Replies to Timmerman and Gorman
نویسندگان
چکیده
Abstract In my reply to the thoughtful comments of Timmerman and Gorman, I take up, further explore, some main questions, including: Can a horribly immoral person (a moral monster) lead meaningful life? Similarly, can significantly deluded What role do judgments meaningfulness play in our normative framework? How we understand debate between those who would embrace possibility immortality reject it? is narrativity evaluating meaning human lives, how this concept apply immortal lives? If death be bad thing for deceased, should fear (the status being dead)?
منابع مشابه
Replies to Sullivan and Lange
The explanatory criterion of relevance. The ordering of (possible and impossible) worlds by their closeness to actuality is determined by weighing the different similarities they have to actuality. The similarities to actuality that can make a world closer include resemblances in matters of particular fact. (A matter of particular fact is a fact about the history of the universe that is not ent...
متن کاملReplies to our Critics
We are grateful to José Bermúdez and to Andrea Cristiano Pierno, Caterina Ansuini and Umberto Castiello for reading and criticizing our book. They offer us an opportunity to clarify some of our views. Bermúdez discusses aspects of our version of the two-visual systems model of human vision bearing on the separation between the content of visuomotor representations and the content of visual perc...
متن کاملRobert T. Gorman
Goodness of Fit (GOF) tests for non-location/scale families of distributions have not been studied extensively. Previous research has focused on the case where the distribution function is either completely specified or a member of a location/scale family. A new test statistic, which resembles a regression sum of squares, is developed and its properties investigated in this dissertation. This s...
متن کاملReplies to Michael Kremer
First, is existence really not essential by my definition? My answer is that it is neither universally essential, nor universally non-essential, and not by the definition Michael considers. The reason for this answer is that the definition Michael considers does not express the sense in which I claim (as I believe, together with Aquinas) that ‘exists’ is not an essential predicate of creatures,...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
ژورنال
عنوان ژورنال: The Journal of Ethics
سال: 2022
ISSN: ['1572-8609', '1382-4554']
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-022-09391-9