The crux of the puzzle of the self-torturer is how one takes reasonable advantage of collecting $10,000 without ending up the worse for...

Here is a paper I wrote fifteen years ago and never did anything with it other than present it at the American Philosophical Association...

Does Rawls endorse a duty of assistance when it comes to liberal societies?

Does a conception of well-being matter for Rawls' Difference Principle?

If you want to resolve disagreements, then think about how you and your interlocutor understand truth.

What should you do if the choice between two options would have equally good and equally bad outcomes?

What are Wittgenstein's views on akrasia?

Is there a way of distinguishing zombies from non-zombies?

The coarse- and fine-grained accounts of act individuation suffer from a problem of vagueness and this post attempts to set out how.

Some book reviewers shouldn't write criticisms of good books. Here's an instance of that phenomenon.

If we desire x and there are two xs, then how do we rationally choose between them? The only reasonable action is to not have either of them

A study by Voos and Schooler shows that belief in determinism increases cheating. An alternative explanation is possible.

Refereeing for professional academic journals is a mess. Here are some arguments that fail to be considered important in the debate.

There's a lot of discussion about the usefulness of university study. Here I argue that removing it as a metric would be a mistake.

Eadweard Muybridge's hi-speed photography gave us insight about gait analysis and the problem of act individuation.

Are the intuitions of philosophers identical to the intuitions of non-philosophers? This post considers a few possible positions.

Al Mele's work on intentional action has not considered act individuation an important issue. Here, I summarise his position.

Taking a stab at a Kantian analysis of the problem of relevant descriptions and how it links up with the problem of act individuation.

Which description of action should be used to test whether a maxim ought to be acted upon?

Is truth the epistemic goal of science?

Consider a sceptical argument and an anti-sceptical argument. Are they contradictory conclusions? I argue that they are not.

Wittgenstein's lesson from the PI is that philosophy is therapy. I ask: which one?

There are flaws of the logic-linguistic approach to verisimilitude but none more so than how it is supposed to account for normative evals.

Some thoughts on the nature of truth and experimental philosophy.