Article Text

Download PDFPDF
What philosophers can contribute in the face of fundamental empirical disagreement: a response to Benatar and Lang

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.


  • Competing interests None.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • i Such an exploration is particularly useful when it demonstrates that, even conceding to opponents of a certain practice (some of) their empirical claims, the normative outcome remains unchanged.

  • ii In retrospect, I should have included a question mark next to the cost of reduced sexual pleasure in my table.

  • iii I argue that the greater health complications and more drastic reduction in sexual pleasure from female genital cutting can explain why that practice (but not male circumcision) is impermissible.3

Linked Articles