Pubs
Here are a few of my recent publications.
The Roles of Religion in a Publicly Justified Polity: The Implications of Convergence, Asymmetry and Political Institutions (w/ Gerald Gaus) (link here)
A version of this paper was published in Philosophy and Social Criticism, vol. 35 (January 2009): 51-76.
Abstract: We discuss whether religious reasons may be appealed to in justification and political debate in a polity whose laws must be justified to those subject to them in terms of reasons that are accessible to one and all. We argue that, properly understood, a commitment to public justification provides no grounds for the exclusion of religious reasons from politics. We trace the view that religious reasons are excluded from public reason to three basic errors: (1) the error of supposing that public justification must be based on shared reasons; (2) the error of supposing that in public justification the same constraints apply to reasons to impose coercion and reasons to resist coercion; and (3) the error of supposing that generating publicly justified laws must occur through public deliberations in which all aim at such laws.
Production, Distribution and J.S. Mill (link here)
A version of this paper was published in Utilitas, vol. 22 (June 2010): 103-125.
Abstract: I argue that J.S. Mill’s role as a transition figure between classical and egalitarian liberalism can be partly explained by developments in his economic views. I focus on an unappreciated feature of Mill’s economic thought: his separation of production and distribution. This separation, I argue, helps to explain why Mill is a transition figure. While the primary aim of this article is to outline the nature and origins of Mill’s distinction and its effects on his political theory, his innovation may also have contributed to a fundamental change in how many intellectual figures have thought about the task of the theory of justice and social policy. Understanding Mill’s economic views helps illustrate a broader point as well: contemporary political philosophers often ignore the deep connections between the political and economic theories of the great historical political philosophers, many of whom were also important economists. Paying insufficient attention to political philosophers’ economic ideas obscures important motivations for their political views.
Review of Thomas Scanlon, Moral Dimensions: Permissibility, Meaning, Blame in The Journal of Value Inquiry (link here) (PDF here)
I mostly criticize Scanlon’s relationship revision account of blame.