Book Chapters by Timothy Hsiao
College Ethics: A Reader on Moral Issues That Affect You, 2020
We have a strong moral right to defend ourselves, and guns are especially apt at helping us exerc... more We have a strong moral right to defend ourselves, and guns are especially apt at helping us exercise that right. Whether we are inside the home or outside of it, we are morally entitled to defend ourselves against those who threaten our lives. We do not magically forfeit this right simply by changing locations. Because firearms are especially well-suited to the goal of self-defense, our right to carry them is as strong and as far-reaching as our right to self-defense. There is no reason to think this does not include college campuses. Therefore, we have a strong moral right to carry guns on college campuses.
What Would Jesus Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Animals, 2019
Please email thsiao@grantham.edu for a copy.
What Would Jesus Eat? The Biblical Case for Eating Animals, 2019
[Please email thsiao@grantham.edu for a copy.]
The animal rights movement loudly and boldly proc... more [Please email thsiao@grantham.edu for a copy.]
The animal rights movement loudly and boldly proclaims that meat consumption is seriously immoral. For defenders of animal rights, the decision to go vegan isn’t merely just a matter of one’s personal lifestyle choices, it is a direct moral obligation that is binding upon all of us.
In defense of this position, pro-vegan ethicists have deployed a number of philosophical arguments that purport to show that animals have serious moral status, and that both meat consumption and modern animal agricultural practices violate this status. The goal of this chapter will be to respond to these arguments and make the case for the moral permissibility of eating meat. My arguments will not rely on any particular set of theological assumptions. Although I am a Christian who believes that Scripture permits meat-eating, I shall argue that meat-eating can be justified philosophically apart from appealing to divine revelation.
Ethics, Left and Right: The Moral Issues that Divide Us, 2019
I’ll argue in this essay that individuals should be allowed to own firearms. In making the case ... more I’ll argue in this essay that individuals should be allowed to own firearms. In making the case for this position, I’ll defend the following two claims:
1. The best research does not show that gun ownership results in more harms than benefits. This fact, in addition to the substantial self-defense benefits that guns offer and the value of personal liberty, supports a presumption in favor of gun ownership.
2. Even if the overall harms of gun ownership were to outweigh its overall benefits, there is still a presumption in favor of reasonably permissive gun ownership.
The Man in the High Castle and Philosophy, 2017
Papers by Timothy Hsiao
Evangelical Quarterly, 2024
In a recent article, Chris Barrigar argues that my theological and philosophical case for gun own... more In a recent article, Chris Barrigar argues that my theological and philosophical case for gun ownership fails. This paper critiques Barrigar’s response. I argue that Barrigar’s critique fails because it (a) incorrectly situates my arguments in a libertarian context, (b) inadequately engages with my exegetical arguments, (c) misunderstands and thus fails to engage with the relevant philosophical arguments, (d) ignores my existing work addressing some of his objections, and (e) misinterprets the relevant empirical evidence.
Academic Questions, 2023
While it is true that slave patrols were a form of American law enforcement that existed alongsid... more While it is true that slave patrols were a form of American law enforcement that existed alongside other forms of law enforcement, the claim that American policing “traces back” to, “started out” as, or “evolved directly from,” slave patrols, or that slave patrols “morphed directly into” policing, is false. This widespread pernicious myth falsely asserts a causal relationship between slave patrols and policing and intimates that modern policing carries on a legacy of gross injustice. There is no evidence for either postulate.
Academic Questions, 2022
Lived experiences are often vividly used by woke activists as evidence of widespread injustice, a... more Lived experiences are often vividly used by woke activists as evidence of widespread injustice, accompanied with a call for action and social change. Yet basing one’s entire case for widespread injustice and sweeping social change on lived experiences is, quite simply, bad statistical reasoning.
National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly
Conscience is widely misunderstood. For many, conscientious objection, both religious and non-rel... more Conscience is widely misunderstood. For many, conscientious objection, both religious and non-religious, is regarded as nothing more than just a convenient excuse to get around the rules. This essay provides a clear, accessible, and simple argument for seriously respecting conscience. I show how the conscience is an integral part of responsible decision-making and must be recognized and protected. I end with an application of the right of conscience to recent debates over mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. The goal of this essay is not to settle debates over conscientious objection, nor is it to establish conscience as an ultima facie right, but rather to show why there is a strong case for taking conscience seriously in ethics and public policy.
