The Journal of Philosophy
LightNews LightNews
banner
jrnlofphil.bsky.social
The Journal of Philosophy
@jrnlofphil.bsky.social
730 followers 530 following 47 posts
One of the world's top academic philosophy journals, JPhil is published monthly by the non-profit organization, Journal of Philosophy, Inc.
Posts Replies Media Videos
jrnlofphil.bsky.social
Abstract (also in alt text)
Abstract: Suppose that, yesterday at noon, Maria considered flipping a fair coin but didn’t. What probability do you assign to “If Maria had flipped the coin, the coin would have landed heads"? Now suppose that, contrary to fact, Maria did indeed flip the coin. In that counterfactual scenario, what is the probability of “The coin will land tails"? The two questions sound strikingly similar. I argue that they sound similar because they are equivalent. The chance of a counterfactual “If A, would C" equals the chance of C, in the counterfactual scenario that A (and a similar principle holds for credence). This principle does better than similar principles that have been defended (like Skyrms’s Thesis), avoids triviality, and gives us important clues for a semantics for counterfactuals.
November 20, 2025 at 7:20 PM
jrnlofphil.bsky.social
Abstract (also in alt text)
Abstract: Outside of philosophy, the idea that workers deserve to be paid according to their productive contributions is very popular. But political philosophers have given it relatively little attention. In this paper, I argue against the attempt to use this idea about desert and contribution to vindicate significant income inequality. I claim that reward according to contribution fails on its own terms when the following condition holds: the size of each worker's contribution depends on what other workers only together do. When workers only together make another more productive, that is not reflected in the sum of their own contributions. Thus reward according to contribution recognizes individual accomplishments without recognizing their dependence on collectives, dependence that is, in complex economies, ubiquitous.
November 20, 2025 at 7:14 PM
jrnlofphil.bsky.social
Abstract (also in alt text)
Abstract: We argue that if there are laws of nature, then there must also be accidents. If the “laws” in a world suffice to determine the world’s entire history, then these “laws” cannot play various central roles characteristic of laws, and thus (we conclude) they are not laws at all. Many proposed accounts of lawhood (primitivist accounts, universals accounts, the Best System Account, the Package Deal Account, essentialist accounts) inappropriately permit worlds with laws but no accidents. We identify two otherwise dissimilar accounts that correctly (on our view) deem such worlds impossible; one is Humean and the other is non-Humean.
November 14, 2025 at 3:27 PM
jrnlofphil.bsky.social
@jadamcarter.bsky.social
October 21, 2025 at 12:50 PM
jrnlofphil.bsky.social
👀
September 8, 2025 at 1:23 PM
jrnlofphil.bsky.social
#openaccess !
July 28, 2025 at 4:29 PM