Rowland, R. (2016). In defence of good simpliciter. Philosophical Studies,173(5), 1371-1391. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1007/s11098-015-0551-9
Many including Judith Jarvis Thomson, Philippa Foot, Peter Geach, Richard Kraut, and Paul Ziff have argued for good simpliciter skepticism. According to good simpliciter skepticism, we should hold that there is no concept of being good simpliciter or that there is no property of being good simpliciter. I first show that prima facie we should not accept either form of good simpliciter skepticism. I then show that all of the arguments that good simpliciter skeptics have proposed for their view fail to show that we have good reason to accept good simpliciterskepticism. So, I show that we do not have good reason to accept good simpliciter skepticism.
Access may be restricted.