Philosophia Christi, 2022
Historically, the Christian church was united in firm opposition to both homosexuality and contra... more Historically, the Christian church was united in firm opposition to both homosexuality and contraception. Today most evangelical Christians continue to oppose the former but have embraced the latter. This paper argues that there is a clear tension between these views, especially when it comes to the evangelical use of natural law-type reasoning. The conclusion of this paper is that Christians who view homosexual activity as immoral must also view artificial contraception in the same light. They are wrong for the same reason: they both misuse the sexual organs by directing sexual activity away from procreative unity.
Evangelical Quarterly, 2021
In Luke 22:36, Jesus instructs his disciples to buy swords. The best understanding this passage i... more In Luke 22:36, Jesus instructs his disciples to buy swords. The best understanding this passage is that Jesus is endorsing the carrying of weapons for personal protection. This paper outlines the self-defense interpretation and defends it against several objections. I then argue that the injunction to buy a sword can be extended to gun ownership as a modern-day application. After making the scriptural case for gun ownership, I then sketch a brief philosophical argument for a strong moral right to gun ownership. Various theological, philosophical, and empirical objections are considered and found lacking.
The Heythrop Journal
In this article we sketch and defend a version of Aquinas’s contingency argument in plain languag... more In this article we sketch and defend a version of Aquinas’s contingency argument in plain language. We avoid using some of the metaphysical jargon that typically accompanies discussions of the contingency argument. Eschewing this jargon allows its strength to resonate better with general audiences.
The argument we defend here incorporates insights from recent defenses of the contingency argument. Over the last two decades there has been a strong resurgence of interest (both philosophical and apologetic) in developing analytically rigorous Thomistic-style cosmological arguments. We build on these philosophical developments by offering a novel argument against the doctrine of existential inertia, and on the apologetic project by framing the contingency argument in a more lay-accessible format.
Syndicate Philosophy, 2020
There is much to digest in Michael Austin’s God and Guns in America. Austin carefully considers a... more There is much to digest in Michael Austin’s God and Guns in America. Austin carefully considers arguments made by those in defense of gun ownership and those critical of it. Although he finds merit in both sides, he ultimately concludes that the “status quo with respect to guns in America is unsustainable and unacceptable.” (xvi)
I respectfully disagree. In what follows I will outline several problems with Austin’s arguments. These are divided into philosophical problems, empirical problems, and exegetical problems. My criticisms aren’t limited to the ones listed here, but space considerations preclude a detailed analysis.
Think: Philosophy for Everyone, 2020
Opponents of spanking rest their arguments on the implicit assumption that punishment can only be... more Opponents of spanking rest their arguments on the implicit assumption that punishment can only be justified by its corrective or deterrent effects. But this is a questionable assumption. Punishment is fundamentally about retribution: it seeks to give a wrongdoer what he deserves. It is for this reason that corporal punishment is morally permissible, irrespective of whether it corrects or deters future misbehavior.
Sport, Ethics, and Philosophy
This paper defends the morality of hunting for sport, also known as recreational or trophy huntin... more This paper defends the morality of hunting for sport, also known as recreational or trophy hunting. Using an argument from analogy, I argue that there is no morally relevant difference between trophy hunting and another activity that most of us regard as uncontroversial. Since the latter is morally permissible, so is trophy hunting. Several disanalogies are examined and found irrelevant.
Think: Philosophy for Everyone
Many on both sides of the gun control debate are under the impression that the best way to settle... more Many on both sides of the gun control debate are under the impression that the best way to settle it is by weighing outcomes in the context of a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis. This paper suggests that this way of thinking about the gun control debate is fundamentally mistaken. What matters is not the risk (or lack thereof) that guns pose to society, but simply whether guns are a reasonable means of self-defense when used to resist crimes. What this means is that even if we were to grant the claim that gun ownership decreases average safety, it wouldn't follow that restrictive gun control measures would be justified.
Ethics and Medicine, 2019
The state has an interest in protecting the ability of its citizens to act freely in pursuit of t... more The state has an interest in protecting the ability of its citizens to act freely in pursuit of the good life. Psychoactive drugs that negatively affect one’s cognitive capacities conflict with this goal by undermining the conditions needed for free action. Accordingly, the state has an interest in legally prohibiting certain classes of drugs, including marijuana and other cognition-disrupting substances.
Evangelical Philosophical Society, 2018
Appeals to consent, autonomy, and self-ownership form the basis of much of contemporary liberal a... more Appeals to consent, autonomy, and self-ownership form the basis of much of contemporary liberal and libertarian social ethics. Call these individualist theories of social ethics. The plausibility of individualist theories, I shall argue, depends upon a number of background metaphysical commitments that are often left unstated and undefended. These commitments and their problems are the chief subject of this paper.
Uploads
Book Chapters by Timothy Hsiao
The animal rights movement loudly and boldly proclaims that meat consumption is seriously immoral. For defenders of animal rights, the decision to go vegan isn’t merely just a matter of one’s personal lifestyle choices, it is a direct moral obligation that is binding upon all of us.
