning.

In this article, classic game theory and evolutionary game theory are used to explain how social norms might come into existence. The norm of distributive fairness is taken as a case in point, and illustrated by a simple example of dividing a cake.

Facing a recent surge in anti-natalist arguments saying that human procreation is immoral, some defend human procreation by saying that procreative parenting adds meaning to parents’ life. This article examines one such defence, and argues that it does not suffice to rescue human procreation from the challenges to procreation.

For many years, philosophers have argued about the Trolley Problem – but they've also argued about whether the problem ought to interest us. According to some, the artificiality of the situations means that they involve no complicating factors – and so we ought to take our intuitions about them especially seriously. According to others, though, the artificiality of the situations means that our intuitions about them are meaningless. I hereby name the puzzle of why our intuitions about this differ the ‘Trolley Meta-Problem’. The story that follows illustrates this problem – and the Trolley Problem itself – in a humorous way.

One might think at first glance that naturalism excludes any form of theism by definition. This article argues to the contrary that proper scientificity requires that a naturalist remain open to the possibility of the truth of the classical theistic conception of God in particular. The only alternative is for naturalism to devolve into an anti-theistic bias and ideology, forsaking the claim to being properly scientific.

This article explores arguments from ‘the right side of history’. These arguments are often interpreted as making an appeal to a trajectory which independently guides history. These arguments are often criticized on the grounds that history simply doesn't work that way. I offer an interpretation of right side of history arguments that does not rely on this sort of historical trajectory, and argue that even this version of the argument fails.

In response to the Covid-19 pandemic, many states in the United States issued stay-at-home orders that prohibited people from leaving their homes except to access essential services. Upon reopening, a number of those states passed mask mandates requiring people to wear face coverings while in public, but as I write this, in October of 2020, there remain a substantial number of states that have not outlawed what I'll call ‘mask-less shopping’. This is a mistake. After describing the standard, public health argument for outlawing mask-less shopping and explaining why it fails, I give a better argument for outlawing mask-less shopping that depends on the claim that mask-less shopping is analogous to drunk driving. It follows that every state should outlaw it.