In defense of this position, pro-vegan ethicists have deployed a number of philosophical arguments that purport to show that animals have serious moral status, and that both meat consumption and modern animal agricultural practices violate this status. The goal of this chapter will be to respond to these arguments and make the case for the moral permissibility of eating meat. My arguments will not rely on any particular set of theological assumptions. Although I am a Christian who believes that Scripture permits meat-eating, I shall argue that meat-eating can be justified philosophically apart from appealing to divine revelation.
1. The best research does not show that gun ownership results in more harms than benefits. This fact, in addition to the substantial self-defense benefits that guns offer and the value of personal liberty, supports a presumption in favor of gun ownership.
2. Even if the overall harms of gun ownership were to outweigh its overall benefits, there is still a presumption in favor of reasonably permissive gun ownership.
Papers by Timothy Hsiao
The argument we defend here incorporates insights from recent defenses of the contingency argument. Over the last two decades there has been a strong resurgence of interest (both philosophical and apologetic) in developing analytically rigorous Thomistic-style cosmological arguments. We build on these philosophical developments by offering a novel argument against the doctrine of existential inertia, and on the apologetic project by framing the contingency argument in a more lay-accessible format.
I respectfully disagree. In what follows I will outline several problems with Austin’s arguments. These are divided into philosophical problems, empirical problems, and exegetical problems. My criticisms aren’t limited to the ones listed here, but space considerations preclude a detailed analysis.
The animal rights movement loudly and boldly proclaims that meat consumption is seriously immoral. For defenders of animal rights, the decision to go vegan isn’t merely just a matter of one’s personal lifestyle choices, it is a direct moral obligation that is binding upon all of us.
In defense of this position, pro-vegan ethicists have deployed a number of philosophical arguments that purport to show that animals have serious moral status, and that both meat consumption and modern animal agricultural practices violate this status. The goal of this chapter will be to respond to these arguments and make the case for the moral permissibility of eating meat. My arguments will not rely on any particular set of theological assumptions. Although I am a Christian who believes that Scripture permits meat-eating, I shall argue that meat-eating can be justified philosophically apart from appealing to divine revelation.
1. The best research does not show that gun ownership results in more harms than benefits. This fact, in addition to the substantial self-defense benefits that guns offer and the value of personal liberty, supports a presumption in favor of gun ownership.
2. Even if the overall harms of gun ownership were to outweigh its overall benefits, there is still a presumption in favor of reasonably permissive gun ownership.
The argument we defend here incorporates insights from recent defenses of the contingency argument. Over the last two decades there has been a strong resurgence of interest (both philosophical and apologetic) in developing analytically rigorous Thomistic-style cosmological arguments. We build on these philosophical developments by offering a novel argument against the doctrine of existential inertia, and on the apologetic project by framing the contingency argument in a more lay-accessible format.
I respectfully disagree. In what follows I will outline several problems with Austin’s arguments. These are divided into philosophical problems, empirical problems, and exegetical problems. My criticisms aren’t limited to the ones listed here, but space considerations preclude a detailed analysis.
Permission has been granted from the Editor of Philosophia Christi to upload this contribution. Learn more about the Journal by going to www.epsociety.org/philchristi.
We challenge DeGrazia's 'moderate gun control' policies on both philosophical and empirical grounds. Philosophically, we show that the arguments he gives in support of his proposed gun control measures are too narrow and incomplete to warrant his conclusions about what kind of gun controls there ought to be, even if he is right about the empirical evidence. Here, our criticisms pertain not to his purported derivation of a moral right to own handguns, but to its scope. Empirically, we argue that a truly even-handed examination of the evidence makes DeGrazia's claim that gun ownership is on average self-defeating much less plausible than he supposes. Our conclusion is that DeGrazia has failed to establish his claim that gun ownership is self-defeating, and, therefore, has no case for the gun control policies he suggests should be enacted.
The average private citizen knows vanishingly little about the complexities involved in deadly force encounters. Self-defense is not something you can master from reading books or watching John Wick movies. It’s something you must experience, something that requires hands-on training. And yet, while looking at a screen from the comfort of their reclining chair, the average private citizen feels equipped to pass judgement on those who are forced to make split-second decisions—or risk being killed.
Critics of homosexual activity often appeal to some form of natural law theory as a basis for their arguments. According to one version of natural law theory, actions that “pervert” or misuse a bodily faculty are immoral. In this paper, I argue that this “perverted faculty argument” provides a successful account of good and evil action. Several objections are assessed and found inadequate.